Stability and Control characteristics of the Early Mark Spitfires

[Crumpp]

Because IMO in combat area easily a damaged plane would be taken down by the enemy...

That is correct. A bent airframe is not good. The plane is hard to control and weakenend.

I ask because of the possibility of not investigated accidents regarding structural failure

There were plenty of uninvestigated accidents. In wartime, they would be chaulked up to the enemy. Common sense tells us that wings coming off in a dogfight would be chaulked up to enemy fire or pilot suddenly breaking out of a turn to wings level was hit.

There would be no way to resurect the dead or examine the wreckage to discover the airframe was broken during a flick maneuver or bent in a hard turn above Va.

Facts are we will never be able to quantify that statistic. None of this changes the defined and measured characteristics of the aircraft nor does it invalidate the Operating Note warnings.

Where does he say only Mk 1 and II's?

The issue was solved in the Spitfire Mk V!!

You understand that the bob-weights and subsequent empennage changes to the design were to fix the instability??

It is only a factor in the early Mark Spitfires.

Aerodynamically, the instability is a very easy fix. The only reason it was not solved much earlier is the fact the Air Ministry had no defined standards for stability and control. Without measureable standards, the pilot stories of "easy to fly" simply overshadowed the few engineers who knew better.

[NZtyphoon]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

The issue was solved in the Spitfire Mk V!!

You understand that the bob-weights and subsequent empennage changes to the design were to fix the instability??

It is only a factor in the early Mark Spitfires.

Please provide documented evidence that Henshaw was only referring to Spitfire Is and IIs, otherwise this is just clutching at straws.

AA876 Vb 2223 EA M45 FF 25-10-41 during test flight 6-2-42 George Pickering reached a speed of 520mph in a dive. The aircraft disintigrated He was severely injured and never flew again. SOC before delivery not to be replaced. Airframe to RAE 9-4-42 for accident invest

MA480 IX CBAF M63 46MU 1-6-43 82MU 14-6-43 La Pampa 2-7-43 Casablanca 14-7-43 Middle East 1-9-43 Dived into ground Egypt FACB 10-10-43

[Al Schlageter]

So can we take it that Crumpp, given, the chance, would not pilot an early Mk of Spitfire as it was a death trap?

Notice they are all over the sky and even upside down.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=TXxzlOH92as

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c6c3v...eature=related

[Glider]

Originally Posted by Al Schlageter

So can we take it that Crumpp, given, the chance, would not pilot an early Mk of Spitfire as it was a death trap?

Notice they are all over the sky and even upside down.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=TXxzlOH92as

Crumpp you better talk to Duxford they may not know what you know

[Glider]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

That is correct. A bent airframe is not good. The plane is hard to control and weakenend..

True but it gets you home a broken one doesn't

.

The issue was solved in the Spitfire Mk V!!

You understand that the bob-weights and subsequent empennage changes to the design were to fix the instability??

It is only a factor in the early Mark Spitfires..

True but you need to prove that he is only talking about Mk I and II. Its worth remembering that the fix wasn't in place for the start of Mk V production so you need to factor that in.

And you still need to prove that there were any bent wings in the BOB waiting repair let alone the statement you made. Without evidence you have no back up and its only another unsupported theory.

[6S.Manu]

Originally Posted by Glider

True but it gets you home a broken one doesn't

That's right.

Please try to understand that my target here is not having Spitfires losing wings at every turn... it's having a player who must take care of that as the real pilots did.

[bongodriver]

Originally Posted by 6S.Manu

That's right.

Please try to understand that my target here is not having Spitfires' losing wings at every turn... it's having a player who must take care of that as the real pilots did.

Hopefully not just the Spitfire, the 109 had particularily weak wing roots I believe....but hopefully we will get a whole new thread about that one.

[6S.Manu]

Originally Posted by bongodriver

Hopefully not just the Spitfire, the 109 had particularily weak wing roots I believe....but hopefully we will get a whole new thread about that one.

Of course!! But it's seems that some people really don't care about having a realistic sim.

[bongodriver]

Originally Posted by 6S.Manu

Of course!! But it's seems that some people really don't care about having a realistic sim.

Yes, and I've been argueing with them for 70 odd pages now.

[Crumpp]

They restricted the CG.



The Spitfire is placarded against spinning.

......we all know they were allowed to spin right?

His Mustang is prohibited from spinning too.

I know you are going to come straight back with the 'look, it says no intentional spinning' but that is a blanket ban on permit to fly aircraft for similar reasons to the RAF's operational reasons during the war, an unnecessary and risky manouver and the aircraft are very expensive.

Of course, nothing to do with the original aircraft being placarded.