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:

Originally Posted by NZtyphoon (Post 450306)

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.

Having confidence in the plane is a lot different from confidence in yourself... confidence in the machine is the one who kills you... it's one of the reason people get killed in motor accidents.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NZtyphoon (Post 450306)

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.

That statement it's clearly referred to the WW2, when it's WAS archaic.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 6S.Manu (Post 450316)

Having confidence in the plane is a lot different from confidence in yourself... confidence in the machine is the one who kills you... it's one of the reason people get killed in motor accidents.

I would really like to see some evidence of this being true and that it isn't just a piece of pop-psychology.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 6S.Manu (Post 450316)

That statement it's clearly referred to the WW2, when it's WAS archaic.

Who said it and why? Ahhh, found it and, wouldn't you know it, it is being used in the context of the Spitfire VC v A6M2 over Darwin, when RAAF pilots discovered trying to out manœvre an aircraft which was even more manœvreable and handy in a dogfight was tactically futile. What it also states is:

Quote:

It was only at higher speeds that the Spitfire started to enjoy a relative advantage. Because the Zero’s controls stiffened up even more rapidly than the Spitfire’s, the Zero had great difficulty in following the Spitfire through high speed manoeuvres where the pilot pulled a lot of G. From about 290 knots, the Zero had great difficulty following the Spitfire through diving aileron rolls. The conclusion was that the Spitfire was more manoeuvrable above 220 knots, while the Zero was the better below that speed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bongodriver (Post 450311)

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.

Warning on pilot's notes are not a fabrication.

According the numbers posted by Glider (even if they're from an limited investigation on only 121 accidents... a small sample of course) the 38% of those planes were lost for a overstressed airframe issue.

Quote:

The next most serious cause of structural failure in the Spitfire was pilots overstressing the airframe. She was extremely responsive on the controls and one must remember that in those days there was no accelerometer to tell the pilot how close he was to the limit. So it was not difficult to exceed the aircraft's 10G ultimate stress factor during combat or when pulling out from a high speed dive; during the war we were able to put down 46 major accidents to this cause, though undoubtedly there were many other occasions when it happened and we did not see the wreckage. Incidentally, if there was a structural failure in the Spitfire it was almost inevitably the wing that went; the fuselage was far less likely to fail first (the same for most low wing monoplane fighters?-except the Typhoon?- Berkshire).

Is it an OP's fabrication?

Do you really think that this kind of issue has not to be simulated? On all the planes, of course.

Quote:

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

Really?

- 109's fans want to talk about Spitfire to avoid attention on their plane
- Spitifire's fans want to talk about 109 to avoid attention on their plane

Great logic IMO.
Can you suggest a plane to talk about to avoid attention on the P51 (my favourite plane with the 190)?

Why can't we admit that those were high performance fighters and everyone of these had some issues? We should just take note of that to have a realistic sim and then we can start to analyze another plane.

Let's do it in a mature way... in this thread there are to many childish reactions and it's clear that all is created by the same few posters who keep fighting in every WW2 message board of the web.

You guys remember the topic of this thread, don't you?
It's about ONE specific plane and that one only.
Stop digressing.

Quote:

Warning on pilot's notes are not a fabrication.

They are simply warnings, not an indication of a particular dangerous characteristic....you know like 'always wear safety glasses'

Quote:

According the numbers posted by Glider (even if they're from an limited investigation on only 121 accidents... a small sample of course) the 38% of those planes were lost for a overstressed airframe issue.

So 38% of 121 investigations is proof?, it just means that from an already tiny amount less than half were attributable to airframe failure.

Quote:

Is it an OP's fabrication?

What the OP is fabricating is a larger problem, nobody claims 'no' Spitfires ever 'broke up', if you really wanted to you could 'break' any aircraft through overstress and the Spitfire was not notorious for it, just because it had sensitive elevators that 'could' do it it doesn't mean that it was a regular occurrence, the OP almost seems to be insisting that these problems should become apparent during normal operating ranges of speed and manouvers......I wonder why:rolleyes:

Quote:

Really?

- 109's fans want to talk about Spitfire to avoid attention on their plane
- Spitifire's fans want to talk about 109 to avoid attention on their plane

Yep....why didn't we get a 109 thread first?

Quote:

Great logic IMO.
Can you suggest a plane to talk about to avoid attention on the P51 (my favourite plane with the 190)?

if they had anything to do with the BoB scenario in Cliffs of Dover.

Quote:

Why can't we admit that those were high performance fighters and everyone of these had some issues? We should just take note of that to have a realistic sim and then we can start to analyze another plane.

When did anybody deny it?....sooo in order to have a realistic sim we must first make the Spit useless? then we can make the rest accurate?

Quote:

Let's do it in a mature way... in this thread there are to many childish reactions (where the worst is blamimg other guys to be anti-British) and it's clear that all is created by the same few posters who keep fighting in every WW2 message board of the web.

I'd like you to delete the bit in bold, or I will have to complain as I find it offensive.

Ivan can you point me to that info i couldnt find it

Quote:

Originally Posted by NZtyphoon (Post 450320)

I would really like to see some evidence of this being true and that it isn't just a piece of pop-psychology.

Can I said the same thing about your first statement?

It's easy to realize that the probability to make mistakes is bigger doing "easy" things, while people are more careful doing things who can have unforgivable reactions.

It's called overconfidency. The easier is the task, the bigger is the probabilty of overconfidence.

http://www.readperiodicals.com/201201/2592264861.html

Quote:

When I would come home, conversations between my Dad and I would frequently drift to flying and his stories about friends he had lost in training and in combat meant even more to me. I too was seeing many pilots, very good pilots, make fatal mistakes. A lot of our discussions centered on the bad attitudes that can get one in trouble in the flying business: complacency, "get-home-itis," pressing minimum altitudes or separation distances, and overconfidence. The last one, overconfidence, intrigued me. As a young single-seat fighter pilot, I knew I needed to be confident in my skills to fly the airplane as aggressively as the situation required. But how could too much confidence in my skills get me in trouble?

As a 2Lt copilot in a B-26, my Dad's experienced and overconfident aircraft commander got too slow trying to climb over the top of a thunderstorm. He stalled the aircraft and put it into a flat spin. Only my Dad and one other crew member survived. Forty years later, when I was a 2Lt, one of my best friends was an extremely talented pilot and arguably had some of the best "hands" in the squadron. But his overconfidence bordered on recklessness, and it eventually killed him. As a single-seat fighter pilot, I knew I needed to be sure of my ability to fly the airplane, but I was determined to not let myself get overconfident and put myself in an untenable situation.

About my statement I realize that it's wrong, and I wrote something different from what I initially wanted... and still I'm not finding a way to put it down firstly in my first language.

Anyway It's OT.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NZtyphoon (Post 450320)

Don't change argument: it's not a statement related to the plane model... it's a general one about WW2 air warfare.

Anyway I love the way you keep posting only the parts that follow your agenda even if there are noone contesting it: it's a Zero's known issue the one about its high speed manouvrability...

Ah.., sorry I forgot: it's the "Look how better is my plane" agenda.

Quote:

Ah.., sorry I forgot: it's the "Look how better is my plane" agenda

This is becoming trolling...

Quote:

Originally Posted by bongodriver (Post 450332)

Yep....why didn't we get a 109 thread first?

Do we have to make a poll do decide which plane is the first one to be analysed? Above all by a person who actually does it for free and it's not one of our employers?

I've not problem on which one is the first plane... we have to start from something.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bongodriver (Post 450332)

When did anybody deny it?....sooo in order to have a realistic sim we must first make the Spit useless? then we can make the rest accurate?

Why useless? Does realistic mean useless?

You say "then"... if a new feature is been added to the FM engine I expect it to be modelled in every plane... implementing a new v2.0 FM for a model leaving the other plane with the v1.0 is not a professional way to act... of wait.. about IL2 I remember new Lods against old ones... I don't want something like that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bongodriver (Post 450332)

I'd like you to delete the bit in bold, or I will have to complain as I find it offensive.

It's not about you... it's about a guy who I put into my ignore list since I was being anti-British claiming that the Spitfire myth is partially born because it's a simbol of the British's win. As P51 for the americans, T34 for the russian ect. does that make me an anti-american and anti-russian?

Quote:

Originally Posted by bongodriver (Post 450339)

This is becoming trolling...

Please explain to me what is the reason to quote that the Spitfire was more manouvrable of the Zero at high speed... above all when the argument was totally another one.

Quote:

They are simply warnings, not an indication of a particular dangerous characteristic....you know like 'always wear safety glasses'

Completely, absolutely, utterly false and extremely dangerous attitude.

Engineering tolerances are naturally tight due to the physics of flight. The POH instructions are part of the airworthiness of the design.

In the famous 100 Octane thread, I posted the convention that makes compliance a legal issue. The Operating Instructions carry the weight of law from the aviation authority of the convention signer. Only by explicit instruction is deviation authorized. An example of that explicit instruction is found in the RAF General Pilot's Operating Notes.

Statistically, deviation from those instruction is a factor in the vast majority of aviation accidents whether the deviation, such as the allowance for combat in the RAF General Pilot's Notes, is authorized or not.

All of this is off topic. Start another thread if you want to discuss POH compliance issues.