A newbies impression of the 109 and spit

[IvanK]

"Dangerous" I don't believe appears in the NACA Spitfire document that is imo an embellishment. The term unacceptable also needs to be qualified ... it was unacceptable to the criteria NACA was using.

[Crumpp]

"Dangerous" I don't believe appears in the NACA Spitfire document that is imo an embellishment

No that is in the Operating Notes....

The term unacceptable also needs to be qualified ... it was unacceptable to the criteria NACA was using.

Yes, the only defined standards in the world at the time besides the German's. Post-war, the RAE adopted the exact same standards as the NACA.

So, we can say in 1940, the RAE had no standards, they just knew they had a dangerous airplane so they warn the pilot often.

In 1946, the early mark Spitfires would have been labeled as "unacceptable" by the RAE but since they had to have bob-weights, there was no need.

You won't find a Spitfire flying today without bob-weights.

[NZtyphoon]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

No that is in the Operating Notes....
So, we can say in 1940, the RAE had no standards, they just knew they had a dangerous airplane so they warn the pilot often.

They warned the pilot often in one set of Pilot's Notes and nowhere do they say the Spitfire was dangerous. They talk about the onset of blackout during high G manoeuvers but that's it.

Originally Posted by Crumpp

In 1946, the early mark Spitfires would have been labeled as "unacceptable" by the RAE but since they had to have bob-weights, there was no need.

Meaningless, purely hypothetical, therefore irrelevant - the early Spitfires did not need bob-weights in the elevator circuit they came later on the Mk Vs and were superseded by the larger, reshaped elevator mass balances.

Originally Posted by Crumpp

You won't find a Spitfire flying today without bob-weights.

How about a little proof?

Just for interest this story of X4276 describes what a young, trainee Sergeant thought about the dangerous Spitfire:

"The Spitfire was a beautiful aircraft, like a Tiger Moth but with real power. A doddle to fly. We used to throw them about all over the place, as unfortunately I demonstrated."

[WTE_Galway]

Be careful as that "doddle to fly" comment is assuming a fit flight trained RAF pilot moving to the type from something "horrible to fly" like a Gloster Gladiator.

Its very easy to assume doddle to fly means an unfit non-pilot could probably jump in and take it safely for a spin after a few hours training but that is simply not true. Otherwise we would train on Spitfires not Cessna's.

[IvanK]

Thread drift but the Gladiator was actually renown for being an absolute delight to fly too

[robtek]

Originally Posted by IvanK

Thread drift but the Gladiator was actually renown for being an absolute delight to fly too

For a beginner or for a experienced pilot??

I bet the later.

The same with the spitfire elevator lightness, it probably was a delight for a experienced pilot to fly with "two fingers", but very exciting for the still a bit "ham-handed" newbie who had to rely on the pilots notes and basic training instead of experience..

[Glider]

There seems to be a huge underestimation as to the training that takes place before a pilots is given a front line aircraft.

To say but very exciting for the still a bit "ham-handed" newbie who had to rely on the pilots notes and basic training instead of experience is way off the mark. Trainees of all airforces had some form of primary training, advanced training and conversion training.

Gladiators were used in the RAF as part of the conversion training and the best advanced trainers are 'twitchy', Germany used He 51's and no doubt other airforces used similar machines. Early versions of the Hurricane and Me109 were used in conversion training and one of the major problems the RAF had were that there were no earlier versions of the SPit so they were in short supply, hence you often hear that new pilots only had 8 hours on spits when going to the front line. To believe that they relied on basic training and pilots notes is far from the truth.

Also the idea that because pilots of an aircraft were banned from intentional spinning meant that the plane was a danger and could break up is also rubbish. The early Spit 1 pilots notes say that intentional spinning is banned also go on to say that its easy to recover from an accidental spin as long as you allow enough height and ensure your speed is 150 mph. I am sure Crumpp who has extensive spinning experience will agree that the two golden rules are a) make sure you have sufficient height, b) Get your speed up to a safe level

Why did they make this distinction for the first Spits I don't know and no one else does here. There are loads of theories based on various assumptions, wishfull tinking and misapplication of current theory based modern rules designed for civilian use so I will add another one to the pile.

The first Spit pilots in the front line often only had very low hours on type and front line units didn't have Trained Instructors o they wanted to limit the risk. Later on training on the SPits was more rigourous and they lighted up the rules.

[WTE_Galway]

Originally Posted by IvanK

Thread drift but the Gladiator was actually renown for being an absolute delight to fly too

Maybe, but flipping through the records of the RAF prewar Gladiator Squadrons there are an awful lot of "abandoned in spins" , "overshot/undershot runways" and numerous collisions with other aircraft (generally at night) along with one collision with a house in Sussex (admittedly in fog), one with powerlines, one hedge and several with trees.

The squadrons were losing several pilots a year in Gladiators and this was in peace time.

Also note that RAF investigations showed that pilots trained on Gladiators made better Spitfire pilots than those trained in more mundane training aircraft.