Quote:
Originally Posted by 41Sqn_Stormcrow
Walking to the wingtip without making move the plane (Mustang) is barely an indicator of the wing strength. I'd say it didn't move because the landing gear is set so much more apart from each other in a P51 than in a Spit that made the difference here.
|
If you ever get a chance get to the wingtip of a Spit, rock its wing and see what happens, then do the same on a Mustang (if you can grab the tip that is, it's SO thick!). The whole impression you get from being around a Spitfire that it was designed with (mostly wrong) performance in mind, not with sturdiness as main concern.
Quote:
One thing is fact which in turn is exploited today on purpose for modern fighter design but which also extends to other domains:
The less stable a device is the more prone is it to change its state. This principle can be exploited in a beneficial way. If you make something instable it is more easier to move around. For instance designs like the Eurofighter is instable and only kept on course because of computer software. This inherent instability allows to be more manoeuverable than a stable plane because anythings stable will tend to maintain its current status and is highly unwilling to assume another state (that is another attitude or flight direction).
So if the Spit is as manoeuverable it is likely on the edge of stability and thus somewhat nerveous.
|
that is true with designs which are
designed to behave as such. The Spit wing was designed in a time when transonic and supersonic envelopes hadn't been fully explored yet, and its flexibility could prove fatal if stressed under sustained heavy G loads.
Some years ago I had the chance to speak to a gentleman who fought first with Macchi 202 and then with Bf109s for the Regia Aeronautica. He met Spitfires over Northern Africa and he said that in two separate occasions saw two Spits diving to chase Macchis only to lose controls under what seemed to be compressibility issues of the tail surfaces.