Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainDoggles
First of all, I'm going to disregard things like Active Stability, where you have the computer making lightning-quick corrections to the unstable aircraft to keep it in controlled flight, because I think that this is beyond the scope of what we're talking about here. If we want to get into a discussion on the characteristics of FBW systems and supermaneuverability then we should open a new thread.
|
Fair enough, we are discussing an aircraft without FBW and supermanœvreability
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainDoggles
If an aircraft is unstable, then it will by definition be difficult or impossible for the pilot to precisely control the aircraft during a maneuver. By this I mean the pilot won't be able to hold a constant G-level through a turn, or to keep his guns on target.
I would consider such an aircraft to be highly agile, because it can re-orient its lift and nose vectors quickly and easily. This makes intuitive sense, because an unstable aircraft always wants to depart from equilibrium.
But I don't think that the aforementioned aircraft is particularly maneuverable, because I would define maneuverability as being easy to maneuver precisely and accurately through a wide range of maneuvers. In my opinion, if you have to fight the aircraft the whole time, then it's not very maneuverable, and so I would not consider an aircraft with negative stability to be very maneuverable.
|
I don't see any indications of pilots having to "fight" the Spitfire all the time, so it wouldn't come into your definition of agile but not manœuvreble -
Here are some comments from Alex Henshaw on flying the Spitfire:
http://www.theaviationindex.com/publ...pilots-defence
"With a brief pause for the undercarriage to retract and at 135 m.p.h IAS, the machine would be pulled up into a vertical climb for the first half of a loop.
On reaching almost the extremity of the climb it could then be gently coaxed over at something like 10-15 m.p.h below its normal stalling speed. During this sensitive manœuvre the ailerons would be hard up against the stops but still effective....
The Spitfire would then continue with a series of loops and half-rolls to gain height over the airfield to between 4,000 and 5,000ft. Depending on the precise position of the aircraft in relation to the airfield, the usual procedure was to dive to 450-470 mph in front of the flight shed and then pull out and complete an upward roll to the left, one to the right and a half-roll left. This manœuvre might be repeated or continued with a vertical dive with aileron turns."
"It is generally accepted that the Hurricane made a better gun platform than the Spitfire. I have never fired the guns of a Hurricane, but those top-scoring pilots with whom I have discussed the subject all say that the marvellous feature of the Spitfire was the speed at which the guns could be brought to bear on the target. Their reply to the accusation of "hosing' was that the pilot concerned was a poor shot."