Stability and Control characteristics of the Early Mark Spitfires

[bongodriver]

Of course the RTBed aircrafts would have the wings replaced, but why did they need to replace them? Couldn't them still fight in that condition? Or maybe it was an issue this sim needs to reproduce?

You miss the point, it's been a claim since the beginning of this thread that Spits broke up in flight, now it's come down to piles of wings, both theories are pure anecdotes and have no proof whatsoever.....so what is it? do they break up? or do they just bend wings?......or is it in fact neither because the apparent problem is all a fabrication?.....my vote is the latter because it is clear this thread is about nothing more than a desparate attempt to pork the Spit, there won't be a 109 thread...not from the OP anyway.....I see no reason one couldn't have been started already.....well the reason is actually obvious, it avoids bringing unwanted attention to the favoured aircraft, people can just rip the Spit to shreds and make all the accusations of Spit 'fanboys' or red v blue agendas in the Spit thread.

[6S.Manu]

Originally Posted by bongodriver

You miss the point, it's been a claim since the beginning of this thread that Spits broke up in flight, now it's come down to piles of wings, both theories are pure anecdotes and have no proof whatsoever.....so what is it? do they break up? or do they just bend wings?......or is it in fact neither because the apparent problem is all a fabrication?.....my vote is the latter because it is clear this thread is about nothing more than a desparate attempt to pork the Spit, there won't be a 109 thread...not from the OP anyway.....I see no reason one couldn't have been started already.....well the reason is actually obvious, it avoids bringing unwanted attention to the favoured aircraft, people can just rip the Spit to shreds and make all the accusations of Spit 'fanboys' or red v blue agendas in the Spit thread.

Warning on pilot's notes are not a fabrication.

According the numbers posted by Glider (even if they're from an limited investigation on only 121 accidents... a small sample of course) the 38% of those planes were lost for a overstressed airframe issue.

The next most serious cause of structural failure in the Spitfire was pilots overstressing the airframe. She was extremely responsive on the controls and one must remember that in those days there was no accelerometer to tell the pilot how close he was to the limit. So it was not difficult to exceed the aircraft's 10G ultimate stress factor during combat or when pulling out from a high speed dive; during the war we were able to put down 46 major accidents to this cause, though undoubtedly there were many other occasions when it happened and we did not see the wreckage. Incidentally, if there was a structural failure in the Spitfire it was almost inevitably the wing that went; the fuselage was far less likely to fail first (the same for most low wing monoplane fighters?-except the Typhoon?- Berkshire).

Is it an OP's fabrication?

Do you really think that this kind of issue has not to be simulated? On all the planes, of course.

I see no reason one couldn't have been started already.....well the reason is actually obvious, it avoids bringing unwanted attention to the favoured aircraft

Really?

- 109's fans want to talk about Spitfire to avoid attention on their plane
- Spitifire's fans want to talk about 109 to avoid attention on their plane

Great logic IMO.
Can you suggest a plane to talk about to avoid attention on the P51 (my favourite plane with the 190)?

Why can't we admit that those were high performance fighters and everyone of these had some issues? We should just take note of that to have a realistic sim and then we can start to analyze another plane.

Let's do it in a mature way... in this thread there are to many childish reactions and it's clear that all is created by the same few posters who keep fighting in every WW2 message board of the web.

[bongodriver]

Warning on pilot's notes are not a fabrication.

They are simply warnings, not an indication of a particular dangerous characteristic....you know like 'always wear safety glasses'

According the numbers posted by Glider (even if they're from an limited investigation on only 121 accidents... a small sample of course) the 38% of those planes were lost for a overstressed airframe issue.

So 38% of 121 investigations is proof?, it just means that from an already tiny amount less than half were attributable to airframe failure.

Is it an OP's fabrication?

What the OP is fabricating is a larger problem, nobody claims 'no' Spitfires ever 'broke up', if you really wanted to you could 'break' any aircraft through overstress and the Spitfire was not notorious for it, just because it had sensitive elevators that 'could' do it it doesn't mean that it was a regular occurrence, the OP almost seems to be insisting that these problems should become apparent during normal operating ranges of speed and manouvers......I wonder why

Really?

- 109's fans want to talk about Spitfire to avoid attention on their plane
- Spitifire's fans want to talk about 109 to avoid attention on their plane

Yep....why didn't we get a 109 thread first?

Great logic IMO.
Can you suggest a plane to talk about to avoid attention on the P51 (my favourite plane with the 190)?

if they had anything to do with the BoB scenario in Cliffs of Dover.

Why can't we admit that those were high performance fighters and everyone of these had some issues? We should just take note of that to have a realistic sim and then we can start to analyze another plane.

When did anybody deny it?....sooo in order to have a realistic sim we must first make the Spit useless? then we can make the rest accurate?

Let's do it in a mature way... in this thread there are to many childish reactions (where the worst is blamimg other guys to be anti-British) and it's clear that all is created by the same few posters who keep fighting in every WW2 message board of the web.

I'd like you to delete the bit in bold, or I will have to complain as I find it offensive.

[macro]

Ivan can you point me to that info i couldnt find it

[6S.Manu]

Originally Posted by bongodriver

Yep....why didn't we get a 109 thread first?

Do we have to make a poll do decide which plane is the first one to be analysed? Above all by a person who actually does it for free and it's not one of our employers?

I've not problem on which one is the first plane... we have to start from something.

Originally Posted by bongodriver

When did anybody deny it?....sooo in order to have a realistic sim we must first make the Spit useless? then we can make the rest accurate?

Why useless? Does realistic mean useless?

You say "then"... if a new feature is been added to the FM engine I expect it to be modelled in every plane... implementing a new v2.0 FM for a model leaving the other plane with the v1.0 is not a professional way to act... of wait.. about IL2 I remember new Lods against old ones... I don't want something like that.

Originally Posted by bongodriver

I'd like you to delete the bit in bold, or I will have to complain as I find it offensive.

It's not about you... it's about a guy who I put into my ignore list since I was being anti-British claiming that the Spitfire myth is partially born because it's a simbol of the British's win. As P51 for the americans, T34 for the russian ect. does that make me an anti-american and anti-russian?

Originally Posted by bongodriver

This is becoming trolling...

Please explain to me what is the reason to quote that the Spitfire was more manouvrable of the Zero at high speed... above all when the argument was totally another one.

[NZtyphoon]

Originally Posted by 6S.Manu

Please explain to me what is the reason to quote that the Spitfire was more manouvrable of the Zero at high speed... above all when the argument was totally another one.

The subject of this thread is directly related to the Spitfire's flight qualities, so pointing out that at high speed it could outmanœvre one of the most manœverable fighters of its generation is perfectly reasonable in the context of the discussion, so take your own advice and do this in a mature way.

Once again there are no forum rules stopping anyone from posting comments on the flight qualities of German, Japanese or Italian aircraft.

[bongodriver]

Originally Posted by 6S.Manu

Do we have to make a poll do decide which plane is the first one to be analysed? Above all by a person who actually does it for free and it's not one of our employers?.

Employers?

Who said anything about a poll?....there you go making bizarre statements again, I'm just saying it's no coincidence that the issue started with the Spitfire and I gave the reasons why.

Originally Posted by 6S.Manu

I've not problem on which one is the first plane... we have to start from something.

easy to say

Originally Posted by 6S.Manu

Why useless? Does realistic mean useless?.

Lets see, it has to be so unstable that only very skilled pilots can fly it, it must break up if you do a hard manouver, it must have very dangerous stall/spin characteristics, it must have bad turning characteristics against a 109.....all of this has had evidence to show it's not true but because of one guy and his NACA report on a different variant everybody thinks it was written by god?

Originally Posted by 6S.Manu

You say "then"... if a new feature is been added to the FM engine I expect it to be modelled in every plane... implementing a new v2.0 FM for a model leaving the other plane with the v1.0 is not a professional way to act... of wait.. about IL2 I remember new Lods against old ones... I don't want something like that..

Whaa?

Originally Posted by 6S.Manu

It's not about you... it's about a guy who I put into my ignore list since I was being anti-British claiming that the Spitfire myth is partially born because it's a simbol of the British's win. As P51 for the americans, T34 for the russian ect. does that make me an anti-american and anti-russian?.

I still find the statement offensive...please remove it, at least I'm being 'grown up' about it and giving the opportunity....not a courtesy extended to myself very often.

Originally Posted by 6S.Manu

Please explain to me what is the reason to quote that the Spitfire was more manouvrable of the Zero at high speed... above all when the argument was totally another one.

Constant accusations of having a red v blue agenda are apparently trolling.....unless it's an accusation coming from the blue side apparently.

[Crumpp]

Sorry fot the OT Crumpp, but I think that there's nothing more to talk about in this threat.

I think you are right. I will get the bugtracker posted. Been busy at work.

I would like to the do the Hurricane next but will leave it open to what the community wants to do.

Granted, the Hurricane will probably be a short thread as it does not have the emotional response of the Spitfire and its stability and control is not so dramatic as the Spitfire's.

[Seadog]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

I think you are right. I will get the bugtracker posted. Been busy at work.

I would like to the do the Hurricane next but will leave it open to what the community wants to do.

Granted, the Hurricane will probably be a short thread as it does not have the emotional response of the Spitfire and its stability and control is not so dramatic as the Spitfire's.

Why not a thread on the deadly stability and control issues of the Me109?

Range of Investigation. – The handling tests covered the following ground : – ease of take-off and landing ; trim and stability ; " one control " tests, flat turns and sideslips ; stalling tests, including a determination of CLmax ; high-speed dive ; harmony and " feel " of the controls.

An investigation of the fighting qualities of the Me. 109 included dog fights with Hurricanes and Spitfires, measurement of aileron forces and times to bank at speeds up to 400 m.p.h., and an analysis of the turning performance of the aircraft.

Pilots' views on cockpit layout, comfort and view are given in an Appendix to the report.

Conclusions. – (i) Take-off is fairly straightforward. Landing is difficult until the pilot gets used to the aircraft.

Longitudinally the aircraft is too stable for a fighter. There is a large change of directional trim with speed. No rudder trimmer is fitted ; lack of this is severely felt at high speeds, and limits a pilot's ability to turn left when diving.

Fin area and dihedral are adequate. The stall is not violent, and there is no subsequent tendency to spin. CLmax is 1.4, flaps up and 1.9, flaps down. No vibration or " snaking " develop in a high-speed dive.

Aileron snatching occurs as the slots open. All three controls are far too heavy at high speeds. Aerobatics are difficult.

(ii) The Me. 109 is inferior as a fighter to the Hurricane or Spitfire. Its manoeuvrability at high airspeeds is seriously curtailed by the heaviness of the controls, while its high wing loading causes it to stall readily under high normal accelerations and results in a poor turning circle.

At 400 m.p.h. a pilot, exerting all his strength, can only apply 115 aileron, thereby banking 45 deg. in about 4 secs. From the results Kb, for the Me. 109 ailerons was estimated to be - 0.145.

The minimum radius of turn without height loss at 12,000 ft., full throttle, is calculated as 885 ft. on the Me. 109 compared with 696 ft. on the Spitfire...

...4.62. Elevator. – The elevator is an exceptionally good control at low speeds ; it is fairly heavy, and is not over sensitive during the approach glide, while response is excellent. Throughout the speed range the elevator is heavier than that of the Hurricane or Spitfire, but up to 250 m.p.h. this is not objected to, since it is very responsive. Above 250 m.p.h. the elevator becomes definitely too heavy for comfort, and between 300 m.p.h. and 400 m.p.h. is so heavy that maneuvrability in the looping plane is seriously restricted; when diving at 400 m.p.h. a pilot, pulling with all his strength, cannot put on enough g to black himself out if trimmed in the dive.
http://kurfurst.org/Tactical_trials/...ls/Morgan.html

.

[6S.Manu]

@Bongo: I'll reply by PM

Originally Posted by Crumpp

I think you are right. I will get the bugtracker posted. Been busy at work.

I would like to the do the Hurricane next but will leave it open to what the community wants to do.

Granted, the Hurricane will probably be a short thread as it does not have the emotional response of the Spitfire and its stability and control is not so dramatic as the Spitfire's.

I hope it to be about the 109, so that everybody is going be satisfied.