Stability and Control characteristics of the Early Mark Spitfires

[robtek]

.....
Above all of this is the lack of accidents. All the issues he talks about are serious safety issues but we have a serious lack of any incidents.......

There might be hundreds of Spitfires being lost over sea or behind enemy lines because of mishandling in stress situations, all disregarded because being accorded to enemy action.
Nobody knows that for sure.
The only data we have is a per se incomplete list of researched accidents.

[bongodriver]

I heard that some Spitfires were pink, maybe they should all be pink?

[NZtyphoon]

Reading the bibliography to the text of a lecture delivered in 1970 and referred to by Crumpp as definitive proof of Britain's lack of control and stability standards: Development of Airplane Safety and Control Courtland D. Perkins
(http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpos...&postcount=837)





The references stop at an ARC paper PUBLISHED IN 1913 - NOT ONCE does the author refer to the ARC papers from 1937 through to 1939-48, nor does he have any references concerning British research during the war years, instead concentrating almost exclusively on American aeronautical research - he had no idea of what sort of development the British had put in after 1913: this one is busted.

I wonder what we would see if we looked at the bibliograpies of most of the books referenced by Crumpp - how many of them concentrate on American research, ignoring Britain?

[Crumpp]

Reading the bibliography

NzTyphoon,
Why do you keep confusing individual research with an established standard for all????

You obviously cannot differentiate between the two.

It is a fact, there was not an established standard for stability and control in the United Kingdom during WWII.

Glider,

You have constructed so many fantasies and misconception about this I don't even know where to begin.

Read the report. It is measured and defined.

What do you have an issue with?

You really don't need much to understand it. You can read the plain English text for the warnings in the Operating Notes, right??

You seem to deny they exist and keep accusing me of making something up?

As for spin recovery, is it so difficult to understand recovery ends in a dive?

Read the Operating Note warnings!!!

Although the POH is the primary reference for recovery from a spin, the following can be used as a general procedure:

P - Retard the throttle to idle. In most aircraft, power hampers the recovery.

A - Ailerons neutral. Many pilots will attempt to recover from the spin using the ailerons. This may actually make the problem worse.

R - Apply full opposite rudder. Apply rudder opposite the rotation of the spin. If you have trouble determining which way the airplane is spinning, look at your turn coordinator or turn needle. It will indicate the direction of rotation.

E - Apply forward elevator. Immediately after applying opposite rudder, apply a quick forward motion on the control yoke and hold anti-spin controls until the aircraft starts to recover.

D - Recover from the dive. Once you have completed the four previous steps, and the rotation stops, recover from the dive. The descent rate may be over 5000 feet per minute and the airspeed will rapidly exceed redline. Remember to neutralize the rudder after the rotation stops.

http://www.aopa.org/asf/publications...tall_spin.html

Go out and do some spins in the an airplane, please!!

Make sure it is not approved to spin and leave the chutes on the ground. <joking>

[Crumpp]

NOT ONCE does the author refer to the ARC papers from 1937 through to 1939-48, nor does he have any references concerning British research during the war years, instead concentrating almost exclusively on American aeronautical research - he had no idea of what sort of development the British had put in after 1913: this one is busted.

Why don't you post the ARC standards.

Here is the NACA standards adopted during WWII. The USAAF and USN used these as the basis to define their own standards by 1944.

Until those individual service standards were adopted, they used the NACA's.

One impor-tant contribution made by the NACA in this area was its famous technical report, No. 755, "Requirements for Satisfactory Flying Qualities of Airplanes." Representing a decade of work, the NACA introduced to the industry a new set of quantitative measures to characterize the stability, control and handling qualities of an airplane. The military readily adopted the NACA findings and for the first time issued specific design standards to its aircraft manufacturers. It is a classic example of the partnership between the military, air-craft industry and the NACA.

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/langley/...s/WWII_prt.htm

End the speculation and just post the standards during the war for the ARC.

Thanks!!

[Crumpp]

Here is the USAAF and USN standards adopted in 1944.

During October 1944, the National Advisory Committee conducted a series of conferences with the”Army, Navy, and representatives of the aircraft industry for the purpose of discussing the flight-test procedures used in measuring the stability and control characteristics of airplanes. The conferences were initiated by the Army Air Forces, Air Technical Service Command, to acquaint the flight organizations of the industry with the flight
test methods employed by the NACA and to standardize the techniques insofar as possible as they are employed by the various manufacturers and agencies engaged in determining the flying qualities of airplanes

NzTyphoon will share the ARC standards with us shortly!

[Crumpp]

I have Spinning was permitted if pilots were authorised by the CO or CFI at the OTU level.

What is the date on your Operating Notes that reference the spinning permission thru special training?

[IvanK]

Not special training just authorisation.

Issue Date July 1940 Revised Dec 1941 and Amended up to Al No 25K which was added according to the AL sign off sheet as Aug 1942.

[NZtyphoon]

Thanks Ivan.

Originally Posted by Crumpp

NzTyphoon,
Why do you keep confusing individual research with an established standard for all????

This mumbo-jumbo is an example of Crumpp's intellectual dishonesty coming to the fore - the document he has cited in an attempt to bolster his "case" has nothing to do with the point he is trying to prove. "The Development of Airplane Stability and Control Technology" has done no research into British aeronautical development after 1913 and, as such, it has nothing whatsoever to do with the Spitfire's longitudinal stability. Crumpp has not bothered evaluating the sources used by a publication before citing it as "evidence" - this is one of the basics of historical research.

During October 1944, the National Advisory Committee conducted a series of conferences with the”Army, Navy, and representatives of the aircraft industry for the purpose of discussing the flight-test procedures used in measuring the stability and control characteristics of airplanes. The conferences were initiated by the Army Air Forces, Air Technical Service Command, to acquaint the flight organizations of the industry with the flight test methods employed by the NACA and to standardize the techniques insofar as possible as they are employed by the various manufacturers and agencies engaged in determining the flying qualities of airplanes.

So, while NACA had formulated a set of specifications they had yet to be properly standardised because as late as October 1944 NACA was still discussing how to implement the specifications with representatives of the Army, Navy and aircraft manufacturers. This does not say anything about the specifications being adopted in 1944 - just being discussed pending adoption.

Now, Crumpp insists on an Aeronautical Research Committee report confirming British standards in control and stability; what Crumpp doesn't seem to realise is that the ARC is an advisory body which works to distribute information and reports to the likes of the National Physical Laboratories, RAE and manufacturers (para 2 Policy of the Committee). Unlike NACA it does not do its own research: unlike NACA papers on stability and control can only be accessed via archives such as this entry, NA Kew.



Reports tabled in ARC report 1939:


As it is bug tracker #415 won't be gaining any traction at any time soon, so there isn't much future in pursuing this thread any further.

[bongodriver]

So.....can we have that 109 thread now?