A newbies impression of the 109 and spit

[Crumpp]

Quill was a no nothing pilot who just operated the controls and hoped for the best

That is not what I said. Pilots in the 1930's and 1940's were given only very elementary training in aerodynamics. It was considered unnecessary and demanded too much mathematical knowledge. That is straight out of the RAF Flying Manual.

They are not the experts in aerodynamics that we see today in the cockpit.

Glider,

The Spitfire Mk I had unacceptable longitudinal instability. The RAE knew it and corrected it in later marks.

It is a fact.

3/4 inch stick movement to run the usable Angle of Attack range at weak or neutral stability with light stick forces is going to make for a squirrely airplane.



Read the report, the stick force gradient on the longitudinal axis was considered too light by most of the pilots.

By careful flying, maximum performance turns could be made.

The yaw wise stability experiences a pitch up with large deflections that coupled with the longitudinal instability caused the plane to experience rapid accelerations. That means it is very difficult for the pilot to precisely control the elevator. That asymetrical loading is what can cause the airframe to break apart in spin recovery.

[Crumpp]

Guys,

The Spitfire was a great airplane and a very effective fighter. There was no such thing as a Stability and Control Engineer when the Spitfire was designed.

It was a new science and almost all of the World War II era fighters have some sort of stability and control issue. It is just as important as the aerodynamics in their fighting abilities.

The Bf-109 had issues with the coupling effects of yaw-wise and the lateral axis at high speed.

The FW-190 and P-51 had longitudinal axis stick force reversals at low speeds.

Airplanes simply got faster and heavier so quickly that the engineering science did not keep up. It did matter so much when airplanes were slow and light.

[bongodriver]

The average military pilot might have had basic aerodynamics training but you can bet you ass test pilots had alot more.

[Glider]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

Guys,

The Spitfire was a great airplane and a very effective fighter. There was no such thing as a Stability and Control Engineer when the Spitfire was designed.

It was a new science and almost all of the World War II era fighters have some sort of stability and control issue. It is just as important as the aerodynamics in their fighting abilities.

The Bf-109 had issues with the coupling effects of yaw-wise and the lateral axis at high speed.

The FW-190 and P-51 had longitudinal axis stick force reversals at low speeds.

Airplanes simply got faster and heavier so quickly that the engineering science did not keep up. It did matter so much when airplanes were slow and light.

This I totally agree with, problems were not unique to the Spitfire.

[Crumpp]

This I totally agree with, problems were not unique to the Spitfire.

The Spitfire has unique stability and control characteristics.

The most outstanding issue is the Longitudinal Stability and Control of the early marks.

This was corrected in later variants.

The average military pilot might have had basic aerodynamics training but you can bet you ass test pilots had alot more.

Not really Bongo. They were the guys that had the balls to climb into an uproven machine.

Hans Sander related a story of performing a max G pullout from a dive in the early testing of the FW-190. The aircraft was well into the transonic realm of flight and upon recovery exhibited water vapor condensation behind the normal shock.

It turned the wings completely white for a second. He had no idea at the time what happenend and effect scared the pants off him at first. He thought something was wrong with the aircraft. He paused, ensured he had control of the aircraft and all engine indications were in the green. He was prepared to bail out if necessary.

You can see the same effect in this video:

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

[bongodriver]

Nice video, what was it and what are wings? I don't know what this aerodynamite is you speak of.....I'm only a pilot.

[Crumpp]

Nice video, what was it and what are wings? I don't know what this aerodynamite is you speak of.....I'm only a pilot.

In context, the pilots of the 1930's and early 40's had never experienced such a thing.

[Glider]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

The Spitfire has unique stability and control characteristics.

The most outstanding issue is the Longitudinal Stability and Control of the early marks.

This was corrected in later variants.

But everyone said that it was easy to fly, were all the pilots stupid of every nation. Or could it be that the training and the pilots notes did what they should do, warn and enable the pilots to get used to it.

All aircraft have their own unique feature, old and new. To pretend that only the Spitfire had its own problems is foolish pilots notes are not the be all and end all. Most planes have a warning that intentional spins should be avoided but they get spun. The notes are a warning, no more no less

[Kurfürst]

Define easy to fly.

[Crumpp]

Most planes have a warning that intentional spins should be avoided but they get spun.

This is just not true. Spinning an aircraft that is not approved is just plain stupid. The only people that do it are those who do not understand the aerodynamics.

There is a good reason it is not approved to spin. Reason's like it does not recover for example.

Even aerobatic aircraft that must pass spin testing can enter unrecoverable conditions.

"Mayday mayday mayday Pitts 260DB in an unrecoverable flat spin at 3,500 feet."

The airplane crashed in the Everglades, coming to rest partially inverted and nearly vertical in several feet of water. The canopy, which had been jettisoned in flight, was several hundred feet away. The bodies of the pilots were closer by the wreckage; both had bailed out, but there had not been time for their parachutes to open.

Why did this aerobatic aircraft enter an unrecoverable condition in a spin?

Only one aft limit for the CG is specified, but it assumes the maximum acrobatic weight; excessive weight exaggerates the effect of an aft CG position on spin recovery.

The pilot failed to adhere to the Operating Limits as listed in the Pilots Manual. He violated the airworthiness of the design. The aft CG flattened the spin until the dirt barrier stopped it.

http://www.flyingmag.com/safety/acci...overable-spins

Easy to fly doing what? A few circuits of the field, cross country cruise, rolls or loop or two? Sure it was easy to fly.

Easy to fly is very subjective. Longitudinal stability and control measurements and characteristics are not subjective. They are quantifiable characteristics with definitive limits.