Stability and Control characteristics of the Early Mark Spitfires

[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

[Glider]

Originally Posted by TomcatViP

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

Thanks for that

[Crumpp]

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.

or anyone else who's got a good understanding of the matter,

Your good understanding? Is that with the long period oscillation's your claimed, the slopes of the curves, the difference between stick fixed, stick free, dynamic and static?? I am confused as to where your good understanding is demonstrated.

[Holtzauge]

OK, I see the problem now: What Crumpp fails to understand is that while the actual stick movement is small, figures 17 and 18 show that the pilot uses between 10-20 lb of pull to HOLD the turn. If one looks at the force histogram its apparent that a relatively constant pull force is needed to keep the plane in the turn. So no increased pull force no increased load factor. Wherein lies the big problem? What would be troublesome would be if there was a need to apply a push force or substantial unloading in order not to tighten up the turn once it had been initiated. However, the histogram shows no such tendencies i.e. the behaviour looks quite benevolent.

Maybe this is also why we on the one hand have numerous accounts from pilots who actually flew the Spitfire and appreciated it and on the other have a private pilot armchair expert who is of a different opinion based on a myopic and selective interpretation of data.

[Crumpp]

OK, I see the problem now: What Crumpp fails to understand is that while the actual stick movement is small, figures 17 and 18 show that the pilot uses between 10-20 lb of pull to HOLD the turn. If one looks at the force histogram its apparent that that a relatively constant pull force is needed to keep the plane in the turn. So no pull force no increased load factor. Wherein lies the big problem? What would be troublesome would be if there was a need to apply a push force in order not to tigthen up the turn once it had been initiated. However, the histogram shows no such tendencies i.e. the behaviour looks quite benevolent.

Maybe this is also why we on the one hand have numerous accounts from pilots who actually flew the Spitfire and appreciated it and on the other have a private pilot armchair expert who is of a different opinion based on a myopic and selective interpretation of data.

However, the histogram shows no such tendencies i.e. the behaviour looks quite benevolent.

Spitfire Mk I Operating Notes, July 1940:











By all means continue Holtzauge.

Let's stick to what is definable and measureable, as this is my thread.

[Holtzauge]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

Let's stick to what is definable and measureable, as this is my thread.

Yes, let's stick to that: To begin with follow your own advice: What you posted above is as has now been pointed out numerous times some general advice to the pilot on handling characteristics and hardly qualifies to your own strict limitations to what is definable and measurable so you can remove them from "your" thread.

Now what is pertinent and admissible according to your own definition above are figures 17 and 18 so please enlighten us with how these support your case as opposed to mine and JtD's interpretation above.

[Crumpp]

figures 17 and 18

Why don't read the report about figures 17 and 18?

Here, I will post it once again....



Now, Holtzuage....

I would love to have this conversation with you. Should be a wonderful and refreshing change given your claims to be an engineer.

I wait with baited breath for your measured and definable evidence showing the early Mark Spitfire to have acceptable longitudinal stability by any modern definition. Feel free to use the RAE post war standards, NACA, R-1815A, SF119A, MIL-F-8785, FAR, JAR....

You pick!!

Looking forward to it.