Spitfire NACA reports

[straffo]

Originally posted by Batz
Pierre Closterman told more tales then pinocchio.
 

Clostermann never pictured his book as the ultimate accurate book about WWII but more as a book reporting the daily life of a fighter pilot.



Btw be warned that Clostermann is pretty sensitive on this subject and if you want to avoid any problem with him and his lawyer you should better make this post disappear.

[VO101_Isegrim]

Guppy,

do you have any factual roll rate information other than is already well-known (NACA 868 and the two above NACA handling tests of Spit VA) ?

It would prove interesting.

[Batz]

Originally posted by straffo
Btw be warned that Clostermann is pretty sensitive on this subject and if you want to avoid any problem with him and his lawyer you should better make this post disappear.

He ought to be.

I have faith in my ability to defend myself from whatever may be directed my way.

But thanks for your concern.....

[straffo]

well ... I wanted to warn you (even if it's pretty improbable he will look here) ,I've heard of forum shut down and so on ...

[Guppy35]

Originally posted by Batz
Pierre Closterman told more tales then pinocchio.
 

I don't  think there is any question that he got some of his facts wrong in the book.   One of the most glaring to me was his mention of red nosed mustangs escorting the October 43 Schweinfurt fortresses and meeting "Major Beeson" when he landed his red nosed Mustang at Manston with damage.  

That couldn't have happened before April of 44.

Regardless, the Spit got off the ground in a hurry

Dan/Slack

[Guppy35]

This is the NACA tested Spit Va W3119 a very early Spit V with the external armored windscreen, flat canopy etc.

For anyone who has read Robert Stanford Tuck's biography "Fly for your Life" By Larry Forrester, this is also the Spit that Tuck did his little airshow at Wright field with.

To quote from the book "It happened that Wright Field had the only Spitfire in America-a Mark V.  Unfortunately almost every pilot in the Air Corps had had a go on her and like a car that had too many drivers, she was the worse for wear...'She was  very tired, very sloppy-she'd had the guts caned out of her all right.'"

W3119 was at Wright Field first in April of 41 and NACA saw her in July of 41.

With Stanford Tuck describing W3119 as "tired and very sloppy" while at Wright Field, you have to wonder how she was when NACA had her after this.

Now the Tuck biography has some errors too, such as mentioning Mustangs being tested with Merlin engines at Wright at the same time.  While the Mustang I was around, the first Merlin conversion wasn't until October 42 in England, but it's a direct quote of Tuck on the condition of that Spit when he flew it so take it for what it's worth

Dan/Slack

[Charge]

I also read of someone here in Finland flying an old Brewster shortly after the war and it too was described as "sloppy". The aircraft's handling deteriorates as the airframe becomes "loose".

AFAIK the roll rate particularly suffers if the wings become soft.

So a sloppy old aircarft surely could be a bad example when service performance is measured.

-C+

[Angus]

From Isengrim:
"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."

For your knowledge, the Spitfire was at times used on dreadful runways, in N-Africa for instance. This was not a good condition for any WW2 fighter really. The Spitfire had a weakness in its narrow undercarriage, however strength in it subtle stall, lots of float on ground effect, and low stalling speed.
A Spit pilot once told me that at 80 miles they were already pulling the gear up, experienced pilots would be up quicker and at lower speeds than ever indicated in the manual.

Has any of you seen a Spitfire take off and do aerobatics?
I have. The biggest gaggle I've seen at once were around 20!
I've seen a 2-seater Spit IX take off in a distance I estimated to be approx 150 metres (being a Farmer with lots of field work in my life, I am rather good at guessing in this field), level off while engaging gear-up, then go straight into a loop! I have also seen a later model spit (probably a clipped XIV do incredible aerobatics that I am not sure I could even copy in AH.
From it all, the Spit seemed to fly extremely comfortably, almost by itself, however the pilot could just whoop it into incredible breaks and such like waving a magic wand.
The "float" at landing was also quite evident.
I have seen many other planes from ww2 while flying (F4U, P39/40/47/51, Yak, F4F, F6F, F8F, F7F), but nothing so far has compared to the Spits. After seeing that, I've been a bit "biased" I guess, but at least it is based on actual eye encounter.

[VO101_Isegrim]

Good thing you liked the Spits floating characteristics at landing:

Maybe you find this interesting, too:

A curving final approach is flown at 200kph, and once aligned with the runway the forward field of view is poor.  The threshold is crossed at 175kph, the throttle closed, and the aircraft flared to the 3 point attitude.  The '109 floats like a Spitfire and controls are effective up to touchdown

The only advantage of the Spit vs. the 109 in landing was that it was not so prone to swing (nose heavy plane vs. tail heavy). Visibility was just as bad, if not worse, as it had longer, broader nose, and the wings were more forward as well.

The Brits used the Spit in NA, however, for some strange reason, it wasn`t that much preferred to more rugged types like the P-40 pr Hurricane... of course the RAF did not have much of a choice over them, unlike the Soviets who didn`t use them for long under the poor conditions, because they had their own fighters more capable to be operated under ill-equipped fields of Ukraine.

The following is from a discussion, what Soviets thought of it:

Another thing was the narrowly spaced landing gear, poor rear view from the cockpit, and the tendency to stick its nose in the mud when taxiing.Problems with rear visibility were noted by Russian sources even in IXs.It was implied that it is a WORSE frontline fighter than other available models, and recommended that the plane be used in PVO. All of these qualities didn't matter if Spits were used as interceptors in PVO (where concrete runways were available), but they weren't that great as frontline fighters.

The point is that Spits USSR got were worse than German or new Soviet frontline fighters specifically in the conditions of the Eastern front air war. But as interceptors in the PVO they were unmatched simply because USSR did not produce an analog -- so there is nothing to compare them with.

[Overlag]

but soviets hate everything but soviet manufactured goods/planes etc

[Guppy35]

The Russians didn't like the LF IX, that's why they accepted roughly 1/5th of the LFIX's produced  1,188 to be exact.

Where did you read that they didn't like the Spit V in the desert?  Certainly with the Vokes filter the performance wasn't the same as a clean Spit V, but I've never seen a quote or comment anywhere that has a P40 or Hurricane pilot suggesting he not take a Spit and remain in either of those two aircraft.

I just finished reading T.F. Neil's book on his Malta experience and he spends much of it lamenting the poor performance of the Hurricane vs the 109F and wondering why they can't get Spits.

I'd also be curious as to what you believe a 'rough' airfield is, Since Spits operated off the PSP in France, North Africa, Italy the backwaters of the CBI etc.  They were meant to fly from grass strips too in England.

If we're talking boulder strewn, potholed, cratered stretches of dirt, i suppose they had a problem but then again most aircraft would

Dan/Slack

[MiloMorai]

Visibility was just as bad, if not worse, as it had longer, broader nose, and the wings were more forward as well.

nose width

Spitfire > ~2.75ft

109G > ~ 3.0ft


pilot's head to back of spinner

Spitfire > ~10ft

109G > ~9.75ft

~ used 1ft rule, no inches

A curved approach was used, only straightening out just before touch-down.

[VO101_Isegrim]

I keep wondering about Milo`s figure claims...

Spit nose being 2.75 feet... that`s 84 cm... the Merlin 66 was 78cm wide... wider than DB 605A.

I also keep wondering about the lenght... Merlin 66 was 225cm long.. save 5cm, almost as long as DB 605A... still, the Spit also mounted the fuel tank behind the engine, giving extra lenghts. Griffon was some half meter longer.. how could the Spit`s nose be the ~same lenght...

I keep wondering, how Milo managed to arrive at those bull numbers...

[Angus]

Hmm, there must be a measurable picture around somewhere to check this out.Maybe someone will post something more accurate.
Anyway, I seem to recall that the Spit IX should be indistinguishable from the Spit V. Maybe that appeals to fast combat and not scrutiny, I do not know.
However, from my point of view, the Spit nose looks similar or longer than the 109's. Just my eyes
Gunther Rall mentions the taxiing/landing characteristics of allied planes vs the 109. He seems to favour ALL of them to the 109, including the Spitfire! There I shall not be the judge, never seen the 109 flying
(However, I have seen the 108. Delightful little plane I belive)
Now, about the desert spits,,,,,,peww...
They had the dreadful Vokes filter,decreasing speed.
Their climb was less hampered by this though, and generally their performance was better than any other's allied plane around, until the P38 arrived, but note that by then there were Mk IX's around as well. (I'll look it up if you like, this (hemm) is from memory, but I have read some 3-5 autobiographies that include the N-African campaign, i.e. from the Allied side.)
The Hurricane would have been very much better in rough cirkumstances like that, very much better than either the Spit or the 109. After all, unmodified Hurricanes even landed on a relatively small aircraft carrier without an accident already in 1940
However, when the mud period of the Tunisian fields started, ANY plane had a bad time. Even tanks and infantry did.
Then finally...about the nose-heaviness.
This is something I am curious about. I always believed that the 109 was rather more nose heavy. Why? Lighter airframe with a heavier engine, and a more backward wing, hence center of lift.
One source states that 5 % of 109's were lost in landing accidents, but as the war presented so different circumstances, there must be more accurate data around about this.
I even have a picture of a beautifully "nosed in" 109 !
(on a concrete runway)

Well, keep it alive



Angus

[MiloMorai]

Be curious all you want since you never specified what Mk.

Just because the engine was 'such and such' width does not mean the fuselage was that wide.

And, to add, the cowling on the 109 was higher at the windshield than on the Spitfire.

Did you forget the 109 had 2 mgs and a cannon mounted behind the engine where the Spifire had its fuel tank?

Numbers for a Mk V.

To keep you happy, the distance from pilot to the back off spinner was only ~5-6" less on the Mk IX than on the Mk XIV. The Mk IX added ~12" to the nose over the Mk V.

I checked on some better drawings and the 109F had a distance of 10.5ft.

Now go measure some drawing yourself instead of generalizing if you don't like my numbers.

If you need some drawings go here http://www.airwar.ru/other/draw_fw.html