Stability and Control characteristics of the Early Mark Spitfires

[Glider]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

That is correct. A bent airframe is not good. The plane is hard to control and weakenend..

True but it gets you home a broken one doesn't

.

The issue was solved in the Spitfire Mk V!!

You understand that the bob-weights and subsequent empennage changes to the design were to fix the instability??

It is only a factor in the early Mark Spitfires..

True but you need to prove that he is only talking about Mk I and II. Its worth remembering that the fix wasn't in place for the start of Mk V production so you need to factor that in.

And you still need to prove that there were any bent wings in the BOB waiting repair let alone the statement you made. Without evidence you have no back up and its only another unsupported theory.

[Glider]

Originally Posted by Al Schlageter

So can we take it that Crumpp, given, the chance, would not pilot an early Mk of Spitfire as it was a death trap?

Notice they are all over the sky and even upside down.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=TXxzlOH92as

Crumpp you better talk to Duxford they may not know what you know

[Crumpp]

Just going thru the list in Morgan and Shacklady, I have counted 13 structural failures so far and I am only halfway thru the Mark I list.

It was serious enough that X4228 went to Farnborough on 24-8-40 to be used in testing to discover the cause of wing structure failures.

On a side note, X4181 on 17-840 was designated in 616 Squadron for "100 Octane Testing" and was shot down by a Bf-109 on 26-8-40.

Should have read this list earlier!!

[Crumpp]

17,000 Bonanza/Debonairs being made but isnt the Debonair a single fin aeroplane ?

The accident statistics include both types.

Again, the failures were notable enough for the RAF to send the plane to be tested to discover why the wings were failing in August of 1940.

Damn shame they did not have standards in place and that stability and control was such a new science at the time. Lives could have been saved.

[6S.Manu]

Originally Posted by Glider

We do seem to be in the normal situation where one side produces evidence to the best of their ability and often in duplicate. And the nay sayers produce nothing to support theirs and depend on ever more silly questions.

Curiosity and research for detail are silly questions?... tell me you're not an historian...

Originally Posted by Glider

On the number of Breakups due to structural faiulure being small
1) A published work written by someone involved in Air Investigations for 50 years
2) The numbers matching those printed in the M S book
3) Henshaws paper the number are different but even lower

And you call this evidence!?!?

What about the M S book having the same source of "Spitfire at war" => AAIB?

Now if the AAIB data is not usefull to understand the real rate of structural damage, since it ignores the accident over the sea and in enemy territory, what is the meaning to post it?
The real numbers are different, period, since we don't know how many poor guys died for overstressed airframe and they were filed as KIA because of the enemy.

3 books: one has different numbers... Which ones are the corrected numbers?

Look I've "produced" a question about that data...

Originally Posted by Glider

On the numbers of breakups being higher
1) I looked in the website but I asked because it's not written that's the only responsable of investigation but it's part of the entire Department.In otherwords the department has more responsibilities and this section is responsible for Air Investigations.

Really? I ask it because I don't know... I would like a doc by the Air Ministry stating that every accident need to be investigated officialy by the AAIB.

Or if Mr.Newton said "We had to investigate every accident during the war" it would be enough. But it does not say it... so sorry if I've some silly doubt.

Originally Posted by Glider

2) Statements that others may have come down at sea or in enemy held areas.
Of course this almost certainly happened. However its a question that we will never know the results to. Its something that happens to every airforce all we can do is do the best we can with what we know. In the same way we do not know how many of these had been damaged in combat.

Then that number about the rate of Spitfires lost for airframe damage is almost useless since it's a small sample mostly no related to combat. That was my first statement.

In enemy territory, in combat, numbers can easily be different. Are numbers about accidents because of clouds really important when they did fight at 5km??? Does the pilot need to land in the fog in enemy territory?

So lets stick to the data about stick forces, oversensivity, AoA e structural limits and lets try to analyse them together. Without the necessity to bring on numbers and reports who do not help.

Mainly because THEY DID NOT FLY AS WE DO IN THE SIM.

[Crumpp]

Crumpp you better talk to Duxford they may not know what you know

I sure they know it. Everyone of those Spitfires is modified so that it does not have the instability of the early marks.

Damn shame they did not have standards in place and that stability and control was such a new science at the time. Lives could have been saved.

[6S.Manu]

Originally Posted by Glider

True but it gets you home a broken one doesn't

That's right.

Please try to understand that my target here is not having Spitfires losing wings at every turn... it's having a player who must take care of that as the real pilots did.

[bongodriver]

Originally Posted by 6S.Manu

That's right.

Please try to understand that my target here is not having Spitfires' losing wings at every turn... it's having a player who must take care of that as the real pilots did.

Hopefully not just the Spitfire, the 109 had particularily weak wing roots I believe....but hopefully we will get a whole new thread about that one.

[6S.Manu]

Originally Posted by bongodriver

Hopefully not just the Spitfire, the 109 had particularily weak wing roots I believe....but hopefully we will get a whole new thread about that one.

Of course!! But it's seems that some people really don't care about having a realistic sim.

[bongodriver]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

I sure they know it. Everyone of those Spitfires is modified so that it does not have the instability of the early marks.

Damn shame they did not have standards in place and that stability and control was such a new science at the time. Lives could have been saved.

Rubbish......or BALONEY as you like to put it...

Heres the Airworthiness approval notes from the CAA on 2 different Mk 1 Spitfires which are flying today, note the modifications do not include anything with regards to stability issues.

http://www.caa.co.uk/AANDocs/29100/29100000000.pdf

http://www.caa.co.uk/AANDocs/29337/29337000000.pdf

I know you are going to come straight back with the 'look, it says no intentional spinning' but that is a blanket ban on permit to fly aircraft for similar reasons to the RAF's operational reasons during the war, an unnecessary and risky manouver and the aircraft are very expensive.

Heres Dave Gilmour of Pink Floyds old mustang permit......we all know they were allowed to spin right?

http://www.caa.co.uk/AANDocs/25986/25986000000.pdf

and another

http://www.caa.co.uk/AANDocs/28790/28790000000.pdf

Heres a 109 permit

http://www.caa.co.uk/AANDocs/22658/22658000000.pdf

the CAA airworthiness notes database search, check it out, quite interesting

http://www.caa.co.uk/application.asp...pe=65&appid=10