Stability and Control characteristics of the Early Mark Spitfires

[Glider]

We do seem to be in the normal situation where one side produces evidence to the best of their ability and often in duplicate. And the nay sayers produce nothing to support theirs and depend on ever more silly questions.

On the Bent wings waiting repair being a 1944 issue
1) An original document from the NA which is clear as to the cause of the problem in late 1944 and how to resolve it
2) the 2TAF series of books from C Shores a highly recognised author on aviation which also says the same

On the Bent wings waiting repair being a BOB issue
1) Someone says that they remember reading something somewhere
2) Crumpps statement with nothing to support it
In other words nothing

On the number of Breakups due to structural faiulure being small
1) A published work written by someone involved in Air Investigations for 50 years
2) The numbers matching those printed in the M S book
3) Henshaws paper the number are different but even lower

On the numbers of breakups being higher
1) I looked in the website but I asked because it's not written that's the only responsable of investigation but it's part of the entire Department.In otherwords the department has more responsibilities and this section is responsible for Air Investigations.
2) Statements that others may have come down at sea or in enemy held areas.
Of course this almost certainly happened. However its a question that we will never know the results to. Its something that happens to every airforce all we can do is do the best we can with what we know. In the same way we do not know how many of these had been damaged in combat.

[6S.Manu]

Originally Posted by Glider

We do seem to be in the normal situation where one side produces evidence to the best of their ability and often in duplicate. And the nay sayers produce nothing to support theirs and depend on ever more silly questions.

Curiosity and research for detail are silly questions?... tell me you're not an historian...

Originally Posted by Glider

On the number of Breakups due to structural faiulure being small
1) A published work written by someone involved in Air Investigations for 50 years
2) The numbers matching those printed in the M S book
3) Henshaws paper the number are different but even lower

And you call this evidence!?!?

What about the M S book having the same source of "Spitfire at war" => AAIB?

Now if the AAIB data is not usefull to understand the real rate of structural damage, since it ignores the accident over the sea and in enemy territory, what is the meaning to post it?
The real numbers are different, period, since we don't know how many poor guys died for overstressed airframe and they were filed as KIA because of the enemy.

3 books: one has different numbers... Which ones are the corrected numbers?

Look I've "produced" a question about that data...

Originally Posted by Glider

On the numbers of breakups being higher
1) I looked in the website but I asked because it's not written that's the only responsable of investigation but it's part of the entire Department.In otherwords the department has more responsibilities and this section is responsible for Air Investigations.

Really? I ask it because I don't know... I would like a doc by the Air Ministry stating that every accident need to be investigated officialy by the AAIB.

Or if Mr.Newton said "We had to investigate every accident during the war" it would be enough. But it does not say it... so sorry if I've some silly doubt.

Originally Posted by Glider

2) Statements that others may have come down at sea or in enemy held areas.
Of course this almost certainly happened. However its a question that we will never know the results to. Its something that happens to every airforce all we can do is do the best we can with what we know. In the same way we do not know how many of these had been damaged in combat.

Then that number about the rate of Spitfires lost for airframe damage is almost useless since it's a small sample mostly no related to combat. That was my first statement.

In enemy territory, in combat, numbers can easily be different. Are numbers about accidents because of clouds really important when they did fight at 5km??? Does the pilot need to land in the fog in enemy territory?

So lets stick to the data about stick forces, oversensivity, AoA e structural limits and lets try to analyse them together. Without the necessity to bring on numbers and reports who do not help.

Mainly because THEY DID NOT FLY AS WE DO IN THE SIM.

[Crumpp]

Crumpp you better talk to Duxford they may not know what you know

I sure they know it. Everyone of those Spitfires is modified so that it does not have the instability of the early marks.

Damn shame they did not have standards in place and that stability and control was such a new science at the time. Lives could have been saved.

[Glider]

Originally Posted by 6S.Manu

Curiosity and research for detail are silly questions?... tell me you're not an historian...

I do consider myself to be an amature historian, which is why I always have some substance behind my theory and statement. It may not be everything everyone want but there is something.

Lets take the example of the bending of the wings. Crumps says this happened a lot and there were piles of wings to be repaired. My belief is that this happened in late 1944 when Spitfires were being used for tassks way beyond what they were designed for. I produced two different sources both of which are very clear and invite Crumpp to supply his evidence that this happened in the BOB. Result silence.
I could have pointed out that the fix was very simple, clip the wings of the SPitfire as thats what they did in 1944. If bending had been a problem in the BOB then the solution would have been quick and effective, clip the wings of the Mk I and II spits. I could have pointed out that this wasn't done and that would indicate that there wasn't a problem with the bending of the wings. But I didn't, why, because I wouldn't say such a thing without proof.

And you call this evidence!?!?

Its more than you have put forward. You have a theory but nothing behind it

What about the M S book having the same source of "Spitfire at war" => AAIB?

Possible but very unlikely. The reports are procduced during the war, the book many years later.

Now if the AAIB data is not usefull to understand the real rate of structural damage, since it ignores the accident over the sea and in enemy territory, what is the meaning to post it?
The real numbers are different, period, since we don't know how many poor guys died for overstressed airframe and they were filed as KIA because of the enemy.

There is no way they can know for certainty as to what happened in some cases over german held areas. However you accuse them of ignoring accidents which is insulting and you do it without evidence which compounds the insult.
You are also factually wrong. The vast majority of Typhoon losses due to the loss of the tail happened over Germany areas but this wasn't ignored. The pilots were aware of what was going on, it was reported and the issue was addressed. To pretend that Spits breaking up would be ignored is clearly wrong and without evidence again insulting.
You may well question my approach to historical facts but I would never, ever, say such a thing without something to support what I said.
I await your supporting evidence with some interest, note evidence not theory. It shouldn't be difficult as you believe it happended so often finding an unexplained loss that was put forward and then ignored should be straight forward.

Really? I ask it because I don't know... I would like a doc by the Air Ministry stating that every accident need to be investigated officialy by the AAIB.

Or if Mr.Newton said "We had to investigate every accident during the war" it would be enough. But it does not say it... so sorry if I've some silly doubt.

If you want that then I suggest you go and look for it. Of course you can have a theory but a theory it remains unless and until you can support it. The AAAIB can only look at things that are referred to them, it always was and should always be that any unexplained accident should be reported to them. You forget that its in the interest of the pilots and crew to report these incidents as their lives are on the line

Then that number about the rate of Spitfires lost for airframe damage is almost useless since it's a small sample mostly no related to combat. That was my first statement.

Its not a small sample it all the incidents that were reported to them. If you believe that there were others that were ignored then support that statement. Again without evidence its a theory without support

In enemy territory, in combat, numbers can easily be different. Are numbers about accidents because of clouds really important when they did fight at 5km??? Does the pilot need to land in the fog in enemy territory?

This I have already covered

So lets stick to the data about stick forces, oversensivity, AoA e structural limits and lets try to analyse them together. Without the necessity to bring on numbers and reports who do not help.

Or is that pilot reports, test pilot reports, test establishments reports and official accidents reports that are to be ignored because they are inconvenient?

Mainly because THEY DID NOT FLY AS WE DO IN THE SIM.

I don't hear Crumpp, yourself or anyone else demanding that the Spitfire be easy to land, easy to take off, be faultless in a turn and always turning inside the Me109 as did the German pilots and test establishments or are you in favour of such realistic factors

[Glider]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

. Cambridge awards degrees, they published the book, and it is used as a reference in many engineering curriculuums.

If you don't like those facts, tell Cambridge not me.

Cambridge don't issue degrees, they do publish books which are used in institutions but they do not teach.

However and most importantly we are still waiting for your evidence to support your statement about piles of bent wings in the BOB.

Without evidence your statement is useless, should be withdrawn and without it your argument goes with it.

You will agree I am sure that it the professional approach