Stability and Control characteristics of the Early Mark Spitfires

[IvanK]

Oh Dear a conundrum .... Spinning Spit II ok if authorised by CO or OTU CFI

[Crumpp]

What is the conundrum???

Where is the rest of it, btw?

[CaptainDoggles]

[IvanK]

So we have two references one says Spinning is "Prohibited" presented by Crummp (highlighted with red box to support his Spitfire stability impediment argument), and here another reference saying Spinning is Ok with authorisation from a pilot's CO or CFI in an OTU. i.e. in this reference its NOT prohibited.

What do you mean where is the rest of it ? .... its sitting on my desk as a written publication



If you want the entire page from which the snippet was taken from here you are:

[CaptainDoggles]

Found an interesting quote today that seemed very relevant to this thread:

"Nobody believes theoretical predictions but the engineer who computed them; everybody believes experimental results but the engineer who conducted the test."

[6S.Manu]

I've read somewhere that there was another limitation to spin recovery: the pilot has to recover the plane not after 2 turns... I'm going to search for the doc.

Anyway about spinning I've found something interesting: it's not a Spit MkI, but a Spit MkVc... still I think the characteristics were similar to the previous versions.

http://www.darwinspitfires.com/artic...-the-zero.html

Some interesting quotes:

The stall speeds cited apply to straight and level flight at 1G – hardly a realistic scenario in combat, where pilots would typically stall out of accelerated turns. In a modest 3G turn, the Spitfire would stall at 130 knots IAS, which equates to a TAS of 242 knots at 20 000 feet. At 6G (a hard turn or pull out at high speed, with the pilot blacking out), the Spitfire stalled at 184 knots IAS, which equated to 257 knots TAS at 20 000 feet, and 294 knots at 30 000. The latter was only 11 knots less than the Spitfire’s maximum speed at that height (at the emergency power settings of 3000 rpm and plus 2 ½ pounds boost), so it is clear that as height increased, the pilot found himself stuck in an increasingly narrow corner of the flight envelope, until any attempt to pull G would result in an instant high speed stall. This helps to explain the high incidence of Spitfires stalling and spinning out of combat turns over Darwin in 1943.

Obviously, the Zero also stalled out under G, but the tests showed it to have superb handling characteristics in hard turns, with no tendency to spin out of high speed stalls (implying that it was superior to the Spitfire in this respect)

These quotes (and many others) still reinforce my thought about the famous prestall warning in combat: it was useful in smooth turns, but in the tightest ones it could not be adverted because the oversensitivity of the elevators: it's the only explanation for RAF pilots been afraid to turn tightly. The pilot needs to be very careful on the stick, to act with precise movements who usually are not available during a situation of danger while, of course, are not a problem if the RAF pilot is actually engaging an unaware enemy.

Sadly we don't know the type of engagement tested during those famous British "109 vs Spitfire" dogfights...


And my favourite parts, even if OT:

When RAAF Spitfire pilots like Keith ‘Bluey’ Truscott were posted back to Australia for assignment to the RAAF’s newly-formed Kittyhawk squadrons, they similarly dismissed the heavy American fighter. Alongside the P-40’s trickier handling near the ground, Truscott admitted that it had good combat characteristics, but churlishly complained that you couldn’t ‘make it dance’ like a Spitfire. With all his experience, he should have realised that air combat would not be decided by close-in dogfighting with enemy fighters, whether against the Germans over Europe or against the Japanese over New Guinea. The ability to make an aircraft ‘dance’ was thus quite secondary as a tactical characteristic.

Rightfully, a whole generation of pilots learned to treasure the Spitfire for its delightful response to aerobatic manoeuvres and its handiness as a dogfighter. However, it is odd that they had continued to esteem these qualities over those of other fighters in spite of the fact that they were of only secondary importance tactically. As the Germans had showed the RAF fighter squadrons, the most decisive superiority in fighter combat came through some combination of height, speed, and firepower, not tight turning or manoeuvrability. Thus it is doubly ironic that the Spitfire’s reputation would habitually be established by reference to archaic, non-tactical criteria, and that the new Japanese opponent would trump every one of the Spitfire’s purported trademark virtues: in effect, ‘whatever you can do, I can do better’.

[IvanK]

"Darwin Spitfires" is an exceptionally good (though very expensive) book.

On the Spinning side of things Pilots notes (I have) show spinning was permitted on the MKII,V,IX,VIII,XI,XVI,XIV,XIX. Yet to check the other marks.

[TomcatViP]

Originally Posted by IvanK

"Darwin Spitfires" is an exceptionally good (though very expensive) book.

On the Spinning side of things Pilots notes (I have) show spinning was permitted on the MKII,V,IX,VIII,XI,XVI,XIV,XIX. Yet to check the other marks.

Dear IvanK,

Is that a reprint ? Because the 1565B does not have this paragraph :
see here (watch out p9 and 10 are in wrong order):

http://www.avialogs.com/list/item/34...in-xii-engines


@Manu : I would hve a look at that book. Thx.

EDIT: is that this one ?

[6S.Manu]

Originally Posted by TomcatViP

@Manu : I would hve a look at that book. Thx.
EDIT: is that this one ?

I have not that book, but looking at the website it seems the right one.

http://www.darwinspitfires.com/

[camber]

Off topic I know but I would add to the recommendations for "Darwin Spitfires" The author is actually local to me, I tried to get in touch but no luck

It has quite in-depth analysis of tactics and technical matters. The Australian Spit Vc had two huge technical problems related to the high altitude they fought. Those guys could almost rely on their prop CSUs failing in dives, leading to 4000rpm and rapid engine failure. Their cannons almost never worked, as the heat piping network basically fell apart. They were at a huge distance from the Supermarine supply line, but I think the RAAF staff let down the frontline by not addressing these problems effectively.

But initial pilot attitudes were a problem as well. Disregarding the American warnings, they didn't realise they were now the Messerchmitts, and the Zeros were the Spitfires. Once those lessons were learned, the Spits were effective.

The real RAAF star of the Pacific was the Beaufighter..another recommendation:
http://www.booksforever.com.au/catal...ing_Death.html

camber

P.S Cmon IvanK, $35 isnt too bad for a good book. You'll just have to cut back on beer