Official Fulqrum Publishing forum - Stability and Control characteristics of the Early Mark Spitfires

Official Fulqrum Publishing forum (http://forum.fulqrumpublishing.com/index.php)

- FM/DM threads (http://forum.fulqrumpublishing.com/forumdisplay.php?f=196)

- - Stability and Control characteristics of the Early Mark Spitfires (http://forum.fulqrumpublishing.com/showthread.php?t=33245)

Quote:

There were stories of Spit wings in huge piles at maintenance units as fractured wings were replaced after sharp pullouts at low levels

http://members.madasafish.com/~d_hod...wker-Vspit.htm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crumpp (Post 450250)

http://members.madasafish.com/~d_hod...wker-Vspit.htm

Oh wow a website :rolleyes: How 'bout some tangible, documented evidence to back up these stories?

Alex Henshaw's observations:

(Note Comment on Spitfire as gun platform)
http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k3...-page-003a.jpg

something not mentioned so far, possible maladjustment of the tailplane fairing shroud, which could affect the handling: of further note the Spitfire could safely be dived past the Vne set by Supermarine and noted in the Pilot's Notes.
http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k3...-page-001a.jpg

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crumpp (Post 450250)

There were stories of Spit wings in huge piles at maintenance units as fractured wings were replaced after sharp pullouts at low levels
http://members.madasafish.com/~d_hod...wker-Vspit.htm
http://members.madasafish.com/~d_hod...wker-Vspit.htm

There are stories of Me109s that made large craters after they failed to pull out of dives, because the aircraft was too stable...:

Quote:

Range of Investigation. – The handling tests covered the following ground : – ease of take-off and landing ; trim and stability ; " one control " tests, flat turns and sideslips ; stalling tests, including a determination of CLmax ; high-speed dive ; harmony and " feel " of the controls.

An investigation of the fighting qualities of the Me. 109 included dog fights with Hurricanes and Spitfires, measurement of aileron forces and times to bank at speeds up to 400 m.p.h., and an analysis of the turning performance of the aircraft.

Pilots' views on cockpit layout, comfort and view are given in an Appendix to the report.

Conclusions. – (i) Take-off is fairly straightforward. Landing is difficult until the pilot gets used to the aircraft.

Longitudinally the aircraft is too stable for a fighter. There is a large change of directional trim with speed. No rudder trimmer is fitted ; lack of this is severely felt at high speeds, and limits a pilot's ability to turn left when diving.

Fin area and dihedral are adequate. The stall is not violent, and there is no subsequent tendency to spin. CLmax is 1.4, flaps up and 1.9, flaps down. No vibration or " snaking " develop in a high-speed dive.

Aileron snatching occurs as the slots open. All three controls are far too heavy at high speeds. Aerobatics are difficult.

(ii) The Me. 109 is inferior as a fighter to the Hurricane or Spitfire. Its manoeuvrability at high airspeeds is seriously curtailed by the heaviness of the controls, while its high wing loading causes it to stall readily under high normal accelerations and results in a poor turning circle.

At 400 m.p.h. a pilot, exerting all his strength, can only apply 115 aileron, thereby banking 45 deg. in about 4 secs. From the results Kb, for the Me. 109 ailerons was estimated to be - 0.145.

The minimum radius of turn without height loss at 12,000 ft., full throttle, is calculated as 885 ft. on the Me. 109 compared with 696 ft. on the Spitfire...

...4.62. Elevator. – The elevator is an exceptionally good control at low speeds ; it is fairly heavy, and is not over sensitive during the approach glide, while response is excellent. Throughout the speed range the elevator is heavier than that of the Hurricane or Spitfire, but up to 250 m.p.h. this is not objected to, since it is very responsive. Above 250 m.p.h. the elevator becomes definitely too heavy for comfort, and between 300 m.p.h. and 400 m.p.h. is so heavy that maneuvrability in the looping plane is seriously restricted; when diving at 400 m.p.h. a pilot, pulling with all his strength, cannot put on enough g to black himself out if trimmed in the dive.
http://kurfurst.org/Tactical_trials/...ls/Morgan.html

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seadog (Post 450267)

There are stories of Me109s that made large craters after they failed to pull out of dives, because the aircraft was too stable...:

.

Again Red vs Blue????

Quote:

Originally Posted by robtek (Post 450287)

Again Red vs Blue????

Why is it red v blue?....AFAIK it's true, I'm not so sure what the apparent significance of an annecdote about Spitfire wings in piles is, presumably the aircraft returned home to have their wings replaced if it's true.

Having a note saying wingss got damaged is no good for the game. Need to know the g limit numbers for the aircraft to model structural damage from manouvers, regardless of what plane it is. That should have its own thread to find them for each plane in the game?

That data Macro is known. The issue is the FM doesnt really model structural G limits. DT have done this in IL2 4.10 and up.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bongodriver (Post 450290)

Why is it red v blue?....

It's amusing the fact that people need to bring on another plane (or better "those" other planes) to defend a plane issue clearly written in the pilot's notes book.

But it's not a Red vs Blue, of course...

At time we'll talk about those planes too...

Quote:

Originally Posted by bongodriver (Post 450290)

presumably the aircraft returned home to have their wings replaced if it's true.

Of course the RTBed aircrafts would have the wings replaced, but why did they need to replace them? Couldn't them still fight in that condition? Or maybe it was an issue this sim needs to reproduce?

Since I'm not sure that a plane with overstressed wings can be effective in the way many virtual pilots are used to fly it. Instead I'm sure that a plane with a damaged wings' structure will not fly as it did before and the pilot needs to take it back ASAP... above all if it's a high performance fighter!

If we make a mistake, pulling up too much so that the wings' structure is damaged (even if not critically) and we are enought lucky and the wings are still there does not mean that we can fight as nothing is happened.

It's an issue of every plane, and it should be simulated correctly: then there are planes more prone to this problem (the ones with sensitive elevator maybe?).

From the pilot's notes:

Quote:

Diving: The aeroplane becomes very tail heavy at high speed and must be trimmed into the dive in order to avoid the danger of excessive acceleration in recovery. The forward trim should be wound back as speed is lost after pulling out.

I don't recall to do it in any simulator... If I trim it's only to keep the nose on the target, not because of a probable structure damage. Probably only in IL2 1946 after the DT's work.. but only in planes carrying a heavy load.

Then we can talk about the effect of a slightly damaged wings' structure on the plane, but it's another matter: it's still sure that it's not a good thing for a fighter (until the new myth "Spitfires could fly at full performance even with damaged wings!")

Quote:

Originally Posted by robtek (Post 450287)

Again Red vs Blue????

Again, as far as I can tell there are no rules in this forum against citing German aircraft as an example of potentially deadly flight characteristics. ;)

Quote:

A whole generation of pilots learned to treasure the Spitfire for its delightful response to aerobatic manoeuvres and its handiness as a dogfighter. Iit is odd that they had continued to esteem these qualities over those of other fighters in spite of the fact that they were of only secondary importance tactically.Thus it is doubly ironic that the Spitfire’s reputation would habitually be established by reference to archaic, non-tactical criteria.

What this doesn't say is that pilots who have trust and confidence in the handling and capabilities of their aircraft will carry that confidence into battle, which, in itself of tactical value. Secondly, the claim that aerobatic manoeuvres and handiness as a dogfighter are somehow tactically archaic flies in the face of modern fighters such as the Su-27 or F-16 or F-22 which were deliberately designed to be good at aerobatics and be handy in a dogfight, if need be.

Quote:

Of course the RTBed aircrafts would have the wings replaced, but why did they need to replace them? Couldn't them still fight in that condition? Or maybe it was an issue this sim needs to reproduce?

You miss the point, it's been a claim since the beginning of this thread that Spits broke up in flight, now it's come down to piles of wings, both theories are pure anecdotes and have no proof whatsoever.....so what is it? do they break up? or do they just bend wings?......or is it in fact neither because the apparent problem is all a fabrication?.....my vote is the latter because it is clear this thread is about nothing more than a desparate attempt to pork the Spit, there won't be a 109 thread...not from the OP anyway.....I see no reason one couldn't have been started already.....well the reason is actually obvious, it avoids bringing unwanted attention to the favoured aircraft, people can just rip the Spit to shreds and make all the accusations of Spit 'fanboys' or red v blue agendas in the Spit thread.