Spit IIa

[Crumpp]

Ok you are really off the plot in this response and thats just wrong.

I am not wrong and you even agree with what I said.

IvanK says:
you ease the back pressure off to get back into the Buzz .... Ideally the very first hint of it.

Ideally the very first hint of it...... No, Ideally you have none at all and are at the point just before any buffeting occurs. That is also what the Spitfire Mk I notes relate, crazy idea huh!

If you have no other way to determine that point, it works for practical purposes.

Gee, that is exactly what I have said!!

Crumpp says:
Aerodynamic buffeting will not increase your turn performance, it will degrade it.

Now I dont know your background Crummp but if you had some practical experience in realitvely high performance straight wing aerobatic aircraft and had been taught how to get the maximum out of it you wouldnt be saying the things you are.

Degree in aeronautical science....graduate type

Pilot......Aircraft Owner....several of them, they are great way to waste a lot of money!

Oh yeah, aerobatics too...

[Crumpp]

Some flew it on the edge, some flew it as per the handbook.

Umm there is no difference. The handbook tells you how to fly it to the edge...

What do you think the engineers are doing when they tell you those parameters??

Here is a secret....they are telling you how to get the maximum performance out of the aircraft, live to tell about it, and maybe be able to use the airplane on the next mission.

Mh. I think the pilots were taught to fly their planes after the handbook.

With experience and in battle they started to feel the plane and forgot about the handbook resulting perhaps in situations where they were closer to the edge than written in the handbook. One should remember that air behaviour depends on much more than just velocity and angle of attack. It may well depend on current temperature, roughness of the skin of the plane, winds and gusts, air humidity ...

[winny]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

Umm there is no difference. The handbook tells you how to fly it to the edge...

What do you think the engineers are doing when they tell you those parameters??

Here is a secret....they are telling you how to get the maximum performance out of the aircraft, live to tell about it, and maybe be able to use the airplane on the next mission.

What do you mean, no difference, it's the exact opposite.

You can argue with Geoff Wellum all you want. You said that the pilot's notes say to ease off when buffeting occurrs. Geoff Wellum, for one, didn't do this, and they weren't too concerned with the rule book or the maths of it either, they did what they had to to survive. I've also read of plenty of WEP abuse, bent airframes, bale outs when lost ( i.e. not bothered about using the airplane again)

I think the engineers were conservative in their pilot's notes.

[Crumpp]

What do you mean, no difference, it's the exact opposite.

Not even close. This is gaming fantasy and not the reality of flying aircraft.

I've also read of plenty of WEP abuse, bent airframes, bale outs when lost ( i.e. not bothered about using the airplane again)

Of course accidents happen and circumstances are not always ideal especially in combat. We get to hear the tails about the lucky ones who survived their experience. Unfortunately we cannot hear from the others who died because of exceeding the published limits.

Let's look at what the reality of operating aircraft has to say about the Pilot Operating Instructions:

The matching of the aerodynamic configuration with the powerplant is accomplished by the manufacturer to provide maximum performance at the specific design condition (e.g., range, endurance, and climb).

MMMM, maximum performance = follow the book

The use of this data in flying operations is
mandatory for safe and efficient operation.

Maximum Performance AND you get to stay alive!!

If you read this primer on Pilot Operating Instructions, you will find that for most maximum performance there is ONLY one point or airspeed that maximum performance can be obtained. That point is linked to the physical design of the aircraft and is given to the pilot by the engineers. There is nothing to be "conservative" about. Additionally, the margins are such there is very little room engineering wise to be "conservative" and still produce a machine that flys.

Read and enjoy!!

http://www.faa.gov/library/manuals/a...apter%2010.pdf

[winny]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

Not even close. This is gaming fantasy and not the reality of flying aircraft.

I can't put this any clearer. I'll leave it to someone who was there instead.

Geoff Wellum - " In a Spitfire, just before the stall, the whole aircraft judders, it's a stall warning, if you like. With practice and experience you can hold the plane on this judder in a very tight turn. You never actually stall the aircraft and you don't need to struggle to regain control because you never lose it. A 109 can't stay with you."

Time and time again people push machines past their operational limits, some live some die, that's not the point. The point is that 'riding the buffet' happened, for real. Geoff Wellum did it, as did many many other Battle of Britain pilots.

As for the reality of flying aircraft, what's your experience of flying Spitfires in combat?

I'll take my info from people who know what they are talking about, because they were there, thanks.

Originally Posted by Crumpp

MMMM, maximum performance = follow the book

You're sarcasm is palpable.

It's simply not the truth. I'll say it again, The RAE themselves (They conducted the 109 vs Spitfire mock dogfights) found that the reason in initial tests a Spitfire could not shake a 109 of it's tail was because the pilot's were backing off as soon as the buffet set in, when in fact it was possible to fly with the juddering and make a tighter turn. So max turning at least was achieved by not following 'the book'

Originally Posted by Crumpp

Maximum Performance AND you get to stay alive!!

No if you follow the book, you can't shake a 109, and you die.

Originally Posted by Crumpp

If you read this primer on Pilot Operating Instructions, you will find that for most maximum performance there is ONLY one point or airspeed that maximum performance can be obtained. That point is linked to the physical design of the aircraft and is given to the pilot by the engineers. There is nothing to be "conservative" about. Additionally, the margins are such there is very little room engineering wise to be "conservative" and still produce a machine that flys.

And what exactly has this got to do with combat flying? Irrelevant, they did whatever they could to stay alive.

[TomcatViP]

Guys we are now entering the irrational. What is not on the book or reported being said by only a few without charts & nbr as a back up is not debatable.

One thing is sure. Some can perform more than other and surely by a slight margin (there is no post stall manoeuvrability in a spit !) some did.

What we care here as a rendering of RL situation would be that very specific node were experienced will get trough with a "slight margin" of G and other that will fear a sudden stall or fail in an accelerated stall aggravated with a wing over with a minor slip angle (that we can all agree - it's documented).

Stick shaking would be not necessary (and hardly done without th erequired hardware compatibility) but head shaking and blur with increasing effect are example of what wld be "easy" to implement. Of course this is speculation. But damn me if any reader here won't prefer TC speculations to both of your tigers pi**ng contest.

On that base it is possible to compute the exact buffeting speed with both wings level and use a charts and RL experience for the resulting bank angle achievable before the stall.

Pls be constructive. I hve the feeling that we could help to build of delectable Spitfire at LEAST !

[IvanK]

Crumpp you really don't read what other people post. You sprout falsehoods with abandon, surprising for someone with a "Degree in aeronautical science". Your words just don't match that qualification !

[Crumpp]

Crumpp you really don't read what other people post.

I certainly switched off much of what you said at the constant "your wrong...blah, blah, blah" in your last post over how much lift a wing will produce at flow reversal causing buffeting.

I am sure you understand that aerodynamic buffet is the result of flow reversal of a portion of the wing.

It is especially silly when you flatly state the same thing I am saying and therefore agree in point.

The RAE themselves (They conducted the 109 vs Spitfire mock dogfights)

That is not what I read. The RAE was concerned that pilots were worried about the abrupt stall and subsequent spin entry being afraid to push the airplane. Any sane person would be afraid of that.

Pilots were not finding the limit as IvanK says:

IvanK says:
you ease the back pressure off to get back into the Buzz .... Ideally the very first hint of it.

And I clarified:

Crumpp says:
Ideally the very first hint of it...... No, Ideally you have none at all and are at the point just before any buffeting occurs. That is also what the Spitfire Mk I notes relate

Maximum turn performance will occur at the point just before buffeting begins as the Spitfire POH instructs. That is how the physics works. It does not matter what tricks our mind might play as we shake, rattle, and roll through a turn hunting for that 2D polar CLmax. If you just ease the stick forward to the point the buffeting stops, the airplane will increase in turn rate. With buffet....the entire wing is not working producing maximum lift force in the direction you want it to go....Without buffet...the entire wing is working at your command.