Stability and Control characteristics of the Early Mark Spitfires

[TomcatViP]

Originally Posted by IvanK

"Darwin Spitfires" is an exceptionally good (though very expensive) book.

On the Spinning side of things Pilots notes (I have) show spinning was permitted on the MKII,V,IX,VIII,XI,XVI,XIV,XIX. Yet to check the other marks.

Dear IvanK,

Is that a reprint ? Because the 1565B does not have this paragraph :
see here (watch out p9 and 10 are in wrong order):

http://www.avialogs.com/list/item/34...in-xii-engines


@Manu : I would hve a look at that book. Thx.

EDIT: is that this one ?

[6S.Manu]

Originally Posted by TomcatViP

@Manu : I would hve a look at that book. Thx.
EDIT: is that this one ?

I have not that book, but looking at the website it seems the right one.

http://www.darwinspitfires.com/

[camber]

Off topic I know but I would add to the recommendations for "Darwin Spitfires" The author is actually local to me, I tried to get in touch but no luck

It has quite in-depth analysis of tactics and technical matters. The Australian Spit Vc had two huge technical problems related to the high altitude they fought. Those guys could almost rely on their prop CSUs failing in dives, leading to 4000rpm and rapid engine failure. Their cannons almost never worked, as the heat piping network basically fell apart. They were at a huge distance from the Supermarine supply line, but I think the RAAF staff let down the frontline by not addressing these problems effectively.

But initial pilot attitudes were a problem as well. Disregarding the American warnings, they didn't realise they were now the Messerchmitts, and the Zeros were the Spitfires. Once those lessons were learned, the Spits were effective.

The real RAAF star of the Pacific was the Beaufighter..another recommendation:
http://www.booksforever.com.au/catal...ing_Death.html

camber

P.S Cmon IvanK, $35 isnt too bad for a good book. You'll just have to cut back on beer

[NZtyphoon]

Originally Posted by camber

Off topic I know but I would add to the recommendations for "Darwin Spitfires" The author is actually local to me, I tried to get in touch but no luck

It has quite in-depth analysis of tactics and technical matters. The Australian Spit Vc had two huge technical problems related to the high altitude they fought. Those guys could almost rely on their prop CSUs failing in dives, leading to 4000rpm and rapid engine failure. Their cannons almost never worked, as the heat piping network basically fell apart. They were at a huge distance from the Supermarine supply line, but I think the RAAF staff let down the frontline by not addressing these problems effectively.

But initial pilot attitudes were a problem as well. Disregarding the American warnings, they didn't realise they were now the Messerchmitts, and the Zeros were the Spitfires. Once those lessons were learned, the Spits were effective.

The real RAAF star of the Pacific was the Beaufighter..another recommendation:
http://www.booksforever.com.au/catal...ing_Death.html

camber

P.S Cmon IvanK, $35 isnt too bad for a good book. You'll just have to cut back on beer

Thanks for the info on the book Ivank - very interesting.

Flying and fighting at 30,000 feet in a tropical environment in a heavily loaded Spitfire VC (trop) was very different to flying and fighting at 10-20,000 feet over SE England in a more lightly loaded Spitfire I or II.

[taildraggernut]

It's rather amusing how now that the OP's initial criticisms of the Spit have been crushed, this whole thread is now descending into criticising the Spit's spinning qualities, now even this theory is being brought into question I wonder what road we will go down next?.....or have we already started the new episode with various internet 'memes' and quotes from favourite books?

The things this thread has really taught us:

the Spitfire was 'slightly' longitudinally unstable, a trait shared with several other types of the era, also we have learned that the Spit was truly a 'maneuverable' aircraft but additionally it had a very key quality of being very controlable, these 2 key attributes are what 'famed' the Spitfire for its delightfullness to fly, which was much more than just an ability to perform aerobatics, it meant the aircraft could be pointed around the sky with confidence and ease, ironic that this thread has been an attack on the Spitfires most redeeming features.
With the real defficiencys that the Spitfire actually had it begs the question why bother starting this thread? a bash at the British aircraft industry for not having 'adopted' stability and control standards? despite the fact the standards that were adopted by other nations were heavily based on the work of British engineers.

[robtek]

Originally Posted by taildraggernut

It's rather amusing how now that the OP's initial criticisms of the Spit have been crushed, this whole thread is now descending into criticising the Spit's spinning qualities, now even this theory is being brought into question I wonder what road we will go down next?.....or have we already started the new episode with various internet 'memes' and quotes from favourite books?

The things this thread has really taught us:

the Spitfire was 'slightly' longitudinally unstable, a trait shared with several other types of the era, also we have learned that the Spit was truly a 'maneuverable' aircraft but additionally it had a very key quality of being very controlable, these 2 key attributes are what 'famed' the Spitfire for its delightfullness to fly, which was much more than just an ability to perform aerobatics, it meant the aircraft could be pointed around the sky with confidence and ease, ironic that this thread has been an attack on the Spitfires most redeeming features.
With the real defficiencys that the Spitfire actually had it begs the question why bother starting this thread? a bash at the British aircraft industry for not having 'adopted' stability and control standards? despite the fact the standards that were adopted by other nations were heavily based on the work of British engineers.

The really amusing thing is how you create this conclusions out of thin air.
And how can presenting facts be recognized as a bashing?
But i am wasting my time, as you still are insist that the Spitfire is the perfect plane with no flaws whatsoever.
Be happy in your delusional world, but also be shure its not shared by so many.

[taildraggernut]

Originally Posted by robtek

The really amusing thing is how you create this conclusions out of thin air.
And how can presenting facts be recognized as a bashing?
But i am wasting my time, as you still are insist that the Spitfire is the perfect plane with no flaws whatsoever.
Be happy in your delusional world, but also be shure its not shared by so many.

With the real defficiencys that the Spitfire actually had it begs the question why bother starting this thread?

it seems I share the oppinions of everyone who ever flew the Spitfire.

Crumpp has presented much documentary information and proceeded to misrepresent what it was really saying.

You are indeed wasting your time.

[taildraggernut]

Thin air indeed......

[lane]

Originally Posted by taildraggernut

It's rather amusing how now that the OP's initial criticisms of the Spit have been crushed, this whole thread is now descending into criticising the Spit's spinning qualities, now even this theory is being brought into question I wonder what road we will go down next?

... ironic that this thread has been an attack on the Spitfires most redeeming features.

I agree, the case made is a real hack job.

[6S.Manu]

Originally Posted by NZtyphoon

Flying and fighting at 30,000 feet in a tropical environment in a heavily loaded Spitfire VC (trop) was very different to flying and fighting at 10-20,000 feet over SE England in a more lightly loaded Spitfire I or II.

IIRC the tropical version had a great disadvantage only at medium-low altitude (under 20k ft).

Sure that Vc was heavier (6900 lbs against 6200 lbs), but the Merlin 46 was more powerful than the Merlin XII. The V climbed better at those altitudes.

Of course the stall speed was higher.