Stability and Control characteristics of the Early Mark Spitfires

winny · #1 07-19-2012, 12:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaptainDoggles

IMO, the difference between a MkII and a MkV is much less than the difference between a 109F and a 109G.

My understanding is that a MkV is basically just a MkI but with a Merlin 45. True?
.

It's essentially a MK I airframe, yes. There are differences though.
The airframes were strengthened (I must admit I don't know what this involved)
The radiator scoop under the wing is bigger, and there was a difference in weight .
MK V's had the inertia weight fitted into the elevator system as well. There's also a difference between early V's and late V's, they got heavier as more mods were added.

It's all a bit confusing, I've got Crumpp saying that the stall is horrid and yet I've got a NACA report on the Spitfire stall that says that it has the best stall characteristics of any fighter they had tested and that they were 'desirable'

The other problem I have with this whole argument is that there is no data for the same tests on any of the other a/c in the game (AFAIK). How many WW2 aircraft would have also been considered unstable by NACA?

Al Schlageter · #2 07-19-2012, 12:59 AM

winny it is all about making an Olympus Mons out of a mole hill.

CaptainDoggles · #3 07-19-2012, 01:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Al Schlageter

Olympus Mons

Crumpp · #4 07-19-2012, 02:03 AM

Quote:

It's all a bit confusing, I've got Crumpp saying that the stall is horrid

Read the NACA report.

Stall warning is NOT buffet effect on turn performance.

Accelerated stall is NOT a 1G wings level stall.

Crumpp · #5 07-19-2012, 02:14 AM

Spitfire Mk I Operating Notes, July 1940.

What do you think the "violent shudder" is.....hint....PRE-STALL BUFFET.

Crumpp · #6 07-19-2012, 02:41 AM

Quote:

provided a basis for the adopted measurable standards for stability & control worldwide

Great!! A basis is not an adopted standard, Capeesh??

There were several British pioneers of stability and control. In fact, Gates is the one who came up with Aerodynamic Center and Stability Margin.

It made Center of Pressure theory obsolete and was integral part of Gilruths work. Like I said earlier, Gilruth and Gates were good friends.

That does nothing to change the fact the Air Ministry had no measurable standard in place until after the war.

Your link is a meaningless and has no bearing on stability and control standards.

Crumpp · #7 07-19-2012, 03:49 AM

Quote:

So, now all we need is the same data for a MK I and II.

See my post above with the Mk I Operating Notes.

We also have Cm's on the Spitfire Mk I.

NZtyphoon · #8 07-19-2012, 03:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crumpp

Great!!

There were several British pioneers of stability and control. In fact, Gates is the one who came up with Aerodynamic Center and Stability Margin.

It made Center of Pressure theory obsolete and was integral part of Gilruths work. Like I said earlier, Gilruth and Gates were good friends.

That does nothing to change the fact the Air Ministry had no measurable standard in place until after the war.

Your link is a meaningless and has no bearing on stability and control standards.

The only part you are right about is that there were several British pioneers of stability and control - the National Physical Laboratory had

Quote:

made major contributions to advances in theoretical and practical aspects of the stability of aeroplanes, airships, kite balloons and parachutes.

long before NACA, - to claim that the "Air Ministry had no measurable standard in place" until after WW2 shows an abysmal ignorance of the history of aeronautical science in Britain - something which a supposed graduate in aeronautical engineering should know and understand.

Do some basic research Crumpp, before making claims you cannot substantiate.