Author Topic: Spitfire NACA reports  (Read 6923 times)

Offline Virage

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1097
Spitfire NACA reports
« on: February 25, 2004, 06:58:50 PM »
Sorry if these reports are old news.. reports also include rolling data.

Flying characteristics

 Stall characteristics


Many more cool flightsim/aerodynamics links
JG11

Vater

Offline Karnak

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 23048
Spitfire NACA reports
« Reply #1 on: February 25, 2004, 08:22:10 PM »
Keep in mind that the Spitfire Mk Va had fabric ailerons.
Petals floating by,
      Drift through my woman's hand,
             As she remembers me-

Offline Virage

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1097
Spitfire NACA reports
« Reply #2 on: February 25, 2004, 09:04:43 PM »
I read the charts as 8-10 seconds for a spit to do a 180 turn.  AH spitv does more than 180 in 8 secs.

Also read chart as showing a 80 mph take off speed.  
AH spitv gets airborn at a lower speed.

tested with 100% fuel, no wep.
JG11

Vater

Offline Karnak

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 23048
Spitfire NACA reports
« Reply #3 on: February 25, 2004, 09:33:48 PM »
Keep in mind they are different aircraft.

The Spitfire Mk V in AH has more power and alloy control surfaces.

Not saying it is correct, just that it is different.
Petals floating by,
      Drift through my woman's hand,
             As she remembers me-

Offline niklas

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 418
Spitfire NACA reports
« Reply #4 on: February 26, 2004, 01:11:41 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Karnak
Keep in mind that the Spitfire Mk Va had fabric ailerons.


Keep in mind that this report mentions metal ailerons for the tested aircraft (flying characteristics. page 2: "Ailerons: (METAL COVERED)"

niklas

Offline Angus

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10057
Spitfire NACA reports
« Reply #5 on: February 26, 2004, 03:07:28 AM »
Looks like one of the early type Mk V's
Ailerons were metal, but not yet satisfactory. There was a C of G problem along with the hypersensitive elevator control, that got fixed in later Mk V's as well. (It caused fatal accidents).
Very nice documents. Wish we had similar ones for more aircraft types.
It was very interesting to carry out the flight trials at Rechlin with the Spitfire and the Hurricane. Both types are very simple to fly compared to our aircraft, and childishly easy to take-off and land. (Werner Mölders)

Offline VO101_Isegrim

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 577
Spitfire NACA reports
« Reply #6 on: February 26, 2004, 05:43:05 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Angus
There was a C of G problem along with the hypersensitive elevator control, that got fixed in later Mk V's as well. (It caused fatal accidents).


Not sure about that, all Spitfires were known for their "hypersensitve" (=very light) elevator control. ie. 4lbs/G, where usually 6-7 waas found ideal. Not sure about if it cause fatal accidents (probably it could if pullouts were very harsh, some Spits lost wings in dive recoveries - pilot would not be able to do violent pullups if the elevators would be too heavy).

It was a two-edged weapon, it allowed for tight turns to be made at high speeds on one hand, not being restricte by control forces as much, but also meant that the aircraft was very touchy to handle, and one had to be very careful with the elevator movements. As the report states, a mere 3/4 inch was enough to bring the plane to the edge of stall.. not very ideal of stallfighting, one needs a solid hand and nerves of steel! The fact that the ailerons were very heavy, the pilot has to deal with almost zero resistance in pulling/pushing movements, but very high ones in the side direction, didnt make it easier either. The report otherwise agrees with what I have read in other reports, at 400mph as much as 60-70 lbs stickforce was not enough to deflect the ailerons even half of their range. So it seems a very good description, the most detailed I have seen.


It`s also interesting to compare what Jeff Ethell said after flying one.. It matches up nicely.

Quote
Sitting behind this demon V-12 churning out so much power is intoxicating...the earth falls away at a rapid rate, at least for something with a propeller. A look around reveals the excellent visibility out of the bubble canopy. This lessens, to a degree, the impression of being buried within a Spitfire, though that feeling of being a part of the machine does not change. The elevator is very light while the rudder is stiff and the ailerons even more so. Every Spitfire I've flown takes a bit more muscle to roll than most fighters. As speed increases both rudder and ailerons get heavier, resulting in a curious mismatch at high speed...one has to handle the almost oversensitive elevators with a light fingertip touch while arm-wrestling the stiff ailerons. Pilots had to keep this in mind during combat, particularly when going against the FW 190 which had a sterling rate of roll and exceptionally well harmonised controls. That being said, the aircraft is very well balanced and delightful to manoeuvre. Whipping a Spit around the clouds ranks right up there at the top of aviation's great experiences.

Offline Angus

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10057
Spitfire NACA reports
« Reply #7 on: February 26, 2004, 08:26:12 AM »
Isnegrim: Was that from....errrr. ...that pilot who flew various WW2 planes and died in a P38 accident? What was his name again....hmmm. I think I have it somewhere on my HD.
Anyway, the elevator controls were always very light compared to other aircraftm and the problem with the mk V was that the tenderly balanced c of g together with the easy and short travelled elevator authority allowed the aircraft to be pushed into an infinately high G pitch, eventually disintegrating the aircraft. The cause was the C og G shifting backwards under G loads.
That was fixed by adding bob weights to the stick itself, making it self-centering and heavier to move under high G.
It was very interesting to carry out the flight trials at Rechlin with the Spitfire and the Hurricane. Both types are very simple to fly compared to our aircraft, and childishly easy to take-off and land. (Werner Mölders)

Offline straffo

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10029
Spitfire NACA reports
« Reply #8 on: February 26, 2004, 09:31:49 AM »
Isegrim I'll show you another use of the Bold bbs tag :
Quote

Sitting behind this demon V-12 churning out so much power is intoxicating...the earth falls away at a rapid rate, at least for something with a propeller. A look around reveals the excellent visibility out of the bubble canopy. This lessens, to a degree, the impression of being buried within a Spitfire, though that feeling of being a part of the machine does not change. The elevator is very light while the rudder is stiff and the ailerons even more so. Every Spitfire I've flown takes a bit more muscle to roll than most fighters. As speed increases both rudder and ailerons get heavier, resulting in a curious mismatch at high speed...one has to handle the almost oversensitive elevators with a light fingertip touch while arm-wrestling the stiff ailerons. Pilots had to keep this in mind during combat, particularly when going against the Fw 190 which had a sterling rate of roll and exceptionally well harmonized controls. That being said, the aircraft is very well balanced and delightful to maneuver. Whipping a Spit around the clouds ranks right up there at the top of aviation's great experiences.
The aircraft stalls like a Piper Cub


We all new you are a 109 fan.
Now that is settled can you stop being biased and make interesting post ?



Original (and complete) Ethell report can be found here

Offline VO101_Isegrim

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 577
Spitfire NACA reports
« Reply #9 on: February 26, 2004, 10:13:36 AM »
Straffo, can you pls tell me what new was in re-posting the same text I did ? Stall characteristics? Everyone who ever read smtg about the Spits flying chararchteristics knows about it was very good. But that doesnt mean it was stall safe. Different things, straffo. A pilot with a gentle hand could "ride" the stall, but movements with the stick considered normal in another plane would still stall it. If you dont get the difference, sorry then.

I neither do understand what does my admiring towards the 109s design has to do anything with the topic.

Offline straffo

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10029
Spitfire NACA reports
« Reply #10 on: February 26, 2004, 10:20:58 AM »
By putting some part in bold you put emphasis to some selected part and making this non neutral.

Quote
but movements with the stick considered normal in another plane would still stall it. If you dont get the difference


That's perhaps explain why spitfire's pilot were not trained in mosquito :rolleyes:

Offline MiloMorai

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6864
Spitfire NACA reports
« Reply #11 on: February 26, 2004, 10:22:07 AM »
" All Spitfires are exceptionally easy to land with no inherent tendency to swerve or groundloop ( unlike a certain German a/c:eek: ). Just reduce power to idle, flare to a three point attitude and she sets down on a feather almost every time. This is a great surprise to most considering the narrow track undercarriage and full swivel, non-locking tailwheel. Why doesn't it drop a wing violently or make the pilot stomp on the rudders? I wish I knew. The genius of managing to combine light aircraft characteristics with such high performance is nothing short of miraculous compared to most other wartime tailwheel types. One or two landings in the Spitfire and you are in love for life."

Offline VO101_Isegrim

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 577
Spitfire NACA reports
« Reply #12 on: February 26, 2004, 10:45:25 AM »
I can fully agree with the Moron, (Shaun Innes in RL),  that the Spitfire was an easy plane to land, as long a good, smooth runway was provided. It`s a logical result of the plane being very nose heavy, which on the other hand made it prone to nosing over and the propellor hitting the ground. One of the reasons the Soviets refused to use it as frontline fighter - the plane was not capable to reliably operate in rough conditions ( unlike a certain German a/c :p ). A tail heavy plane, aka a taildragger, such as the P-51 or Bf 109 would be free from that flaw, severe breaking was possible, but would show tendency to ground loop, lockable tailwheel and a wider u/c easing that problem somewhat. Its all design features, characteristics traded for one another... and the battlefield results proved which characteristics were valuable for a WW2 fighter, and which were not... Something not really considered by laughable flamers like Moron, infamous for his hate against anything German.

Offline Dead Man Flying

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6301
Spitfire NACA reports
« Reply #13 on: February 26, 2004, 10:47:27 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Virage
Also read chart as showing a 80 mph take off speed.  
AH spitv gets airborn at a lower speed.


No, 80mph is about right for the Spit V in Aces High.  I consider 80mph to be sufficient to pull up a bit and bring the wheels up on rollout.  Any speed below that is pushing it.

-- Todd/Leviathn

Offline MiloMorai

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6864
Spitfire NACA reports
« Reply #14 on: February 26, 2004, 11:08:41 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by VO101_Isegrim
Something not really considered by laughable flamers like Moron, infamous for his hate against anything German.


No Barbi not a German hater but not blind like you are the the faults in LW a/c.:rolleyes: :rolleyes: Like you claiming the 109 had good vision to the rear for the pilot compared to what a bubble canopied Spit or P-51 pilot had.:rofl :rofl

As for hate, your hate for anything American and British is well shown on any forum you post on.:) You could not post a balanced unbiased post if your life depended on it.

Are you saying the LGs used by Spitfires in Africa were well prepared?:rofl :rofl When the LW was kicked out the RAF took them over.:eek:  Found lots of wrecked Messicraps laying around.:)