Stability and Control characteristics of the Early Mark Spitfires

[Sandstone]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

Right and has nothing to do with piles of bent wings at the repair depots during the Battle of Britain.

Crumpp, I've never heard of piles of bent wings during the BoB as a result of either pitch sensitivity or instability. It sounds quite extraordinary. Can you supply some references?

[IvanK]

From "Aerobatics Principles and Practice" by David Robson, ex Fighter Pilot,Miltary test pilot (ETPS graduate.)

[Glider]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

Which has what to do with anything?

I never claimed to go to Cambridge. I went to Embry Riddle. I do have friends who went to other colleges and they also know of the Spitfire's instability.

I know that you didn't go to Cambridge as to Embury Riddie that may or may not be the case. I do know that when you offerred to debate Longitudional Stability by standards one was to do with roll rates and nothing to do with what you wanted. I believe that one of the other standards you wanted to use is to do with ordering spare parts, not exactly stability. I wouldn't expect a graduate from Embry Riddle to make that kind of mistake, its possible of course but it is a basic error

But you did say that Cambridge and others used the Spitfire wing when you clearly don't know

What does your point have to do with that fact or any fact relevant to this discussion?

Because its another example of you making up statements without foundation to support your case.

Or the fact, it is Cambridge University that published the book??

Cambridge University Press is a publishing house NOT a University. The University is an admin for the collages not a seat of learning and supplies support to the member seats of learning, including publishing.

http://www.eng.cam.ac.uk/teaching/index-freshers.html

http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Cambri...m&z=16&iwloc=B

These tend to prove that you trawled for something to support your statement rather than have actual evidence

Speaking of evidence and more importantly, we are all waiting for your source or evidence re piles of bent wings in the BOB waiting for repair. I produced two pieces of evidence you have have yet to produce anything.

You once accused me of being unprofessional so either substantiate your claim or withdraw it, its the professional thing to do

[Crumpp]

From "Aerobatics Principles and Practice" by David Robson, ex Fighter Pilot,Miltary test pilot (ETPS graduate.)

Right....

Edge of the Buffet is not IN the buffet.




If you have no other guide, the buzz is useful for finding CLmax. Don't fly in the nibble but back off to just before though IF you want maximum turn performance.

Lift varies with angle of attack and airspeed. The highest useful angle of attack is just before the critical angle, about 15 degrees. At this high angle of attack, maximum CL, considerable drag is produced, and if the aeroplane stalls, or the buffet is reached, the drag will increase dramatically. Ideally, sufficient backpressure should be applied to activate the stall warning (if it is operating) on its first note. Alternatively, the very edge of the buffet will need to be used as a guide to maximum CL.


http://www.caa.govt.nz/FIG/advanced-...ate-turns.html

You can fly in the nibble if you want, IvanK. However somebody that is turning in the same airplane at the point of smooth air just before the nibble will out turn you. That is how the physics works.

Its not a case of not "wanting" to be in the situation... Operational pilots often find themselves in situations they dont want to be in. The question put was quite specific, a Spitfire MKI no AOA gauges no accelerometers just you the pilot and your basic airframe.

Right.....Again, I would not want to be in that situation with a neutral or unstable aircraft with a light stick force per G and extremely small amount of available stick control.

That why we see charge sheets with "structural failure" and "wings came off in aerobatic flight".

But you did say that Cambridge and others used the Spitfire wing when you clearly don't know
Quote:

Making up what????

Start another thread on this off topic sideshow. Cambridge awards degrees, they published the book, and it is used as a reference in many engineering curriculuums.

If you don't like those facts, tell Cambridge not me.

[NZtyphoon]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

IvanK,

Your question really makes one wonder how many of those men did not return home because their airframe failed.

If you read Morgan and Shacklady, there is a listing of each serial number and its fate. There are early Mark Spitfires that were lost to "structural failure" or "wing came off in aerobatic flight".

Most of the listing were just lost to unknown circumstances.

Of course you are going to provide a listing of all Mk Is - with evidence -lost to structural and wing failure between 1939 and the middle of 1941 because after that most Mk Is ended up at OTUs.

Then you can list all Mk IIs lost to same cause - with evidence.

Then list all Mk Vs, knowing that from Quill several Spitfire Vs were lost due to bad loading at a squadron level in 1942.

As for "lost to unknown causes" this could mean anything and to use this category to prove anything is a waste of time

In fact how about we all do a search for early Spitfires lost to wing or structural failure?

From http://www.spitfires.ukf.net/ which is well researched and more accessible than M & S

Mk I

K - N series (first two production batches Spitfire I)

*K9838 Ia 51 EA MII FF 6-1-39 41S 11-1-39 struct fail in dive Eryholme Yorks 16-3-39 SOC FH21.25 pilot killed

K9977 Ia 191 EA MII FF 16-5-39 602S 18-5-39 lost wing during aerobatics crashed Haddington CE Lothian 30-12-39 Sgt Bailey killed SOC 11-2-40

N3120 Ia 391 EA MIII FF 29-10-39 6MU 3-11-39 266S 20-1-40 broke up in test flight to alt Pilot Gleed thrown out crashed 14.40hrs Littleport Cambs 18-2-40 SOC 22-2-40

*#N3191 Ia 432 EA MIII FF 23-11-39 24MU 2-12-39 234S 22-3-40 lost wings in dive crashed nr Truro Cornwall CE 16-1-41 AST 14-2-41 SOC 23-4-41

Four

R Series:

R6692 Ia 746 EA MIII FF 3-6-40 6MU 5-6-40 609S 7-6-40 Overstressed attacking Ju88 CE 12-8-40 SOC 2-9-40

#R6777 Ia 803 EA MIII FF 21-6-40 8MU 22-6-40 65S 12-7-40 C2 ops 30-7-40 GAL 616S 20-8-40 72S 2-9-40 92S 3-11-40 145S 4-2-41 AFDU 6-3-41 152S 13-3-41 SF H 10-4-41 57OTU 4-8-41 61OTU 3-1-42 Broke up in air and crashed Blackbill Glam FAC3 8-7-42

#R6882 Ia 840 EA MIII FF 1-7-40 (CMG) 6MU Brize Norton 28-7-40 cannon wing fitt 7OTU 3-9-40 AFDU Duxford 11-1-41 R-RH 10-2-41 Cv Vb M45 92S 'QJ-N' 9-3-41 609S 30-8-41 Broke up in air and abandoned 2.5m NE of East Stoke Notts FACE 10-1-42 SOC 17-1-42

$R7033 PRIV 1738 HEA M45 HAL 8-6-41 Cv PRIII Type C 1PRU Benson 7-8-41 loss of control in storm at high alt pilot thrown clear at 1000ft landed safe total wreck nr Bishops Stortford 5-10-41 remains to RAE for accident invest 1-42

#R7064 Ia 1431 EA MIII FF 5-2-41 9MU 6-2-41 411S 5-7-41 52OTU 23-11-41 struct damaged in spin crashed and hit fence nr Aston Down CE 25-3-42 SOC 3-4-42

Five

X4009 - X4997

*X4056 Ia 972 EA MIII FF 1-8-40 39MU 2-8-40 616S 30-8-40 Wing came off during dive 8m SE of Kirton-in-Lindsey FAC3 8-11-40 SOC 11-11-40

#X4234 Ia 1031 EA MIII FF 15-8-40 8MU 16-8-40 609S 24-8-40 damaged combat P/O Staples safe 27-9-40 AST 66S 13-10-40 57OTU 1-11-40 FACB 27-6-42 ros wing fail in spin crashed Alsager Cheshire CE 25-9-42

X4613 Ia 1233 EA MIII FF 15-10-40 6MU 15-10-40 ? 603S 17-10-40 266S 24-10-40 Lost wing and crashed Gedney Hill Lincs CE 2-3-41 SOC 20-3-41

*X4662 Ia 1260 EA MIII FF 1-11-40 9MU 8-11-40 485S 15-3-41 61OTU 25-6-41 131S 17-7-41 pull out steep dive stbd wing broke away crashed dbf pilot killed 12.07hrs Northallerton 27-7-41 SOC 1-8-41

*X4680 Ia 1264 EA MIII FF 2-11-40 12MU 5-11-40 72S 17-1-41 CB ops 9-4-41 Scottish Aviation 123S 3-6-41 steep dive and pull out from cloud wings and tailplane broke off fus hit ground Kirknewton pilot killed 16.00hrs 15-6-41 SOC 1-7-41 FH77.50 RAE accident invest 20-8-41

#X4854 Ia 1351 EA MIII FF 14-12-40 MU 16-12-42 53OTU into sea nr Dunraven Castle Thought struct fail of stbd wing 2-1-43

*X4381 Ia 1122 EA MIII FF 6-9-40 6MU 10-9-40 152S 13-9-40 501S 'SD-J' 5-11-40 53OTU 7-7-41 stbd wing broke off after high speed dive out of cloud Tonpentre nr Pontypridd dbf CE 16.30hrs 6-8-41 SOC 21-8-41 RAE 30-1-42

*X4421 Ia 1138 EA MIII FF 12-9-40 8MU 13-9-40 66S 16-9-40 57OTU 21-10-40 steep dive from low cloud violent pull out high speed stall spun wing fail Pilot thrown clear but killed 15.15hrs crashed Northrop Flints 27-3-41 SOC cancel RAE 8-4-41 AST 13-5-41 rebuilt as Va M45 164S 29-4-42 FACE 18-8-42 (Rebuild suspect)

Eight

17 with structural or wing failure, seven (*) of which occurred during a dive or pulling out of a dive: See Henshaw




Of the rest (#) six - N3191, R6777, R6882, R7064, X4234, X4854 - were old, retired Spitfire Is in OTUs. One, R7033, was a PRU aircraft caught in a storm at high altitude.

Out of 17 structural failures three were recently delivered Spitfires: two, K9977 and N3120 had structural or wing failures before the Pilot's Notes were printed in July 1940 while K9838 broke up in a dive in early 1939 - it might well have been these three incidents which prompted the warnings to be printed.

[Crumpp]

either substantiate your claim or withdraw it

Why don't your read Morgan and Shacklady. They have a list of the serial numbers and known fates of many of the Spitfires.

They even have pictures of the remains of some of the aircraft that shed wings during high speed maneuvering.

Are you going to make me scan them or can you just pick up the book and read it?

[6S.Manu]

Originally Posted by Glider

The question is why did you want to focus on the bolded parts. Its always, always the entire picture that counts.

Infact it's the entire picture... they says those were the accidents reported to them... it's only a speculation that they were the only accidents during all the war as you said since:

1) Was the AAIB the only one actually called to investigate on accidents?
2) How many accidents were not reported?
3) We don't know the AAIB method of investigation: did they need the wreckage?... or they could investigate by interviews with the witnesses of the accident?
4) As you says, I repeat, I can be that some accidents not reported as result of a past investigation. A plane is losing its wings during recovery from a dive? The first accident of this kind required an investigation, probably also the second one... but how many until it's clear that the plane can be pull so much and it become ?

We can't have unanswered questions... until then I can't trust they are not the only accidents during the world war.

The one you posted is not a fact, but it's a very good starting point for the real one.

[NZtyphoon]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

Why don't your read Morgan and Shacklady. They have a list of the serial numbers and known fates of many of the Spitfires.

They even have pictures of the remains of some of the aircraft that shed wings during high speed maneuvering.

Are you going to make me scan them or can you just pick up the book and read it?

In fact it's much easier going through http://www.spitfires.ukf.net/ which is better researched and better laid out, and more accessible, then M & S.

Originally Posted by 6S.Manu

Infact it's the entire picture... they says those were the accidents reported to them... it's only a speculation that they were the only accidents during all the war as you said since:

1) Was the AAIB the only one actually called to investigate on accidents?
2) How many accidents were not reported?
3) We don't know the AAIB method of investigation: did they need the wreck?... or they could investigate by interviews with the witnesses of the accident?
4) As you says, I repeat, I can be that some accidents not reported as result of a past investigation. A plane is losing its wings during recovery from a dive? The first accident of this kind required an investigation, probably also the second one... but how many until it's clear that the plane can be pull so much and it become ?

1) The body responsible for investigating air accidents before and during WW2 was the AIB (Accidents Investigation Branch) which was responsible for investigating all air accidents. http://www.aaib.gov.uk/about_us/history.cfm
2) Why bother speculating on a question which can never be answered? It's like asking how long is a piece of string.
3) Presumably whatever was available - if a wreck was at the bottom of the sea AIB would not have gone chasing after it.
4)Again, unquantifiable speculation

[Crumpp]

See Henshaw

Good stuff...

He says 25 were lost due to structural failure he uncovered in his research. That is quite a few.

That is only the ones that were lost due to total failure as well as the ones we know about. It does not tell us the number of aircraft which flew home with bent wings or the ones that broke up over enemy territory.

To put that 25 unfortunate Spitfires in perspective:

~2488 Spitfire Mk I and II's were produced

2488/25 = 99.52

So for every 100 Spitfires, one was lost to structural failure.

Now let's compare that to the Beechcraft Bonanza which also had some developmental issues with the V-tail that resulted in structural failure. It is the airplane that forged the "Doctor Killer" reputation.

>17000 Beechcraft Debonair/Bonanza's have been built.

Taking structural failures from 2007 on back we find that 148 airframes have been lost. We have much better records of a peacetime GA aircraft.

http://www.thomaspturner.net/infligh...ups%20NTSB.htm

17,000 / 148 = 114.8

So, For every 115 Beechcraft Debonair/Bonanza's built, ONE has experienced structural failure.

http://www.tsgc.utexas.edu/archive/g...ics/vtail.html

I think the early Mark Spitfire would have had the same reputation in peacetime as the Bonanza due to its high rate of structural failure.

The events of WWII overshadowed the longitudinal instability issue in the early Mark Spitfires.

[bongodriver]

1) Was the AAIB the only one actually called to investigate on accidents?
2) How many accidents were not reported?
3) We don't know the AAIB method of investigation: did they need the wreckage?... or they could investigate by interviews with the witnesses of the accident?
4) As you says, I repeat, I can be that some accidents not reported as result of a past investigation. A plane is losing its wings during recovery from a dive? The first accident of this kind required an investigation, probably also the second one... but how many until it's clear that the plane can be pull so much and it become ?

1) in all probability yes....it's their job, why call in people who aren't qualified?
2) probably a very small amount, in all likelyhood just the events which lead to MIA and unknown fates.
3) as long as the methods produced the answer does it matter?
4) let's not forget that most Spitfire pilots were flying with a squadron and the squadron pilots are all credible eye witnesses to what happens, through all of the recounted stories and biographies etc nobody ever mentioned the Spitfire as being 'particularily' weak or seeing squad mates breaking up with any regularity.