why the spit turns most effectively at the limit edge and the 109 doesnt

[Kwiatek]

Originally Posted by raaaid

i found out long ago that if you turn a 109 to the limit eventually you reach 200 kph and starts turning very slow

on the other hand to sustained turn the spit the best is fly it at the stall limit that is as slow as posible

why is this?

anybody?

maybe the slats in the 109 are actually a disadvantage?

Generally slats cause more drag and effect also higher energy bleeding but other hand allows to get higher angle of attack - good for deflection shoting. Spit other hand has elipitical wing desing which reduced induced drag which is important at slow speed and high angle of attack and with lower wings loading it casue less energy bleeding in turns then 109.

I found that slats in CLoD 109 dont work also like should. It is open too late - at too low speed - ab. 150 km/h where it should open at 180 km/h - in level flight with idle power. I think it open also at too high angle of atack - it should open earlier.

Also slats should casue gentle stall in 109 and easy recover in stall or spin.

[Ernst]

Acctualy the 109 stall is not easy to recover in CloD. In the old IL2 when the plane started to stall was only necessary to neutralize the controls and the 109 recovers alone. In CloD the 109 stalls and enter in a flat spin very fast and it is very difficult to recover. This is not historically accurate i guess. The 109 had a gentle stall. Someone with better english have to report this in the bugtracker.

[Buchon]

Originally Posted by Ernst

Acctualy the 109 stall is not easy to recover in CloD. In the old IL2 when the plane started to stall was only necessary to neutralize the controls and the 109 recovers alone. In CloD the 109 stalls and enter in a flat spin very fast and it is very difficult to recover. This is not historically accurate i guess. The 109 had a gentle stall. Someone with better english have to report this in the bugtracker.

That is the standard stall system, Dynamic Stall is a different type of stall.

[Widow17]

i think spits smallest and fastest turn are at about same speed, 109 samllest turn is at a slower speed than its fastest, thats why spits tend to be called easier as you dont have to watch geometrics as much (know when priority drifts to smaller and slower or faster and wider turn)

[Shadylurker]

Dynamic stall

[Buchon]

Lolz

A nice video, the reproduction of the vortex produced by the Dynamic Stall

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Om8Osyxy494

From seeing the cfm clip: That is for me the definition of stall: the breakdown of flow on top of the wing. I do not know of any other definition of stall.

So can somebody explain to me what's so special about dynamic stall?

[Kurfürst]

Originally Posted by Kwiatek

Generally slats cause more drag and effect also higher energy bleeding but other hand allows to get higher angle of attack - good for deflection shoting.

Slats do not cause more drag - higher angles of attack permitted by slats do.

Spit other hand has elipitical wing desing which reduced induced drag which is important at slow speed and high angle of attack and with lower wings loading it casue less energy bleeding in turns then 109.

1, The Spitfire doesn't have elliptical wings, from the aerodynamic POV. Otherwise stall would be awful - a true elliptical wing stall as a whole. That's why most planes have a washout/twist built in the wing to 'ruin' the even lift distribution and make the outer wing area stall later than the inner.
2, Lower induced drag on the Spit doesn't have anything to do with wing shape, its simple that its a huge wing, and needs less angle of attack to provide the same lift. Less angle of attack - less drag.

[Rumcajs]

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

2, Lower induced drag on the Spit doesn't have anything to do with wing shape, its simple that its a huge wing, and needs less angle of attack to provide the same lift. Less angle of attack - less drag.

The wing is elliptical. Lift distribution is modified to a certain degree that's true, but it still has lift more evenly distributed than the wing of a 109. And the elliptical shape is responsible for that. Your claim is not exactly true, because induced drag simply has something to do with the shape and lift distribution. You are right that the wing of a spit is large and that's why lower angle of attack ... ok. But the shape contributes too.
BTW if the elliptical shape didn't bring advantages, why would the Brits bother to manufacture them?

[Kurfürst]

Originally Posted by Rumcajs

The wing is elliptical. Lift distribution is modified to a certain degree that's true, but it still has lift more evenly distributed than the wing of a 109. And the elliptical shape is responsible for that.

I'd love to see some lift distribution graphs to support that.

Your claim is not exactly true, because induced drag simply has something to do with the shape and lift distribution. You are right that the wing of a spit is large and that's why lower angle of attack ... ok. But the shape contributes too.

Certainly shape is a factor, but I do not think it's a major or measurable factor compared to sheer wing size. The Spitfire had a very large wing for a very small airframe, much larger than any other with the possible exception of the Zero.

If wing shape would have been such a factor, planes like the Curtiss Hawk, Zero or Hawker Hurricane wouldn't run circles around the Spitfire, but they did.

BTW if the elliptical shape didn't bring advantages, why would the Brits bother to manufacture them?

Simply because the British Air Ministry specified an 8-gun armament, and Supermarine could not find space in the wings to house them without enlarging the original trapezoid wing of the Spitfire (which was meant for a four gun armament). The design team was simply practical about it.