Stability and Control characteristics of the Early Mark Spitfires

[taildraggernut]

Originally Posted by 41Sqn_Banks

No, because the damage to the engine by using more than 400 hp was much more troublesome

incredible isn't it? and apparently its us that wear the pointy tin foil hats.....

[Crumpp]

The P-39 has less stick travel and a lighter elevator and was still accepted into service.

Because it did have acceptable characteristics overall.

The P39 exhibited neutral stability at its most rearward CG. The stick travel was 1 inch from cruise to CL max at 1.8 pounds per G.

However, the P39 required 12.5 degrees of elevator travel to reach the stall point AND its acceleration changed in proportion to elevator angle appropriately. There were no wild fluctuations in acceleration and the pilot is able to precisely meet and hold a given acceleration.

If you look at the abrupt pull out curves, the P39 met all the requirements of the NACA standard.

It was not divergent, unlike the Spitfire.

[taildraggernut]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

Because it did have unacceptable characteristics.

The P39 exhibited neutral stability at its most rearward CG. The stick travel was 1 inch from cruise to CL max at 1.8 pounds per G.

However, the P39 required 12.5 degrees of elevator travel to reach the stall point AND its acceleration changed in proportion to elevator angle appropriately. There were no wild fluctuations in acceleration and the pilot is able to precisely meet and hold a given acceleration.

If you look at the abrupt pull out curves, the P39 met all the requirements of the NACA standard.

It was not divergent, unlike the Spitfire.

Yet it was the P-39 that had dangerous spin qualities, and the spitfire didn't.

[TomcatViP]

Originally Posted by taildraggernut

Yet it was the P-39 that had dangerous spin qualities, and the spitfire didn't.

There is no relation.

[Crumpp]

I edited my post:

"Because it did have unacceptable characteristics overall."

Huge typo, LOL.

The P39 met all the requirements and was acceptable. It is completely off topic and we can cover the P39 when it becomes available.

[Crumpp]

Yet it was the P-39 that had dangerous spin qualities

Both aircraft are placarded against intentional spinning due to dangerous spin characteristics.

Again off topic

[taildraggernut]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

Both aircraft are placarded against intentional spinning due to dangerous spin characteristics.

Again off topic

Wrong, intentional spinning was discouraged regardless of aircraft type, in the pilots manuals it explains clearly that the Spitfire was benign in the spin, it's just the RAF saw no need for it intentionally, there are 'NO' documented negative spinning qualities of the Spitfire, the P-39 however it was game over in a spin.

it is obvious by now that any qualities associated with the Spitfire are unaceptable to Crumpp.

[Crumpp]

intentional spinning was discouraged

OFF TOPIC

[taildraggernut]

[QUOTE=Crumpp;447464]
QUOTE]

Now read the rest of the notes and tell me where it says prohibited because it's a dangerous quality........it doesn't, it just tells you to use standard recovery techniques, not bail out because it's game over.

now go and read almost any other RAF pilots notes on any aircraft and you will see intentional spinning is 'prohibited' again not because the aircraft themselves are dangerous, it is simply because the maneuver is not regarded as necessary and the risks in spinning are universal.



p.s. how are the handling qualities of the Spitfire off topic?

[TomcatViP]

No. Again.

For example Basic pilot syllabus include spins. The plane used for this where not prohibited for spinning.

You hve also excellent pilot's note video on Youtube regarding P47, 38 etc.. You'll see that spin was not prohibited on those type. I am sure someone will point a similar (real ) vid for an RAF plane