Stability and Control characteristics of the Early Mark Spitfires

[Crumpp]

So, now all we need is the same data for a MK I and II.

See my post above with the Mk I Operating Notes.

We also have Cm's on the Spitfire Mk I.

[NZtyphoon]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

Great!!

There were several British pioneers of stability and control. In fact, Gates is the one who came up with Aerodynamic Center and Stability Margin.

It made Center of Pressure theory obsolete and was integral part of Gilruths work. Like I said earlier, Gilruth and Gates were good friends.

That does nothing to change the fact the Air Ministry had no measurable standard in place until after the war.

Your link is a meaningless and has no bearing on stability and control standards.

The only part you are right about is that there were several British pioneers of stability and control - the National Physical Laboratory had

made major contributions to advances in theoretical and practical aspects of the stability of aeroplanes, airships, kite balloons and parachutes.

long before NACA, - to claim that the "Air Ministry had no measurable standard in place" until after WW2 shows an abysmal ignorance of the history of aeronautical science in Britain - something which a supposed graduate in aeronautical engineering should know and understand.

Do some basic research Crumpp, before making claims you cannot substantiate.

[Crumpp]

made major contributions

Is not an adopted standard....

[winny]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

See my post above with the Mk I Operating Notes.

We also have Cm's on the Spitfire Mk I.

That Mk I is way too early. Doesn't have the pilot's armour, bullet proof windscreen, etc.. It's at least 300 lb lighter than a Spitfire in BoB trim (around 6,100 lb auw). Check the serial number.

[winny]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

Spitfire Mk I Operating Notes, July 1940.

What do you think the "violent shudder" is.....hint....PRE-STALL BUFFET.

Ok.. NACA report on stalling characteristics of the same MK V





Further on in the report

[taildraggernut]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

Is not an adopted standard....

Why exactly is this relevant in any case? the US managed to put aircraft into production with almost exactly the same 'apparent' problems as the Spitfire, the Mustang III was actually longitudinally 'unstable' while the Spit was neutrally stable, most of the pilot's notes I have read on several WWII aircraft do not permit intentional spinning and do not permit 'flick' manouvers, the free lessons in aerodynamics make for interesting reading to the Layman I'm sure but I'm wondering what the actual point is, the Spitfire never had a bad reputation for stability.

[taildraggernut]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

Spitfire Mk I Operating Notes, July 1940.

What do you think the "violent shudder" is.....hint....PRE-STALL BUFFET.

Precisely....and with an aircraft that is easy to control because it is light in pitch it is much easier for the pilot to control it to the edge of buffet, a Spit pilot only needs to use two fingers to unload the wings at the buffet, easy peasy.

[NZtyphoon]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

Is not an adopted standard....

Wrong, again - the British adopted standards that had been set by the likes of Lanchester, the NPL and Royal Aircraft Factory- the assertion that neither the RAE or Air Ministry had set standards is completely false. See, for example http://aerade.cranfield.ac.uk/reports.html

and

Originally Posted by taildraggernut

Why exactly is this relevant in any case?

Crumpp claimed right at the start of this thread that only the Americans and Germans had adopted standards for stability and control and that the RAE and British Air Ministry had not adopted such standards until after WW2 - such claims show an abysmal ignorance, bias and a lack of objectivity from someone who claims to have in-depth knowledge of aeronautical engineering.

[taildraggernut]

Originally Posted by NZtyphoon

Crumpp claimed right at the start of this thread that only the Americans and Germans had adopted standards for stability and control and that the RAE and British Air Ministry had not adopted such standards until after WW2 - such claims show an abysmal ignorance, bias and a lack of objectivity from someone who claims to have in-depth knowledge of aeronautical engineering.

Yes, this is what I find most confusing, it seems the Spitfire is getting a character assasination based on some entries in pilots notes and flight tests, yet I can find many of the same restrictions in many other pilots notes on other aircraft....American ones no less, so with all these 'adopted' stability and control standards the Americans were producing aircraft with the same apparent problems? the Germans also produced aircraft with what might be considered 'dangerous' characteristis....so why is the Spitfire getting all this attention?

[Robo.]

Originally Posted by taildraggernut

so why is the Spitfire getting all this attention?

Because Crumpp