Stability and Control characteristics of the Early Mark Spitfires

[Crumpp]

All the evidence for the Spitfire Longitundinal instability will be posted in this thread, that includes the Operating Notes, Gates conclusions, the NACA results, stability and control engineering opinion, and the steps the RAE took to fix the longitudinal stability in later Marks.

Really? Then please show us your definitive cg drawings for all Spitfire Mk Is.

The weight and balance is a sideline that the RAE did not even believe.

You don't need comprehensive drawings to do a weight and balance. I will explain the process and how it works both for a type AND the individual aircraft later in detail with documents.

In short, like anything that comes off an assembly line has variation. CG limits is no different and there is a range of acceptable limits for the empty weight CG for the type.

A weight and balance is done when the aircraft is complete and the empty weight CG is estabilished. It must be within that tolerance range for the type but the empty weight CG will be specific to the individual aircraft.

That empty weight CG for that specific aircraft then has its specific range for foward and aft limits based on its authorized configurations. That is why the weight and balance is part of the Pilot's Handbook for that aircraft. It is required documentation and just like the Handbook, propeller logs, engine logs, and airframe logbooks follows the aircraft throughout its life.

The minimum equipment you need to do an accurate weight and balance on any aircraft is a tape measure, plumb bob, string, scales, chaulk, and pen/paper.

The NACA used percentage MAC. Once you know the percentage MAC range, you get all the data from the tape measure and scales for the individual aircraft.

[MiG-3U]

The basic airframe dimensions of the Spitfires were unchanged up to the Spitfire IX except the nose section and radiator configuration. The loading table is attached, some parts rewritten for clarity. It's for the Spitfire Ia and Ib but the CoG locations are exactly the same for the Spitfire V (as refered in the right corner of the table).

The exact values of the CoG location are following at accuracy of two decimals (verified from drawings and RM 2525), these are values by RAE and slightly different as given by NZtyphoon because mean aerodynamic chord is at different position, datum line being the same:

The lenght of the mean aerodynamical chord is 78.54"
The datum line is 18.65" behind the leading edge of the mean aerodynamical chord
The datum line is 23.60" behind the leading at the wing root
The CoG of the NACA tested Spitfire V was 31.40" behind the leading edge at the wing root and 7.80" behind the datum line.

[NZtyphoon]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

...and the steps the RAE took to fix the longitudinal stability in later Marks.

The weight and balance is a sideline that the RAE did not even believe.

Please prove that the RAE had no belief in weight and balance, and explain how the RAE took steps to fix so-called longitudinal instability when they had no belief in weight and balance.

Originally Posted by Crumpp

A weight and balance is done when the aircraft is complete and the empty weight CG is estabilished. It must be within that tolerance range for the type but the empty weight CG will be specific to the individual aircraft.

That empty weight CG for that specific aircraft then has its specific range for foward and aft limits based on its authorized configurations. That is why the weight and balance is part of the Pilot's Handbook for that aircraft. It is required documentation and just like the Handbook, propeller logs, engine logs, and airframe logbooks follows the aircraft throughout its life.

NACA did not have any drawings for the Spitfire and specifically state that their measurements might have been in error - without a weight and loading diagram of the specific aircraft tested there is no way to know whether the aircraft was teetering on instability because it was loaded beyond the usual tolerances.

To claim that this report proves all early Spitfires were unstable is a stretch, particularly when the Supermarine chief test pilot Jeffrey Quill, states in his book that the longitudinal stability of the Spitfire I was okay.

[MiG-3U]

Here is the revised CoG part of the loading table attached to make clear how the CoG and use of the bob weight (inertia device) were connected in the case of the original standard elevator:

With DeHavilland propeller:
CoG range 5.4"-7.9" aft of datum point, no inertia device needed
CoG up to 8.2" aft of datum point, 3.5 lbs inertia device
CoG up to 8.6" aft of datum point, 6.5 lbs inertia device

With Rotol propeller:
CoG range 5.4"-7.5" aft of datum point, no inertia device needed
CoG up to 7.8" aft of datum point, 3.5 lbs inertia device
CoG up to 8.2" aft of datum point, 6.5 lbs inertia device

Regarding if the currently flying Spitfires have the bob weighs installed, here is link to a picture of the elevator linkage of the Spitfire Vb BL628 (from spitfiresite.com):

http://spitfiresite.com/2010/07/anat.../07ar_fuse_001

Edit: Attached also the quote from Perkins and Hage to show how the use of bob weigh and CoG at aft center of gravity are connected

[MiG-3U]

And as we all love quotes, here is Quill in Spitfire, Portrait of a legend by Leo McKinstry:

[TomcatViP]

"Convex elevator" ? Does anyone have more details on this ?

[Crumpp]

Attached also the quote from Perkins and Hage to show how the use of bob weigh and CoG at aft center of gravity are connected

Why are you regurgitating the same stuff I just posted. Puzzling...

Anyway, yes, the bob weight artificially increases the stick forces so that the pilot can have more control.

That is band-aid to fix the longitudinal instability the NACA reported!!!

The fact Supermarine recognized that longitudinal instability and took measures to fix it invalidates any pointy tin foil hat theory the instability did not exist.

[Crumpp]

Now let's get back to the NACA report so there is a better understanding of the issue.

We will look at a condition of flight essential to a dogfighter. The ability to make abrupt turns.

The pilot must be able to precisely control the amount of acceleration he loads on the aircraft. All aircraft performance depends on velocity. In order to get maximum performance out of the aircraft above maneuvering speed, Va, he needs to be able to make a 6 G turn and not exceed that load factor to prevent damage to the airframe. Below Va, the pilot needs to control the acceleration so that he does not stall the aircraft making the abrupt maneuver as well being able to maintain a maximum performance turn.

Doing that in an early Mark Spitfire was difficult and something only a skillful pilot could perform.

First the NACA report. Abrupt 180 degree turns were conducted at various entry speeds to gauge the level of control the pilot had in maintaining steady accelerations. The turns were also done to the stall point in order to gauge the behavior and amount of control.

"In turns at speeds high enough to prevent reaching maximum lift co-efficient" means turns above Va.





"By careful flying" a pilot can hold a steady acceleration. That agrees with the Operating Notes warning for the pilot to brace himself against the cockpit to get better control when making turns.

Now lets look at the measured results.



Here we see in a rapid left turn performed at 223 mph the test pilot is unable to hold constant acceleration on the airframe. Very small variations in stick movement and stick force changes of 1-3lbs results in large fluctuations in acceleration.

Next let's look at the pilots ability to control the accelerations in the pre-stall buffet.



Here we see the pilot was able to load the airframe to 5G's in 1 second to reach the pre-stall buffet 3 times. The smooth positive sloped portion of the curve represents the aircraft flying while accelerations are increasing. The top of the acceleration curve represents the pre-stall buffet. The bottom of the curve represents the stall point.

The take away is:

1. The large accelerations change for very little elevator movement.
2. The very rapid rate at which the pilot was able to load the airframe to 5G's.
3. The equally rapid rate at which the airframe unloaded down to 2G's when the pre-stall buffet was encountered. In 1 second, the aircraft went from 5G's to 2G's due to buffet losses. This means a rapid decay in turn rate resulted.
4. The violence of the pre-stall buffet combined with the longitudinal stability and control caused large fluctuations in the accelerations on the aircraft.


Last part of the NACA we will cover for today is the stick force travel. The amount of stick travel as measured by the NACA was not acceptable.




Next let's look at the opinion of Stability and Control Engineers on the Early Mark Spitfires.









Tomorrow I will post some of the plethora of references to this same issue of longitudinal instability as found in the Spitfire Mk I Operating Notes from July 1940. You will see the same references or similar to the same issue the NACA measured in the Spitfire Mk II Operating Notes.

There is no doubt that the Air Ministry was aware of the longitudinal instability of the early mark Spitfires.

[MiG-3U]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

Why are you regurgitating the same stuff I just posted. Puzzling...

Nothing puzzling there, you just forgot to underline the most relevant part for this thread and I fixed it for you; the bob weigh was added because the CoG had slipped too far aft causing londitudinal instability just like Quill notes.

Originally Posted by Crumpp

The fact Supermarine recognized that longitudinal instability and took measures to fix it invalidates any pointy tin foil hat theory the instability did not exist.

Yep, when the CoG slips too far back, instability exist in pretty much every airplane, including Spitfire and Mustang. Bob weighs were used in some models of both fighters exactly for the same reason: CoG shift. Both aircraft were also stable when the CoG was forward enough.

Here is again A&AEE on stability of the early mark Spitfire:

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/k9787-fuel.html

(v) Stability - The aircraft is laterally stable at all speeds except in the immediate vicinity of the stall when it is unstable. The aircraft is directionally stable engine 'OFF' and 'ON' at all speeds, but on the climb this is difficult to assess owing to insufficient rudder bias. Longitudinally, the aircraft is stable with centre of gravity forward, but is unstable with centre of gravity normal and aft with engine 'OFF' and 'ON'.

CoG was at 5.8" aft datum line when the airplane was found to be longitudinally stable, that is 2" more forward than Naca tested. Note that Spitfire IX had CoG around 5" aft datum line at service load, no need for bob weigh.

[NZtyphoon]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

That empty weight CG for that specific aircraft then has its specific range for foward and aft limits based on its authorized configurations. That is why the weight and balance is part of the Pilot's Handbook for that aircraft. It is required documentation and just like the Handbook, propeller logs, engine logs, and airframe logbooks follows the aircraft throughout its life.

Completely wrong, neither individual CG drawings, nor weight and balance sheets were issued with the Pilot's Notes - fighter pilots especially were rarely allocated their own aircraft and had to take what was made available. Pilot's Notes General, Section 7:


Each and every aircraft type used by the RAF and FAA had generic cg/w&b sheets printed, which had fixed fore and aft limits, beyond which the flight qualities started to suffer: Lancaster cg drawings:



Loading diagram up to L7532...


L7533 on...


Careful study shows the cg limits fore and aft were identical, despite different equipment and loadings - the airframe was the same, so the limits stayed the same - those fore and aft limits for ALL early Marks of Merlin engined Spitfires were identical, Mk I to Mk V and were not changed until the modified elevators with larger mass balances were introduced.

It was the responsibility of the groundcrew to ensure that the cg limits were adhered to. The only crews that needed to know the position of the cg were bomber crews with their large disposable loads and multiple crew positions

This is how the cg was calculated:







Relatively small changes in equipment weight and equipment position could still make a big difference to the final cg - a few kg a few inches aft of the rearmost cg position could upset the handling of an aircraft;

NACA made it quite clear that their calculations for the Spitfire may well have been in error - until Crumpp can prove that NACA had calculated the cg position correctly, according to early Spitfire cg data charts, the report needs to be viewed with some suspicion.

Originally Posted by Crumpp

Now let's get back to the NACA report so there is a better understanding of the issue.

We will look at a condition of flight essential to a dogfighter. The ability to make abrupt turns.

The pilot must be able to precisely control the amount of acceleration he loads on the aircraft.
Doing that in an early Mark Spitfire was difficult and something only a skillful pilot could perform.

Where did you get this nonsense? Show me accounts of even trainee pilots who found manoeuvring the early marks of Spitfire difficult - I repeat Supermarine's Chief Test Pilot Jeffrey Quill stated categorically that there was no problem with the longitudinal stability of early Mk I & II Spitfires.