Updated RAF FMs in 1.07.18301

[Crumpp]

Just some general observations.

Pilots were taught not to stall, so that must have led to an in-built reluctance to push at the flight envelope. Those that could push closer to the limit could turn faster.

Turn rate can mean several things. The fastest turn rate can be incredibly quick but the resulting loss of energy means trouble. Continuous turn rate without loss of energy is usually quite a bit higher but as energy is retained that helps further manouevres.

As an example (and from memory of something I did a long time ago) I could turn a Spit Vb 360 degrees in about 12 seconds but was then at stall speed. Turning 360 degrees at a maintained 250mph took about 20 seconds with a far wider turning circle.

If I were in a Spit maintaining 250mph in a turn I bet a 109 could turn inside, but if they missed the shot they have less energy. From memory again I think the best turn/energy ratio for a Spit was about 220mph with a turn of around 18 seconds. At the same speed a 109 took 21 seconds to do 360 degrees.

Finally, I seem to remember that the best way of turning in a 109 against a Spit is to do an elliptical turn i.e. to have a smooth curve to gain energy followed by a tight turn, kinda egg-shaped.

Or to put it more simply. All things being equal, if you're in a 109 don't turn with a Spit - there is nothing to stop a Spit pilot totally pushing the envelope as only our ego is hurt if we pull to hard and stall, we don't die.

Just ramblin'

Hood

Absolutely.

No one is advocating creating a frankenplane Bf-109 that outturns the Spitfire in a level sustained turn at low velocity. That would be silly.

The stability and control characteristics are just as important to the relative dogfighting ability of these aircraft. Those characteristics are documented and quantifiable.

What is the point in having a gameshape that does not fly like the airplane it is suppose to represent?

[Crumpp]

There is nothing to argue about. The stability and control characteristics are well documented and measured.

The only arguments stem from those who do not understand the measurements and conclusions.

which in an aircraft with light elevator controls is much easier.

You have an inabillity to put things together. Relate to us your wealth of experience flying early marque Spitfires. Oh yeah, you cannot and I know your Dad's logbook does not reflect any Spitfire time either. In fact, nobody can fly a Spitfire without the bob weights today legally.

"Light controls" is desireable. However, you must have some resistance to gauge the feel of the aircraft so forces that are too light are not desirable.

Combined with very small stick movements that created large changes in angle of attack, it is unacceptable when the aircraft is neutrally stable. With positive stability, it would not be unacceptable.

Very light stick forces on the longitudinal axis coupled with neutral stability, small stick position changes producing large angle of attack changes, a very harsh stall/spin, and stick force imbalance on the lateral axis is why the Spitfire did not pass quantifiable stability and control standards.

[fruitbat]

Crumpp, how you get away with your personal attacks i dont know, but boy have you got sour grapes. One of the two of you flew a lear jet to italy yesterday, and it wasn't you.

Grow up.

[bongodriver]

There is nothing to argue about. The stability and control characteristics are well documented and measured.

The only arguments stem from those who do not understand the measurements and conclusions.

Quite, hence why you always seem to end up in arguments, BTW have you figured out how to use the ignore function yet?

You have an inabillity to put things together. Relate to us your wealth of experience flying early marque Spitfires. Oh yeah, you cannot and I know your Dad's logbook does not reflect any Spitfire time either. In fact, nobody can fly a Spitfire without the bob weights today legally.

Only the Mk5 ever had bob weights, and all the other airworthy marks which are as original and flying around don't seem to be attracting any 'legal' issues, My late fathers gliding logbook certainly won't have any Spitfire time in it, care to show us your extensively logged warbird time?

"Light controls" is desireable. However, you must have some resistance to gauge the feel of the aircraft so forces that are too light are not desirable.

As you like to say....Baloney

Combined with very small stick movements that created large changes in angle of attack, it is unacceptable when the aircraft is neutrally stable. With positive stability, it would not be unacceptable.

yet you can see Spitfires at airshows doing high energy turns at low level all the time....oh I guess that's because the FAA and NACA have had a word with the spitfires and told them all to behave themselves.

Very light stick forces on the longitudinal axis coupled with neutral stability, small stick position changes producing large angle of attack changes, a very harsh stall/spin, and stick force imbalance on the lateral axis is why the Spitfire did not pass quantifiable stability and control standards.

Let me guess.....NACA.....again, the only source for all that is right and holy in this world eh?

[Crumpp]

What does that have to do with me being a pilot, my experience, or education?

Really, you, bongodriver, Osprey, and a few others from that 100 Octane thread have consistantly followed me around these boards making personal attacks.

You turn every thread into a discussion on me. Why???

You want to undermine my credibility out of some misguided fear of "red vs blue" baloney that has become the community dynamics of a few. I am not into it and won't buy it.

It is boring and the constant derailment is detrimental to the community.

Who cares about me? Who cares what I do for a living. I sure as hell am not going to post any personal information on the internet. It is stupid and I don't have to prove a damn thing to you or anyone else.

Stick to the facts under the topic of the thread. If I am wrong, then produce facts to prove it.

You can't do that so your same small group resorts to emotional pleas by conducting personal attacks on me. If you can't attack the subject then attack the source of the subject, right?

[bongodriver]

What does that have to do with me being a pilot, my experience, or education?

Huh?......simply you are just not a pilot, no experience and education is questionable too.

Really, you, bongodriver, Osprey, and a few others from that 100 Octane thread have consistantly followed me around these boards making personal attacks.

Actually I just got stuck in to a discussion, but when you showed up with some bizarre claims it became more heated.

You want to undermine my credibility out of some misguided fear of "red vs blue" baloney that has become the community dynamics of a few. I am not into it and won't buy it.

You undermine your own credibility, the only 'red v blue' baloney comes from the likes of you and Kurfurst.

It is boring and the constant derailment is detrimental to the community.

Yes, please stop posting ever again.

Who cares about me? Who cares what I do for a living. I sure as hell am not going to post any personal information on the internet. It is stupid and I don't have to prove a damn thing to you or anyone else.

Nobody cares about you, but you sure do seem to care what you want people to believe, I wonder what you will claim to be next, point is I backed up my claims with hard evidence.

Stick to the facts under the topic of the thread. If I am wrong, then produce facts to prove it.

They do indeed, yet you continue to deny them.

You can't do that so your same small group resorts to emotional pleas by conducting personal attacks on me. If you can't attack the subject then attack the source of the subject, right?

you keep bringing up my late father and his logbook, I didn't ask for your last reply to me so I guess it's you who doesn't want to let it go.

[Crumpp]

Only the Mk5 ever had bob weights

The bob-weights are a quick fix and an aerodynamic band aid. Of course they addressed the issue with good design in later marques.

We are not talking about later marques.

We are discussing the Spitfire MkI, Ia, and II series as found in the game.

[Crumpp]

Let me guess.....NACA.....again, the only source for all that is right and holy in this world eh?

There is nothing to argue with the stability and control characteristics. The NACA measured it.

The RAE had no quantifiable standards at the time but the Operating Notes cover the issues well.

[bongodriver]

Operating Notes cover the issues well.

You probably don't know it so I will forgive your ignorance, but it's pretty standard stuff in aircraft operating notes to highlight the ill effects of mis-handling an aircraft.

[FS~Phat]

Story by Jeffrey Quill (Chief test pilot)

Jeffrey Kindersley Quill OBE AFC FRAeS (1 February 1913–20 February 1996) was a British Royal Air Force officer, RNVR officer and Test pilot and the second man to fly the Supermarine Spitfire after Vickers Aviation's chief test pilot, Joseph "Mutt" Summers. After succeeding Summers as Vickers' chief test pilot, Quill test-flew every mark of Spitfire, originally designed by R. J. Mitchell.


http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchi...0-%201323.html

"The impression has once or twice been given that the Spitfire was "right, from the word go." This is not strictly correct. We had our full share of troubles, headaches and frights during that period and it was all full of interest. I personally was keenly aware of the privilege of working for R. J. Mitchell. But it would need a book to record all this. One point of interest is that K.S054 was, I think, one of the first aeroplanes to be fitted with an anti-spin parachute. It had shown up badly in the spinning calculations at R.A.E. and there was thus a certain amount of gloom about the prospects for the actual spinning tests.
The cable of the anti-spin parachute was attached to the fuselage just forward of the fin; it was then led along the outside of the fuselage, secured by sticky tape, and the parachute itself stowed in the cockpit.
The idea was that, if in. trouble, one opened the canopy, seized a handful of parachute and flung it over the side-preferably the appropriate side. I well
remember the first spin, entered at 20,000 feet from a. strangely silent stall with the big two-bladed wooden airscrew ticking over very, very slowly. But eight years elapsed before I actually had to use an anti-spin parachute (in a Seafire with an experimental rudder), and it broke my leg-but that is another story. The only difficulty we ha-d with the proto* type was persuading the R.A.E. that the spin recovery characteris*tics were, in fact, perfect. It seemed they had no business to be, but they were. "


More interesting stats here> (obviously not the definitive source but still an interesting summary of the evolution of the spit from MK1 to seafire 47 with a bunch of stats)

http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchi...0-%200359.html

I read tonight somewhere in this archive there was a chart for spin recovery at various altitudes and it was 1-2 spins to 4 spins worst case and loss of 6000 feet (WORST CASE) from memory. Sorry I couldnt find it again! The spit pilots were not afraid of pulling hard as spin recovery was relatively simple. cut throttle, full opposite rudder, gently slightly forward, release rudder to neutral when slip indicator flips to other side and apply power build airspeed to 180MPH before gently pulling back. Ill try and find it again. Found another copy here.. http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spitfire-II.html