Stability and Control characteristics of the Early Mark Spitfires

[Crumpp]

you are quoting well out of context

No I am not. You don't seem to understand the effect of weight and speed on airframe loads.

I have the entire report and will post it as part of the bugtracker.

Once again, you are going down the rabbit hole.

[NZtyphoon]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

No I am not. You don't seem to understand the effect of weight and speed on airframe loads.

I have the entire report and will post it as part of the bugtracker.

Once again, you are going down the rabbit hole.

The only one going down a rabbit hole is Crumpp, who doesn't seem to understand the cause and effect of bad cg loading on a basically sound design and now assumes that the Spitfire V was prone to break up because it had taken on extra weight and could fly faster.

And what report is Crumpp going to post?

Originally Posted by IvanK

So then Mr Crumpp exactly what is wrong stability wise with the IL2 CLOD Spitfire MI I or II Ver 1.06.17582+Hot Fix

Second question, how exactly can Crumpp's bugtracker replicate the longitudinal stability characteristics Crumpp thinks the CLOD Spitfire I & II should have, when there is no option for rough air conditions?

[Crumpp]

NACA says: "... the small static longitudinal stability of the Spitfire...". Not unstable...

[JtD]

You keep quoting the summary as if it was the only and complete assessment, but it is not. The paragraph dealing with stability as such already gives a more detailed description, that being in general agreement with the summary, but more specific in that "The stability was essentially neutral in all flap-up, power-on conditions of flight except at low speeds, where some rearward motion of the stick occurred." And if we look for further detail on behaviour in accelerated flight, we find "the small static longitudinal stability of the Spitfire" I quoted. And this is proven by stick travel and stick force gradients, for anyone to see.

This doesn't change the fact that NACA found the plane neutral with power off and unstable with flaps down, but this is of no interested in power on accelerated flight.

If you want to sell instability to me, or anyone else who's got a good understanding of the matter, you'll need to explain how both of the above gradients can be positive in an unstable aircraft and how it was possible to fly the smooth stick fixed turns as shown in figures 17 and 18. Repeating the summary yet another time will not do the trick.

I think there's no point in submitting anything to the bugtracker before this has been clarified.

[Glider]

I think its worth remembering that Handling isn't a precise science. Many aircraft have been designed by trained designers well schooled in the theory and science. Yet all at one point or another have produced aircraft that handled poorly.
Any theory needs to be supported by comments from test pilots and others to support that view.

This is something that has often been requested but has yet to be shown apart from one attempt (posting 321 page 33) which backfired.

[TomcatViP]

Ehhh, guys you should calm up.

There was a lot of planes designed in the mid 30's that had pitch instability.

I won't submit you to an aerodynamics exam but Britain, it's a fact, was lagging behind the leading countries in that field of knowledge that were Germany and USA. USA was among the leading country in part because Karman went to work at the NACA in 35/36 (read his book - it's a fascinating tale of time of the great pioneer).

Anyway this is why many british design were too rounded or to thin or somewhat bulky. Not individualy (there was many talented scientist and aerodynamist) but as an institution, they did not master the viscous conditions as much as the leading nations. What was the key to understand plainly aerodynamics.

France had the same amount of knowledge as UK at the time. This is why most of the French design were seen as low performers as the testing didn't meet the expectations of the design teams (hence lower strain on HP demands, higher thickness ratio, lower wing surfaces etc... - One good example of that is the Curtiss H-75 (P-36) from US that was designed before 1935).

Russian did realize that and after the outbreak of WWII a high priority was given again to fundamental research and testing (the TSAGI) up to the point that the late Russian design during the war were above performer (at least in their prototype form). By the way, a little note to the guy in this forum that put Britain at the forefront of aeronautics knowledge when a bit of search will tell you that all this started with Joukowsky, a Russian Mathematician (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joukowsky_transform)

Before you start repeating your tirade about how British were at the for front of the sciences of aerodynamics etc... Let me tell you this: The father of the Buccaner, leading engineer for years at Blackburnand then BAe (started his carreer at Gloster if I do remind well) explains all this in his book. It tell us the fascinating story of how the Brits test facility were relaying on inappropriate methods (at least not accurate) to simulate airflows in the 40's.

Oh, and by the way, he was also on the board of the British team that worked teh design of the SuperUberModern EF2000billions£. That tell you a lot about how much this design is ready to plink the 21'st century threats - Bah it's another story!

I don't have the name of course. But in regard to your disgusting way of smoking every thread, irrespective prose, and what can be called blatant lying I won't do a single search.

Easy to found : Buccaneer story published in the 80's - small format - no images just text- Cover red, white and blue of course !

[Glider]

I would like to know the name of the book if possible, the Bucaneer was one of the planes I was trained on and had a huge respect for it. Well ahead of its time and in many ways better than the Tornado that 'replaced' it, in my totally unbiased opinion.

As for the theory that the USA were so far ahead there are a few problems with that.

In 1938 the period when the Hurricane, Me109 and SPitfire were entering service the USA had the P35 and P36. Most wouuld consider the P36 to be the better machine but the P35 won the Contest for the USAAF.
The P43 entered service in 1940 when the RAF were getting the Spit II and the German Airforce were close to the 109F. The P40 was always behind the curve.

In bombers its a similar story. The Luftwaffe and RAF had Wellington, He111, Ju88, Do 17 Stuka, Hampden, even the Whitley. The USA had the B18, the Boston was on the way but not until 1940 which was too late and this had some issues. It wasn't all great, the Battle is an obvious example but the european countries had options.

I find it hard to see where this significant advantage the USA had in theory was being applied.

In transport aircaft the USA had a clear lead and naval aircraft.

The USA may have had theoretical advantages but its wrong to overstate it. Its also worth remembering that production of aircraft such as the Fw190 and Mosquito were close behind

[TomcatViP]

Originally Posted by Glider

I would like to know the name of the book if possible, the Bucaneer was one of the planes I was trained on and had a huge respect for it. Well ahead of its time and in many ways better than the Tornado that 'replaced' it, in my totally unbiased opinion.

Will do my best Glider but can't promise anything.

Edit : Here it is ! Sisi it include the Bucc full story The book tittle was just made sexier with the added types for the neophytes

Buy
http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/...underandlightn

Review
http://www.flyingbooks.co.uk/acatalo...rofighter.html