A newbies impression of the 109 and spit

[bongodriver]

I can see why so many airframes broke up on recovery.

How many? sources please.

[Crumpp]

Does anybody have further details of this Spitfire aileron instability problem the aircraft seem to have been suffering from?

I have a report on it somewhere, see if I can dig it up.

Ouch, we could have an interesting debate on that but lets keep it to one topic at a time

On what? Pilot stories and opinions?

Of course they are going to be cussing, scared, and pissed after yanking on that stick with both hands to get 80-90lbs of stick force required at Vne. They will be alive and complaining, LOL.

[bongodriver]

Of course they are going to be cussing, scared, and pissed after yanking on that stick with both hands to get 80-90lbs of stick force required at Vne. They will be alive and complaining, LOL.

sounds to me if they didn't start with enough altitude then they won't be alive to complain, give me light elevators any day over ones that can't pull me out of a dive.

[Glider]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

You can pull 10G on the z axis anytime you are over 218mph IAS in a Spitfire.

You need to be "well over" 150mph and at 150 mph you are only 68 mph away from the ability to destroy the airframe on a single axis load. That is not very far away.

Problem with spin recovery is you are not on a single axis load as it requires rudder input to recover.

I can see why so many airframes broke up on recovery.

If any aircraft exceeds its max stress load then the chances are that its going to break up, it isn't specific to a Spit. I think I am right is saying that an F16 is stressed to plus 8G, so 10G in a Spit doesn't sound too bad.

I also ask how many broke up on recovery or are you saying a stall is the same as a spin?

[CaptainDoggles]

Originally Posted by Glider

an F16 is stressed to plus 8G, so 10G in a Spit doesn't sound too bad.

The absolute magnitude of the load is completely irrelevant when you're comparing a modern jet fighter with a spitfire. What a ridiculous comparison.

What matters is the magnitude of the load as a percentage of the maximum load. Pulling 8G means very little if your airframe is designed to withstand 14G. But if it's only designed for 9G then you better be cautious.

[Kurfürst]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

I have a report on it somewhere, see if I can dig it up.

Thanks. I knew about the pitch characteristics, but the ailerons are somewhat new. I suppose it has something to do the Frise ailerons? Balancing seem to be an issue with these.

[Glider]

Let me rephrase it for you. I believed incorrectly that the airframe for an F16's was stressed to a max of 8G so it was my mistake. The normal max for an F16 is 9G due to pilot strain. However it doesn't alter the fact that 10G for a WW2 aircraft is pretty good

Are you any closer to saying how many broke up in a spin?

[WTE_Galway]

Some random light relief to break up the technical stuff ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_u4Md_aXVJE

[VO101_Tom]

Originally Posted by Glider

...I think I am right is saying that an F16 is stressed to plus 8G, so 10G in a Spit doesn't sound too bad...

False comparison, the weakest point of the Jet fighters is the human physiology and the Jet engine. These two causes the restrictions, not the aircraft's structure.

[Crumpp]

Frise ailerons are a pain to balance and rig. The FW-190 was plagued with adjustment issues too.