Stability and Control characteristics of the Early Mark Spitfires

[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......

[TomcatViP]

"to soon or to quickly" - see IVANK post just bellow

Look at page 17 IvanK. That would hve been a point of concern for anyone. In a combat situation, try to imagine yourself trying to understand the meaning of to soon or to quickly when your plane just departed knowing that somewhere around there is a Hun ready to put the pipper on you.

I am not saying that the Spitfire was dangerous to fly, IMOHO and I think that's the real meaning of that thread, the Spitfire was as not as easy to handle as a FBW plane. There is a huge divergence in handling btw what we can read on that plane and was is depicted in IL2.

Many of us have waited years during the old's IL2 days. Now it's enough. Let's end the farce and contribute all to a more representative FM.

[taildraggernut]

Originally Posted by TomcatViP

"to soon or to quickly" - see IVANK post just bellow

Look at page 17 IvanK. That would hve been a point of concern for anyone. In a combat situation, try to imagine yourself trying to understand the meaning of to soon or to quickly when your plane just departed knowing that somewhere around there is a Hun ready to put the pipper on you.

.

Presumably the main concern was the Hun that already had their pipper on you that caused tyou to spin.
Concern? it's actually reasonably typical behaviour for most aircraft, thats why you always get the opposite rudder in first in a 'standard' spin recovery.
This is just getting silly now, analysing the finite points of the Spitfire spin qualities, but I guess some of you have gone too far in the debate to back down.

p.s. nicely edited post once you someone posted some great evidence against your original comment.

[IvanK]

Some images taken by me from Original source Docs in the UK National archives. I have complete copies (In Hi Res) of these docs. Nothing to dramatic wrt spinning in these reports. ...as the MKI 2 Pitch prop report says .... " The Behaviour in spins is satisfactory" !!

[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.