Stability and Control characteristics of the Early Mark Spitfires

[taildraggernut]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

All generality that is not dealing with the Spitfire. The NACA results are published, measured, and available for all to see.

I think the thread has run its course.

Yes, it ran it's course a while ago....anyway looking forward to the 109 debate, is is coming soon?

[winny]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

All generality that is not dealing with the Spitfire. The NACA results are published, measured, and available for all to see.
.

For a MK V

[Sandstone]

Originally Posted by robtek

There are speed changes of about 70mph in less than 15 second documented, if that doesn't take the pilots attention away from other things i don't know what would.
Of course a pilot can manage to control this instability, but he has to work just to keep his ride in a controlled flight, add other factors as gusts, attacking 109's or else and the workload might become too large.

The question is whether the increase in workload caused by the Spitfire's longitudinal stability actually amounted to very much at all. Crumpp has been unable to show that it did and the lack of pilot accounts that even mention longitudinal stability suggests that there was no great problem, even for low-hours pilots. I suspect this is partly because the frequency of the pitch oscillations resulting from the instability was quite low. It's hard to see where this discussion can go given these facts.

Further, I really can't see how pitch sensitivity or instability could in any case be modelled in a flight sim where players use short, spring-centred joysticks with response curves. The situation is made worse in CoD because there is no turbulence or weather in the game (or at least I can't recall any from when I had it installed, but that was many months ago).

[Glider]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

All generality that is not dealing with the Spitfire. The NACA results are published, measured, and available for all to see.

I think the thread has run its course.

I think you forgot this part

I published reports on the Hawker Hurricane (April 1942) (ref. 4.5) followed shortly by one on the Spitfire. The data obtained in these tests served to confirm most of the requirements previously proposed by Gilruth. Other reports followed comparing these results with published data on the German fighter Me109 and with U.S. fighter airplanes. During the war, pilots' lives depended on small differences in performance between the first-line fighters, and continual detailed improvements were made in these fighters. Several research studies were made on improvements, usually on control systems, and close contact was kept with the manufacturers through conferences and preliminary reports.

I think you also forgot this part posted earlier

FIGURE 4.5. Supermarine Spitfire airplane. A high-performance fighter noted for its role in the Battle of Britain and throughout WW II, the Spitfire had desirably light elevator control forces in maneuvers and near neutral longitudinal stability. Its greatest deficiency from the combat standpoint was heavy aileron forces and sluggish roll response at high speeds.

[Glider]

Crumpp
Dyou remember saying this

Originally Posted by Crumpp

NzTtyphoon,

The basis for all modern stability and control was developed during World War II. Outside of Germany, the NACA was the worlds leading organization for Stability and Control.

well the person who wrote the paper starts it with

My career to the present has covered 58 years, all at Langley Research Center in Hampton, Virginia. At the start of my work, the center was called the Langley Memorial Aeronautical Laboratory of the NACA (National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics).

So we can take it that you will read and accept the paper, as it is written by someone who has vast experience in this field, in a place you acknowledge as being (in your words) the NACA was the worlds leading organization.

You also said this

According to all measured standards, it was....

The Operating Notes also reflect it as well as test pilots from England, United States, and Germany.

So why can you cannot find any examples of Test Pilots who say that it was difficult to fly? Its a fair question

[Crumpp]

So we can take it that you will read and accept the paper

Yes you can read the NACA report and the results are measured.

[taildraggernut]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

Yes.

You seemed to include a bit too much text so I edited your quote to what it should have been.

[winny]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

Yes you can read the NACA report and the results are measured.

For a Mk V..

[NZtyphoon]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

NzTtyphoon, The basis for all modern stability and control was developed during World War II. Outside of Germany, the NACA was the worlds leading organization for Stability and Control.

What, no "standards", just a basis? Developed DURING World War 2 because the pace of aeronautical development was such that it was impossible to develop a fixed set of standards -

Originally Posted by Crumpp

I have ignored most of what you write because it is obvious you argue based off emotional attachment and do not understand much of what you claim. It is another red herring like my emotional attachment to a 1938 planning document discussing 16 fighter squadrons using 100 octane fuel...

[Glider]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

I agree. The only counterpoints are now based on emotion and feelings.

I am sorry to disgree with you but the counterpoints, are requests for the Test Pilot reports that you said you had, to support statements, that you made.

Your inability to do so speaks volumes