Stability and Control characteristics of the Early Mark Spitfires

[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.

[bongodriver]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

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.

Rubbish......or BALONEY as you like to put it...

Heres the Airworthiness approval notes from the CAA on 2 different Mk 1 Spitfires which are flying today, note the modifications do not include anything with regards to stability issues.

http://www.caa.co.uk/AANDocs/29100/29100000000.pdf

http://www.caa.co.uk/AANDocs/29337/29337000000.pdf

I know you are going to come straight back with the 'look, it says no intentional spinning' but that is a blanket ban on permit to fly aircraft for similar reasons to the RAF's operational reasons during the war, an unnecessary and risky manouver and the aircraft are very expensive.

Heres Dave Gilmour of Pink Floyds old mustang permit......we all know they were allowed to spin right?

http://www.caa.co.uk/AANDocs/25986/25986000000.pdf

and another

http://www.caa.co.uk/AANDocs/28790/28790000000.pdf

Heres a 109 permit

http://www.caa.co.uk/AANDocs/22658/22658000000.pdf

the CAA airworthiness notes database search, check it out, quite interesting

http://www.caa.co.uk/application.asp...pe=65&appid=10

[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

[Al Schlageter]

The vast majority of Typhoon losses due to the loss of the tail happened over Germany areas

Is the opposite. In the Thomas/Shore book on the Typhoon/Tempest there is 18 losses listed as 'sf' (structural failure) of which 14 were over Britain and only 2 of these past Jan 1944.

[Glider]

Originally Posted by Al Schlageter

Is the opposite. In the Thomas/Shore book on the Typhoon/Tempest there is 18 losses listed as 'sf' (structural failure) of which 14 were over Britain and only 2 of these past Jan 1944.

I stand corrected

[Al Schlageter]

Originally Posted by Glider

I stand corrected

Nice of you to admit you were incorrect Glider, unlike another person who does a 'song and dance' to deflect the discussion away from his error.

[Crumpp]

There was no Spitfire I serialed X4228

Typo...X4268.

I hope you do not sit and wonder when others show you the same courtesy you show them.

It should not be a mystery.

Did you locate X4181?? The one used for 100 Octane testing in August of 1940 in 616 Squadron?

[Crumpp]

In the Thomas/Shore book on the Typhoon/Tempest there is 18 losses listed as 'sf' (structural failure) of which 14 were over Britain and only 2 of these past Jan 1944.

What a shame the Air Ministry did not have stability and control standards in place.

They would have realized something was not kosher when the aircraft motion did not align with predicted results.

[NZtyphoon]

To reiterate: From http://www.spitfires.ukf.net/ which is well researched and more accessible than M & S:

Mk Is less than 1 year old lost through structural failure in flight:

K9977 Ia 191 EA MII FF 16-5-39 602S 18-5-39 lost wing during aerobatics crashed Haddington CE Lothian 30-12-39 Sgt Bailey killed SOC 11-2-40

N3120 Ia 391 EA MIII FF 29-10-39 6MU 3-11-39 266S 20-1-40 broke up in test flight to alt Pilot Gleed thrown out crashed 14.40hrs Littleport Cambs 18-2-40 SOC 22-2-40

X4613 Ia 1233 EA MIII FF 15-10-40 6MU 15-10-40 ? 603S 17-10-40 266S 24-10-40 Lost wing and crashed Gedney Hill Lincs CE 2-3-41 SOC 20-3-41

R6692 Ia 746 EA MIII FF 3-6-40 6MU 5-6-40 609S 7-6-40 Overstressed attacking Ju88 CE 12-8-40 SOC 2-9-40

Mk Is - older airframes on OTUs lost through structural failure in flight:

R6777 Ia 803 EA MIII FF 21-6-40 8MU 22-6-40 65S 12-7-40 C2 ops 30-7-40 GAL 616S 20-8-40 72S 2-9-40 92S 3-11-40 145S 4-2-41 AFDU 6-3-41 152S 13-3-41 SF H 10-4-41 57OTU 4-8-41 61OTU 3-1-42 Broke up in air and crashed Blackbill Glam FAC3 8-7-42

R6882 Ia 840 EA MIII FF 1-7-40 (CMG) 6MU Brize Norton 28-7-40 cannon wing fitt 7OTU 3-9-40 AFDU Duxford 11-1-41 R-RH 10-2-41 Cv Vb M45 92S 'QJ-N' 9-3-41 609S 30-8-41 Broke up in air and abandoned 2.5m NE of East Stoke Notts FACE 10-1-42 SOC 17-1-42

R7064 Ia 1431 EA MIII FF 5-2-41 9MU 6-2-41 411S 5-7-41 52OTU 23-11-41 struct damaged in spin crashed and hit fence nr Aston Down CE 25-3-42 SOC 3-4-42

X4234 Ia 1031 EA MIII FF 15-8-40 8MU 16-8-40 609S 24-8-40 damaged combat P/O Staples safe 27-9-40 AST 66S 13-10-40 57OTU 1-11-40 FACB 27-6-42 ros wing fail in spin crashed Alsager Cheshire CE 25-9-42

X4854 Ia 1351 EA MIII FF 14-12-40 MU 16-12-42 53OTU into sea nr Dunraven Castle Thought struct fail of stbd wing 2-1-43


Less than 1 year old lost through structural failure in dive:

K9838 Ia FF 6-1-39 41S 11-1-39 struct fail in dive Eryholme Yorks 16-3-39 SOC FH21.25 pilot killed

X4056 Ia 972 EA MIII FF 1-8-40 39MU 2-8-40 616S 30-8-40 Wing came off during dive 8m SE of Kirton-in-Lindsey FAC3 8-11-40 SOC 11-11-40

X4421 Ia 1138 EA MIII FF 12-9-40 8MU 13-9-40 66S 16-9-40 57OTU 21-10-40 steep dive from low cloud violent pull out high speed stall spun wing fail Pilot thrown clear but killed 15.15hrs crashed Northrop Flints 27-3-41 SOC cancel RAE 8-4-41 AST 13-5-41 rebuilt as Va M45 164S 29-4-42 FACE 18-8-42 (Rebuild suspect)

X4662 Ia 1260 EA MIII FF 1-11-40 9MU 8-11-40 485S 15-3-41 61OTU 25-6-41 131S 17-7-41 pull out steep dive stbd wing broke away crashed dbf pilot killed 12.07hrs Northallerton 27-7-41 SOC 1-8-41

X4680 Ia 1264 EA MIII FF 2-11-40 12MU 5-11-40 72S 17-1-41 CB ops 9-4-41 Scottish Aviation 123S 3-6-41 steep dive and pull out from cloud wings and tailplane broke off fus hit ground Kirknewton pilot killed 16.00hrs 15-6-41 SOC 1-7-41 FH77.50 RAE accident invest 20-8-41

Older airframes lost in dive:

N3191 Ia 432 EA MIII FF 23-11-39 24MU 2-12-39 234S 22-3-40 lost wings in dive crashed nr Truro Cornwall CE 16-1-41 AST 14-2-41 SOC 23-4-41

X4381 Ia 1122 EA MIII FF 6-9-40 6MU 10-9-40 152S 13-9-40 501S 'SD-J' 5-11-40 53OTU 7-7-41 stbd wing broke off after high speed dive out of cloud Tonpentre nr Pontypridd dbf CE 16.30hrs 6-8-41 SOC 21-8-41 RAE 30-1-42

Overstressed in storm at high altitude:

R7033 PRIV 1738 HEA M45 HAL 8-6-41 Cv PRIII Type C 1PRU Benson 7-8-41 loss of control in storm at high alt pilot thrown clear at 1000ft landed safe total wreck nr Bishops Stortford 5-10-41 remains to RAE for accident invest 1-42

17 with structural or wing failure, seven of which occurred during a dive or pulling out of a dive: See Henshaw

Six - N3191, R6777, R6882, R7064, X4234, X4854 - old, retired Spitfire Is in OTUs. One, R7033, was a PRU aircraft caught in a storm at high altitude.

Out of 17 structural failures three were recently delivered Spitfires: two, K9977 and N3120 had structural or wing failures before the Pilot's Notes were printed in July 1940 while K9838 broke up in a dive in early 1939 - it might well have been these three incidents which prompted the warnings to be printed.

Now let's see Crumpp's serial numbers and comments.