Stability and Control characteristics of the Early Mark Spitfires

[Crumpp]

It is very simple NzTyphoon.

Post the standards developed by the ARC.
Thanks!!

"The Development of Airplane Stability and Control Technology" has done no research into British aeronautical development after 1913

Wow,

Let's not be obtuse. I never said there was no research in stability and control.

I said they stagnated into an attitude that flying qualities was an academic exercise and that the pilot's opinion was what was practical.

Big difference from what you are claiming.

The NACA took a different route. They developed techniques as well as equipment to measure and quantify behaviors. Part of that system was training test pilots and developing manuevers to define behaviors within flying qualities. In fact, it was Cooper's experience as a test pilot at the NACA that led to the development of the Cooper-Harper Rating scale.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j...zIxnwH4SfCszng

Are you referring to the bob weight in the pitch circuit or increased balance area on the elevator as fitted to MKV's ???

No, I are referring to the one fitted to Spitfire Mk I's to correct the longitudinal instability.

[bongodriver]

No, I are referring to the one fitted to Spitfire Mk I's to correct the longitudinal instability.

Never happened, only the MkV was 'ever' fitted with a bob weight.

I said they stagnated into an attitude that flying qualities was an academic exercise and that the pilot's opinion was what was practical.

God forbid that when designing something to be operated by a human you would ever actually ask those humans for any advice.

I wonder why on some adverts the slogan 'designed by XXX for XXX' is used, it's almost like the oppinion of the end user counts for something.

[NZtyphoon]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

It is very simple NzTyphoon.

Post the standards developed by the ARC.
Thanks!!

Having wasted hours trying to get Crumpp to provide some documentary evidence to prove his cock-eyed theories on 100 octane I am not interested in complying with these demands.

Originally Posted by Crumpp

Wow,

Let's not be obtuse. I never said there was no research in stability and control.

I said they stagnated into an attitude that flying qualities was an academic exercise and that the pilot's opinion was what was practical.

Big difference from what you are claiming.

Let me complete that for Crumpp:

"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

The only one being obtuse is Crumpp, who tried to use an irrelevant paper to bolster his "case". Anyway I'm done wasting time on Crumpp flogging his dead horse and pointless bug tracker - he can waste as much time as he likes here.

[Crumpp]

Spin trials by RAE on the MKII and MKI (as posted earlier in this thread) generally considered spin characteristics as normal ... no real drama.

Except that spins are prohibited.

They never changed the Operating Notes. It is not because they are lazy. Nor is it because they want to "reduce risk" by not training their fighter pilots in spin/upset/unusual attitudes.

Spin training, upset, and unusual attitude training is essential to a fighter pilots core mission.

I said from the begining, any engineer can look at a design sitting on the tarmac and know if the airplane has a high chance of normal spin recovery assuming the CG is normal or forward. The Spitfire has all the characteristics required to spin normally.

Therefore, the only real issue is the longitudinal instability.

The never changed it because a high speed dive is generally the result of spin recovery and a Spitfire pilot could break the airplane rather easily.



I was just curious if spin trials were done after the longitudinal instability was fixed in the Spitfire Mk I's.

The approval to train after being checked out by a Squadron Commander or CFI at an OTU certainly did not appear until the airworthiness directive fixed the instability.

[Crumpp]

documentary evidence to prove his cock-eyed theories on 100 octane I

You mean like the fact it is not the specified fuel in the portion of the Operating Notes entitled "Notes on a Merlin Engine" is a strong indicator the fuel is still undergoing service testing?

I never disputed the fuels use, just the silly notion it was the only fuel available and the adopted service fuel.

Who would ever suggest they were still undergoing 100 Octane fuel testing in August of 1940 simply on the basis the facts do not align?



100 Octane is completely off topic. Start your own thread if you want to debate it.

[Crumpp]

NzTyphoon,

It is not my theory nor is that one report the basis of the conclusion the United Kingdom aviation authority did not have stabilit and control standards.

Simply post the ARC standards used during the war. They will be written in a simliar fashion to EVERY other stability and control standard in the world.

They will define the acceptable qualities in an airplane.

Just like the NACA did!!

Here is the link to the UK ARC reports:

http://aerade.cranfield.ac.uk/listarcrm.php

[Crumpp]

Honestly I always thought a high speed dive is the typically the result of a prolonged dive. Is diving also prohibited?

What does a deliberate dive have to do with a spin?

In spin recovery with longitudinal instability, if the airplane is below Va, the risk of secondary stall is greatly increased.

Above Va, the risk of airframe destruction is greatly increased.

Understand?

[41Sqn_Banks]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

What does a deliberate dive have to do with a spin?

In spin recovery with longitudinal instability, if the airplane is below Va, the risk of secondary stall is greatly increased.

Above Va, the risk of airframe destruction is greatly increased.

Understand?

The pull up during spin recovery above Va has increased risk of airframe destruction.
The pull up during dive recovery above Va has increased risk of airframe destruction as well.

Why is one prohibited and the other not?

[BTB]

http://it.scribd.com/doc/4598146/Pil...lin-XII-Engine

[robtek]

Probably because a controled dive with a defined level out altitude is different from a spin with a uncontroled loss of altitude and therefore the possible increased urgency to level out before hitting the ground.