Spit/109 sea level speed comparisons in 1.08 beta patch

[SlipBall]

From the 1941 study, it sounds to me that hi-speed rolling was not a strong point

[JtD]

This is a Spitfire V with metal covered ailerons, tested up to 300 mph. The Spitfire I/II with fabric covered ailerons are a lot worse, and at 400 mph IAS pretty much hopeless - ineffective ailerons combined with a rather flexible wing. British tests indicate a roll rate of about 12°/s at 400 mph with 50 lbs stick force for early Spitfires - in other words half a minute for a 360° roll.

Also sorry for the cheap joke above, but I would say that while people may not disagree on the math, they may very well have different opinions regarding the input and different interpretations regarding the output. I'd also say that anecdotal evidence is valuable in getting input and interpretation right. For example, popular numbers regarding sea level top speed show the F4F to be faster than the A6M-2, however, anecdotal evidence from both sides agrees that the A6M-2 could and would outrun an F4F. A good enough indication that the numbers are not plausible and some research is warranted...but data for the A6M-2 just isn't around in quality and quantity as it is for say Spitfires and 109's.

[NZtyphoon]

Originally Posted by JtD

This is a Spitfire V with metal covered ailerons, tested up to 300 mph. The Spitfire I/II with fabric covered ailerons are a lot worse, and at 400 mph IAS pretty much hopeless - ineffective ailerons combined with a rather flexible wing. British tests indicate a roll rate of about 12°/s at 400 mph with 50 lbs stick force for early Spitfires - in other words half a minute for a 360° roll.

My bad -the NACA Spitfire had metal covered ailerons, I should have absorbed the first sentence before reading the report - still, that does not invalidate anything I said about the damping effect of the wingtips on the Spitfire's roll-rate. A report on a clipped wing Spitfire V vs standard bears this out:




It is interesting to see how small aerodynamic alterations can alter flight characteristics - the total area of the wingtips removed was 12sq ft but, because this was all outboard of the ailerons, removing the wingtips increased the aileron's effectiveness up to 25,000 feet. It probably increased the torsional stiffness of the wings as well.

Just for interest the P-47N also showed the benefits of "clipped" wings:

[NZtyphoon]

Originally Posted by SlipBall

From the 1941 study, it sounds to me that hi-speed rolling was not a strong point

Rolling was never really a Spitfire strength, partly because of the large area of wing tip outside of the aileron; the clipped-wing Spitfires had a better roll-rate at all speeds than those with conventional wing tips while those with pointed, high altitude tips were worse. Another part of the problem was the fabric covered ailerons, still fitted to the NACA Spitfire Va, which tended to "balloon" at high speeds, further reducing their effectiveness.

[Kurfürst]

Originally Posted by NZtyphoon

Another part of the problem was the fabric covered ailerons, still fitted to the NACA Spitfire Va

Which is why the NACA report specifically notes that metal ailerons were fitted to the Spitfire Mark VA tested, right?

[SlipBall]

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

Which is why the NACA report specifically notes that metal ailerons were fitted to the Spitfire Mark VA tested, right?

I did see that in the report...back then, from the graph, would it be safe to watch for/anticipate that a pilot would favor/maybe even trained, to favor doing a roll to the right.

Also, I'm always amazed at your sig, taxiing must have been hell with that line of sight he has, I wish it was modeled in this sim as-well (our pilot seems to sit just a little higher). Do you have any history of the plane and pilot.