Stability and Control characteristics of the Early Mark Spitfires

[NZtyphoon]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

But it is not that way.

First, the anti-Spitfire faction exist's only in your mind.

That's reassuring - you all can stop the "pro-Spitfire faction" nonsense then.

Originally Posted by Crumpp

Second, anybody who knows stability and control can read the article to see the characteristics clearly.

You mean poor longitudinal stability? By all means point it out to the ignoramus' surrounding you.

Originally Posted by Crumpp

The gentleman who was interviewed for the article points out the fact they did not have a good understanding of stability and control engineering at the time.

What he does point out is that it was extremely difficult visualising the type of combat likely to be faced in a future war - he does not point "out the fact they did not have a good understanding of stability and control engineering at the time."

Jeffrey Quill Supermarine Chief test Pilot:




The bob weights introduced in 1942:





No stability problems Mk I & II, although borderline; Spitfire Vs incorrectly loaded at a squadron level in 1942, so bob-weights fitted in a "crash" (sic!) program before elevators modified with a larger mass balance.

[Glider]

Crump

Before you start everything I would much prefer it if you used a more complete and modern set of standards for the calculations.

The most recent ones that I had any dealings with were

MIL - STD - 1797A

The fundamental problem that I believe you have, is that something is either stable or unstable. These standards give levels of accaptable stability for different types of combat aircraft. For instance you would expect what is acceptable for a C17 to differ from an F15 or you end up with an F15 which is a sitting duck or a lot of airsick troops in the C17.

I last used these in the late 1980's and there is a better than average chance that they may have changed in that time, so you may want to look into it.

However to carry on with the black and white process that you have is foolish and totally out of kilter with the real world. In the real world its a mixture of theory your preferred approach, how they actually feel to fly which is my approach, plus what are they desinged to do. These are normally combined and we used to refer to the flying qualities.

If I go back to the three gliders I mentioned an age ago.
The Twin Astir was very heavy and as far as aerobatics was only really good in the vertical, but it was excellent for training people to go cross country as it had less need to thermal but was fast.
The K21 was a much better all round glider good at most aerobatics and for training. However it was almost impossible to spin, a major problem in a trainer. So much so we use an old K13 for Spin Training which I loved to fly. The K21 was also good for training all types of flying thermalling and cross country
The Fox was a dedicated aerobatic machine. You certainly didn't want to go cross country or thermal but if you wanted to learn the fine points of aerobatics, this was the machine to use. Excellent roll rate for a glider and very precise in the control.

All design is a balance and as I write this the BOB Lancaster and a Spit have just flown very low over my house at about 5-700 ft

Back to the topic the term we use is the flying quality of the machine, which has to take in the task in mind, how it feels and the theory. These standards cover this combination
The

[6S.Manu]

Originally Posted by Glider

I do consider myself to be an amature historian, which is why I always have some substance behind my theory and statement. It may not be everything everyone want but there is something.

"Some substance" is not a fact. "Researching for the detail and mandatory verification of the source are the primary rules of an historian", it's been said by one of my friends (historian).

Until there're unanswered questions then there's no fact. If have the right to doubt of it if it's not clear and so I ask you for detail.

Can I? Or I have been labled as naysayer? Or a Blue pilot who want to pork the Spitfire?
Don't worry... when we'll be talking about the 109 I'll post questions about that too if the "fact" are not detailed.

Please focus on the fact that I questioned also the pilots' experience and the airplane's conditions during the RAF mockfight.

I don't know your opionion about that, but it state that some pilots were not using the plane at it's full performance because they were afraid.

Now why should them be afraid if the plane was easy to fly? Could it be that those planes where not good as the others, or maybe the plane has a characteristic that they wanted to avoid. The author seems to claim the latter, but he says "probably" (IIRC)...

Of course the poster who want to picture they favourite plane as the better had claimed that the pilot's on the 109 was high skilled (and I can't doubt it, by logic) and the outturned ones were worser... Now please tell me why I'm the bad guy formaking questions while the "it's so because I tell it" guys are the good one?

As opinion the one about "easy to fly" means that it was easy to take in combat... no proof about that but people, you too, keep claiming it as gospel truth.
This "can" easily be the reason of that statement: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11004370

So many extreme manouvres... note that I've written "can"... it's a theory but not less meaningful as the "easy to take in combat" one.

Originally Posted by Glider

Lets take the example of the bending of the wings. Crumps says this happened a lot and there were piles of wings to be repaired. My belief is that this happened in late 1944 when Spitfires were being used for tassks way beyond what they were designed for. I produced two different sources both of which are very clear and invite Crumpp to supply his evidence that this happened in the BOB. Result silence.

I've not the responsibility of that claim, why should I find a source?

Anyway you keep missing the point: it's not "how many times it happened", it's "if it can happen".

Do I need a document to state that in most of the fights the victim was unaware of the enemy? Many reports seem to prove it. Of course we'll never have the right number but using "logic" we can define that most of the time the pilots didn't use their plane at its structural limits.

Now I ask to you: do you think they fought as the players are used to do in this sim?

Take the doc about the mock fight in which some RAF pilots could not outturn the 109 becouse of the fear to spin. Now reproduce the same mock fight in sim: experience makes me say that an average pilot (one who actually understood the limits of the plane) will always outturn the 109.

In this sim most pilots fly as there is no tomorrow (since they are allowed to do it, as to fly at 7km with the open cockpit): logically they do critical manouvres far more than the real pilots, so the issue of a plane has to be more evident...

So do you see why I claim that your document (Mr.Newton's interview) is not helpful here? First it's incomplete since it's the number of reported accidents, not all the accidents

Originally Posted by Glider

Its more than you have put forward. You have a theory but nothing behind it

Ah! It's called intellectual honesty!

You posted that interview claiming this: "To get a feel for how fragile the SPitfire was the following is a posting I found which breaks the losses bytype. Remembering that 20,000+ Spts were built during WW2 the numbers are pretty low".

You were stating that only 46 spitifires were lost for structural failure on more than 22000!!!

Not knowing if the accidents over the sea were to be investigated by the AAIB (as I honestly and correctly asked), but it's easy to think they weren't (as other thinks it's a logic thing)... so 46 on 22000 is not an attendible number, while you stated it was the true one.

This is the reason I posted that it as small sample of the total Spitfire lost. And I remain with this convinction.

Originally Posted by Glider

Possible but very unlikely. The reports are procduced during the war, the book many years later.

And on what are based the books? Does the author invent the numbers or he did a research for documents like we do?

You stated that 2 books reported the same numbers for which reason? Nobody here claimed you to be a liar, you had not to defend yourself.

If the source is about a small sample of accidents (as this one) or unattendible (and this's not the case) you can report it in 20 books... it remains about a small sample of accidents.

Why did you not quoted the part about the different numbers on the other book?
I report it again: "3 books: one has different numbers... Which ones are the corrected numbers?"

Can you answer? Do you still claim the 46/22000?

I hope you can anwser, or I start thinking that you can be one of those amatour historian (luckly) expert on spreading disinformation bacause of a personale agenda: I hope you are not, at first you impressed me as an nice honest guy.

Originally Posted by Glider

There is no way they can know for certainty as to what happened in some cases over german held areas. However you accuse them of ignoring accidents which is insulting and you do it without evidence which compounds the insult.
You are also factually wrong. The vast majority of Typhoon losses due to the loss of the tail happened over Germany areas but this wasn't ignored. The pilots were aware of what was going on, it was reported and the issue was addressed. To pretend that Spits breaking up would be ignored is clearly wrong and without evidence again insulting.
You may well question my approach to historical facts but I would never, ever, say such a thing without something to support what I said.
I await your supporting evidence with some interest, note evidence not theory. It shouldn't be difficult as you believe it happended so often finding an unexplained loss that was put forward and then ignored should be straight forward.

Accusing what? I only asked if those accidents were ignored by the AAIB (not reported to them by the RAF).. some other posters honestly claimed that it's very probable that those accidents were not reported to AAIB since without wreckage were could not be an investigation.
I asked for it before and you, as the claimer of the AAIB's 46/22000 should have given an answer, researching instead of quoting a text without asking yourself the accuracy of the data (not on AAIB reported accidents, but on all the entire picture of the Spitfire lost in an accident).

Insulting? I'm starting to losing my patience with these accusations... please, Glider, remove them.

Did the Typhoon's issue have been reported to the AAIB? Do you know it? Where's the evidence?
I honestly asked if the wreckages were necessary to the AAIB: nobody said "yes, look at this document". So, until then, it's really probably that Typhoon's issue oversea were not investigated by the AAIB.

I'm questioning your evidences, I've not to prove anything that I've not questioned before. I'm playing the devil's advocate.

Originally Posted by Glider

If you want that then I suggest you go and look for it. Of course you can have a theory but a theory it remains unless and until you can support it. The AAAIB can only look at things that are referred to them, it always was and should always be that any unexplained accident should be reported to them. You forget that its in the interest of the pilots and crew to report these incidents as their lives are on the line

I don't forget anything!... I asked for it before BECAUSE OF this matter!

Originally Posted by Glider

Its not a small sample it all the incidents that were reported to them. If you believe that there were others that were ignored then support that statement. Again without evidence its a theory without support

I've never stated it.. please don't turn around putting words in my mouth. I've never

I'm claiming that it's a small sample compared to all the Spitfires lost for accident during the WW2 since all the things covered before. I'm not the one who claimed the 46/22000

The only real insulting thing it's you asking for evidence to the others when they actually question yours.
I don't have to proof anything, it's you who has to answer.

Yours it's a nice way to support facts: "if I have a little evidence than it's as I say".

Originally Posted by Glider

Or is that pilot reports, test pilot reports, test establishments reports and official accidents reports that are to be ignored because they are inconvenient?

As I said before you miss the point of the thread... sure reports are usefull to understand some issues, but the clear evidences of that issues are more difficult to be found since those pilots have care of their life and it's not really probable that they flew in the way most of IL2's players do.

Look, before the implementation of the structural damage in IL2 1946 I used to dive at 900km/h pulling up very sharply... It's irrealistic and I'm happy that DT developed this feature.

It's so wrong to have also the elevator sensibility as an plane's issue as clearly warned in the pilot's note?

Originally Posted by Glider

I don't hear Crumpp, yourself or anyone else demanding that the Spitfire be easy to land, easy to take off, be faultless in a turn and always turning inside the Me109 as did the German pilots and test establishments or are you in favour of such realistic factors

And here we go with the accusation of be Pro-Blue and Anti-Red!!! Good job! Glider, I thought you were different... In this message board it's impossible to be objective.

It so sad that many fans have to be always the ones against the others...

Your question: IMO the Spitfire landing is good as is it since ALL the plane in IL2 are easy to land.

Do I want a 109 difficult to land? As I stated before, many times, in other threads, I DO!!!
As I do a 190 that flips for a the accellerated stall...

Have I to put it under my sig?

[MiG-3U]

Originally Posted by robtek

Isn't the instability the fact that the Spitfire tightens its turn by itself without further control input???

So you mean that all the early Spitfire's had the control reversal at turn?

And do you mean that longitudinally instable aircraft has also the control reversal?

The problem here is that you extend a phenomena found on the worst case for all the early Spitfires.

[MiG-3U]

Originally Posted by 6S.Manu

Can I? Or I have been labled as naysayer? Or a Blue pilot who want to pork the Spitfire?

Well, as you seem to be so productive text wise today, could you explain me why it's only the blue side who want's to model the longitudal stability and elevator control after the worst case scenario (Rotol propeller and the CoG beyond the limits) for all the early Spitfire's?

Originally Posted by 6S.Manu

Please focus on the fact that I questioned also the pilots' experience and the airplane's conditions during the RAF mockfight.

Very good! However, you should apply same standards to all the data, including the NACA tests, and particularly to anonymous internet sources who change their arguments all the time...

[Glider]

Originally Posted by 6S.Manu

"Some substance" is not a fact. "Researching for the detail and mandatory verification of the source are the primary rules of an historian", it's been said by one of my friends (historian).

I totally agree with your friend. Ask him what he thinks about theories that have no support, I am confident that he will consider it a theory no more and no less.

Until there're unanswered questions then there's no fact. If have the right to doubt of it if it's not clear and so I ask you for detail.

There is a difference between a question that can be dealt with and one that cannot. Going back to your starting point "Researching for the detail and mandatory verification of the source are the primary rules of an historian", it's been said by one of my friends (historian).
You have the question, you do the research, then and only then do you have a position until then its a question.
Lets use an example. You implied that accidents were being ignored, you said it without any supporting evidence and I consider it to be an insult to those involved and its something that I would never say without serious research. I suggest you ask your friend about my approach and see what he says.

You also implied that other organisations might have investigated accidents. Again its a theory one that has no evidence behind it. As far as I am aware there is no other organisation so its a theory no more and no less. If you think there was another organisation then I suggest you look for it.

On both of these points if there is some evidence behind your position then I will spend as long as it takes to find the true position.

Can I? Or I have been labled as naysayer? Or a Blue pilot who want to pork the Spitfire?
Don't worry... when we'll be talking about the 109 I'll post questions about that too if the "fact" are not detailed.

I look forward to that. Its also worth noting that on the Me109 vs Spitfire thread my choice for the BOB period was the Me109 so don't put me into the pro Spit camp either

Please focus on the fact that I questioned also the pilots' experience and the airplane's conditions during the RAF mockfight.

I don't know your opionion about that, but it state that some pilots were not using the plane at it's full performance because they were afraid.

Now why should them be afraid if the plane was easy to fly? Could it be that those planes where not good as the others, or maybe the plane has a characteristic that they wanted to avoid. The author seems to claim the latter, but he says "probably" (IIRC)...

Some pilots in the front line were probably afraid as they could well be inexperienced, flying a high performance aircraft they may have had as little as 10 hours in, against superior numbers, with in the opposing Me109 a fighter every bit as good as the plane they were flying in.
Those in the test are very interesting and expose the difference between being experienced and skilled. Those nervous were probably experienced those not were skilled. Taking the aircraft to the edge is difficult and demands confidence and skill, they lacked the confidence. All airforces had similar issues, in the Me109 the majority of pilots would not take the turn past the deployment of the leading edge flaps. This is a personal view but its in this area where I believe the RAF lost out by not having a two seat SPit for training. If you have someone in the cockpit who takes you to the edge and shows you that it is safe, what the warning signs are you can grasp it easily. Without it finding the edge is a nervous moment.
Gliders handle in many ways in a similar manner to ww2 fighter. We have buffet as the warning before the stall, the high speed stall and the spinning of different types. The first time you show someone how to spin or the high speed stall they are normally scared to death. Once they get used to the feeling some will do it frequently, its a buzz.

The skilled pilot will always get that extra 5/10% out of the aircraft. I used the example of the Zero and the Hellcat. Most would agree that overall the Hellcat is the better fighter but if S Sakai was in the Zero how would you rate your chances?

Of course the poster who want to picture they favourite plane as the better had claimed that the pilot's on the 109 was high skilled (and I can't doubt it, by logic) and the outturned ones were worser... Now please tell me why I'm the bad guy formaking questions while the "it's so because I tell it" guys are the good one?

TheGerman Test Establishent were very clear in their advice to German pilots. Do not enter a turning fight with the Spitfire or Hurricane. They would not have had a pro RAF stance.

Anyway you keep missing the point: it's not "how many times it happened", it's "if it can happen".

This is where we differ. There is an old saying, if it can happen it will. If its easy to reach the limit and crash then the limit will be reached and planes will crash. However the planes didn't crash in any numbers.

Now I ask to you: do you think they fought as the players are used to do in this sim?

Take the doc about the mock fight in which some RAF pilots could not outturn the 109 becouse of the fear to spin. Now reproduce the same mock fight in sim: experience makes me say that an average pilot (one who actually understood the limits of the plane) will always outturn the 109.

Agree

In this sim most pilots fly as there is no tomorrow (since they are allowed to do it, as to fly at 7km with the open cockpit): logically they do critical manouvres far more than the real pilots, so the issue of a plane has to be more evident...

Agree if applied to all aircraft types

So do you see why I claim that your document (Mr.Newton's interview) is not helpful here? First it's incomplete since it's the number of reported accidents, not all the accidents

It is as complete as it can be. No doubt the german authorities had a simiar accident investigation team and they would have similar limitations.
[QUOTE]



[QUOTE=Glider;451098]
Its more than you have put forward. You have a theory but nothing behind it

Ah! It's called intellectual honesty!

You posted that interview claiming this: "To get a feel for how fragile the SPitfire was the following is a posting I found which breaks the losses bytype. Remembering that 20,000+ Spts were built during WW2 the numbers are pretty low".

You were stating that only 46 spitifires were lost for structural failure on more than 22000!!!

Not knowing if the accidents over the sea were to be investigated by the AAIB (as I honestly and correctly asked), but it's easy to think they weren't (as other thinks it's a logic thing)... so 46 on 22000 is not an attendible number, while you stated it was the true one.

It is as good a number as it can be. I stand by the numbers as an indication that they are very low for this type of aircraft. I notice that no one has disagreed with this statement.
No one has any idea as to how many were lost away from the home areas due to structural issues but this is a statement of fact, not a conspiracy theory.

This is the reason I posted that it as small sample of the total Spitfire lost. And I remain with this convinction.

fine
[QUOTE]

Originally Posted by Glider

Possible but very unlikely. The reports are procduced during the war, the book many years later.

He was the investigating engineer at the time, his reports obviously would have been done as the incidents were reported. The M S book was produced years later on an aircraft by aircraft basis, I don't see how one could be based on the other.

No this is all the accidents that were reported to the team. A small sample implies that others were ignored and there is no evidence to support that theory.

There is no other basis for showing a ratio. We do not know how many were lost due to structural losses over the sea or enemy areas. Clearly some would have been but we will never know. Comparing what we know against production is an imperfect ratio. However it is one that we should be able to replicate on other aircraft types and is the only valid approach that I can think of. If you have a better idea then I will take it.

PS I am a nice honest guy

I apologise for any insult totally. I am touchy about people who imply that accidents are ignored by the investigating bodies. My son is a safety Inspector in nuclear establishments and I spent some time in the RN accident Investigation team (only basically as the coffee maker) but I saw how seriously these people take their tasks. There is no evidence that accidents were ignored that I am aware of.

Yes the Typhoon issues were reported and it took a lot of time to find a solution. Wreckage helps and its only fair to add that I was wrong, most happened over the UK.
There were cases where there was little wreckage but tests were still undertaken to try and repeat the situation to find a cause. Probably the best example I can think of was the Halifax. It took some time to identify and sort out its problems re spinning. Most happened on missions and obviously there was little to go on

Nope I always have something to support a case and its not, because I say so.

Pilots notes are there to warn the pilot and err on the side of caution. Good example is the spinning. Early Spit pilots notes banned spinning but did tell the pilot that the plane would recover normally. Later ones allowed spinning but with permission from a senior officer.
The Spit could spin and would recover but they didn't want to see pilots putting planes at risk.
The P47 pilots notes say that you cannot do more than 1/2 a turn when spinning (not my definition of a spin I admit) but again it could spin more than that and recover.
This carried on after the war and probably continues. The Hunter T8 pilots notes say that spinning is banned period, but I have recovered from a couple of spins in one. In reality the Hunter spins and recovers normally as long as you recover in the first two turns. After that is oscillates, you can get disorientated and its time to leave

And here we go with the accusation of be Pro-Blue and Anti-Red!!! Good job! Glider, I thought you were different... In this message board it's impossible to be objective.

Its quite possible to be objective and we covered the pro anti bit earlier.

Have I to put it under my sig?

nicely

[6S.Manu]

Originally Posted by MiG-3U

Well, as you seem to be so productive text wise today, could you explain me why it's only the blue side who want's to model the longitudal stability and elevator control after the worst case scenario (Rotol propeller and the CoG beyond the limits) for all the early Spitfire's?

If you provide a method to identificate which poster are part of the "blue side" I could give a partial answer: but I don't think it's true that only the blue want this feature modelled. I think to some friends used to fly Spitfire who could actually welcome this feature in name of the realism.

Anyway it's not a smart question: "why only the blue side want the the feature modelled?" can easily become "why only the red side don't want the feature modelled?"

We should leave away this Red vs Blue thing...

Originally Posted by MiG-3U

Very good! However, you should apply same standards to all the data, including the NACA tests, and particularly to anonymous internet sources who change their arguments all the time...

Do you mean that the test in the first post is not real? I know there are some posters able to find the source in few time (NZthypoon is surprising ) so if it was a false document it could be easily unmasked.

[bongodriver]

Do you mean that the test in the first post is not real? I know there are some posters able to find the source in few time (NZthypoon is surprising ) so if it was a false document it could be easily unmasked.

No, he is saying you should treat 'all' the evidence the same, are you saying everyone elses evidence is a lie?

[NZtyphoon]

Originally Posted by 6S.Manu

Do you mean that the test in the first post is not real? I know there are some posters able to find the source in few time (NZthypoon is surprising ) so if it was a false document it could be easily unmasked.

The reason I can find documentation so quickly is because I know how and where to look. I enjoy ferreting around in books, archives etc - unlike some of my contemporaries.

[6S.Manu]

Originally Posted by bongodriver

No, he is saying you should treat 'all' the evidence the same, are you saying everyone elses evidence is a lie?

No... There is a ton of documents in this thread... I don't think to have questioned them all.

Originally Posted by NZtyphoon

Unmask away - the reason I can find documentation so quickly is because I know how and where to look: if that's a problem with you I can't help that.

Mine was a compliment.
OT: BTW Can I ask if you know a source for the RR Merlin family? I'm trying to develop a framework about engines and I'm interested to have some data.

I'm not asking you to do my work: I need only a clue about a website or a book. Thanks!