Author Topic: Spitfire NACA reports (Read 7076 times)

Guppy35 · « **Reply #75 on:** March 01, 2004, 05:32:02 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by HoHun
Hi Dan,

Anyway, if the Spitfire really overturned with the hood closed, the small door would be blocked anyway, and the way out would require use of the crowbar to smash the plexiglass. Getting through the small door (if it could be opened at all) from a position hanging upside down in the seat harness ... I don't know, sounds rather difficult.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

Hi Henning,

I think that was why the pilot's notes were specific about sliding back the hood and setting the side door in preperation for landing so that it did not allow the canopy to slam forward in an accident.

As for getting out through that door. I'm sure it was done, and I imagine it was a bit like the time the two 38 Pilots got into the cockpit of 1 38 like the 51 drivers did a few times in rescuing downed pilots. Once back at base, the two 38 drivers were asked to duplicate the event for the cameras and they were not able to do it. It clearly had happened as they went out with two 38s and returned with 2 pilots in 1 38, but without the adrenilen, fear etc, they couldn't do it again.

Keep in mind the door would have been part of the escape as the canopy would have to have been open too, with the higher profile behind the cockpit keeping the pilot from getting crushed as would have been the case with the 109.

You'd mentioned Black 6's accident and the pilot in that case was not able to get out of the cockpit until they could lift the tail to open the canopy if I remember right.

Dan/Slack

Guppy35 · « **Reply #76 on:** March 01, 2004, 05:44:10 PM »

OK I guess I'll counter my own thoughts with the words of a Spit XII pilot I corresponded with back in the 1980s. He had an engine failure on take off in August of 44 in Spit XII MB875. His description from a letter he sent me follows:

"My memory of that (the engine failure) was it started OK but seemed to lack all the power that was needed to get off. Belly tank on it as well, which to me made it a bit dicy to pull the undercarriage up as I had seen one go up in flames which landed and the belly tank went up. I just trusted that the brakes would pull it up in time but didn't. I went between 2 parked aircraft, hit an embankment, flipped upside down and went backwards on its back for 75-100 yards. Naturally I passed out, but luckily the canopy was still open. When I came to I released the parachute, forgetting about the Mae West clipped to it, and dropped the short distance on to my head so I was cramped upside down and couldn't get out through the small opening. I think it ran through my mind about it going on fire. However some ground staff came running up and lifted the plane up and managed to drag me out. Colin Gray(The Wing Commander) arrived and asked how I was and gave me a cigarette, said to go to the hospital and take 10 days leave."

Take it for what its worth. It's a first hand account anyway

Dan/Slack

Angus · « **Reply #77 on:** March 01, 2004, 05:52:00 PM »

The left hand knockout panel is the little door right?
On my wall, I have a picture of a Spit IX, double canopy, model 1943 or so, with the door open.
Anyway, I read a cool account of a crash-flipover, where the plane rushed onwards with the canopy near the ground, - the pilot (Alan Deere!) managed to crab out of the side door with his mouth already full of dirt!

Guppy35 · « **Reply #78 on:** March 01, 2004, 06:21:28 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Angus
The left hand knockout panel is the little door right?
On my wall, I have a picture of a Spit IX, double canopy, model 1943 or so, with the door open.
Anyway, I read a cool account of a crash-flipover, where the plane rushed onwards with the canopy near the ground, - the pilot (Alan Deere!) managed to crab out of the side door with his mouth already full of dirt!

Knockout panal is on the canopy on early Spits. Look at the image I posted of the two different Spit canopies. It's on the top canopy.

All Deere's crash was in a Spit I on August 31, 1940 when he was taking off from Hornchurch with two other Spits in the midst of a bombing raid. A bomb went off and knocked all three down with Deere going over on his back and getting the dirt and rocks in his eyes and mouth. The Spit I would have had the knock out panel on the canopy, but as you say, he crawled out through the small side door.

Dan/Slack

Charge · « **Reply #79 on:** March 02, 2004, 02:58:49 AM »

The side panel would surely have been helpful to get out wounded pilots, too, as T.F. Neil described in his book when they unsuccessfully tried to get a wounded pilot out of a Hurricane after it received a Bred/Saf .50 through its pilot armor, and pilot, of course. They got him out but after he managed to assist the ejection himself.

Maybe it was so rare to have wounded pilots to land on three wheels that the side door was not considered worth keeping.

Or did it weaken the airframe?

-C+

Guppy35 · « **Reply #80 on:** March 02, 2004, 09:42:31 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Charge
The side panel would surely have been helpful to get out wounded pilots, too, as T.F. Neil described in his book when they unsuccessfully tried to get a wounded pilot out of a Hurricane after it received a Bred/Saf .50 through its pilot armor, and pilot, of course. They got him out but after he managed to assist the ejection himself.

Maybe it was so rare to have wounded pilots to land on three wheels that the side door was not considered worth keeping.

Or did it weaken the airframe?

-C+

Spit always had that side door outside of the pressurized variants, the VI, VII, PRX & PR19. Hurri never had it.

Dan/Slack

Charge · « **Reply #81 on:** March 03, 2004, 04:06:15 AM »

Sorry Gup, I was a bit unclear there. I didn't mean that Hurri had the side panel, just that it would have been handy as in that incident Neil wished the Hurri had had the side panel just like the Spitfire.

-C+

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #82 on:** March 03, 2004, 05:55:49 AM »

"In most cases with a historical setup (Timeframe), the Spitfire outperforms the 109. i.e., a Spitfire will be able to hold a 109 off without running, but not the other way around"

All that means is that it can outurn it.

The 109E was faster, accelerated and climbed better than Spit I at usual combat heigths. Roll rate was similar, the 109 prolly a bit faster.

The 109F was, faster, acclereated better and climbed better trhan Spit V, roll rate and surprisingly turn were improved over the 109E.

109G2 was clearly better in climb, speed, accel over the early spit IX and maintained this through late 1943. High Alt G2/G4 with GM1 added more performance.

G6 was worse than spit IX due to weight and intro of new advanced spit 9 models particularly specialized in low high roles. But G6AS was faster. And G6 with Mw50 could prolly keep up.

Spit XIV was faster than the G6AS acceled and climbed better. G10 and K4 variously adressed that issue with K4 again being faster. Climb was similar depending on sources for K4.

So no its prolly not fair to say that Spits had dominance over the 109s. In fact its more that 109s had dominance until mid/late 1943 and intro of new spits. By early 44 the spits got performance advantages through G6as adressed some of that but in comparsion to late spit 9s. 109s did not get advantage or parity over spit 14 until the g10 and k4 late in 44.

Final WW2 developments saw the spit 21 and 22 getting faster and more heavily armed. The next 109 was to be the K14 with a new more powerful DB605L (two speed two stage supercharger) and four blade prop. This incresed speed and especially climb performance tremendously and would have made it faster and better climing thatn the 21/22 spits. Armament could now be impoved by new cannon such as extra mk108 in wings. Fitting anew 900rpm Mk108 in the engine. Fitting an Mk103M in the engine. Or perhaps even one of the new Mg213 which fired 30mm mine shells at 1200+rpm or a new 1000+ meter per second velocity 20mm shell at 1400+ rpm.

HoHun · « **Reply #83 on:** July 11, 2004, 03:17:05 AM »

Hi Guppy,

>I think that was why the pilot's notes were specific about sliding back the hood and setting the side door in preperation for landing so that it did not allow the canopy to slam forward in an accident.

I just found a mention of an wartime accident in which the Spitfire pilot slid back the hood, but neglected to lock it. It slammed forward on landing and injured him badly.

I guess the open side door would block the canopy's way forward even if the latter was not locked? Opening the former seems like a very important safety measure then.

(I just saw the RAF Historical Flight's Spitfire II, and noticed that it had the side door open as well at least during taxying. I'll have to check the photographs I took to see whether it was already open right after touchdown. Unfortunately, my line of view to the approach end of the runway was blocked so that I don't have any pictures of the landing itself!)

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

HoHun · « **Reply #84 on:** July 11, 2004, 03:23:13 AM »

Hi Dan,

>You'd mentioned Black 6's accident and the pilot in that case was not able to get out of the cockpit until they could lift the tail to open the canopy if I remember right.

That's correct. The Black 6 pilot didn't follow the wartime procedure of jettisoning the hood before an emergency landing because of the difficulty of getting a replacement canopy.

That was of course a dangerous risk to take. However, as they say in the Warbirds business: "Don't bother to bail out, because if you wreck our Warbird, we're going to find you and kill you anyhow!" ;-)

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

Crumpp · « **Reply #85 on:** July 11, 2004, 03:19:56 PM »

So the argument is that the rollrates in the NACA test are not valid because the Spitfire was "tired"?

Crumpp

Angus · « **Reply #86 on:** July 12, 2004, 08:57:31 AM »

Think so yes.
Recommended read about the Spitty's aileron stuff is "Spitfire, a test pilot's story" by J. Quill.

Crumpp · « **Reply #87 on:** July 13, 2004, 10:18:09 AM »

That could explain the discrepancy in the NACA roll rates on the FW-190 with the Luftwaffe and RAF reports. Unfortunately it is the only record in existence of the "measured" roll rates. The RAF test praises the roll rate of the 190 saying:

"Incrediable alieron rolls which would tear the wings off a 109 or a Spitfire were possible."

"Appears to the following pilot to simply flick 180 degrees in a roll no Spitfire could possibly follow"

"Extremely fast, precise, and controllable rate of roll."

The Luftwaffe calls the roll rate:

"A significant advance in fighter aircraft performance which will have positive result in combat."

The 190A5/U4 the USAAF tested was in "good condition" for a crash-landed captured aircraft. In fact though, it needed extensive repair on the engine and airframe that is listed under the test set up. Including missing main wing spar bolts. It was a "tired" airframe. Does anyone have the Detailed Aircraft Set up for the NACA roll rate test's?

Also in reference to that 190A5's condition:

In glancing over the Luftwaffe FW-190A1 thru FW-190A9 Technical manual I noticed a large section devoted to aileron adjustment. In fact, jigs and templates for aileron adjustment are listed as part of the special tools FW-190's needed for maintenance. At the top of each page was what appeared to be a caution statement saying improper adjustment of the ailerons had an adverse effect on the maneuverability of the 190. This is confirmed by Hpt. Gollabs report to the RLM on 190 performance. It is also appears to be part of the maintenance crews pre flight and post flight checks to confirm the proper adjustment.

All the test flight reports I have seen ONLY the German and the USAAF test mention aileron problems in a turn with the 190. The German report warns against improper aileron adjustment AND denotes it's adverse effect on the 190's turn performance. The USAAF test simply notes aileron flutter, reversal, and tip stalling.

Here is the actual verbiage from the RLM report:

http://www.terra.es/personal2/matias.s/fw190.html

My Pilots Manuals and Technical Manuals for the FW-190 are in the possession of a German engineer and pilot friend of mine who is checking my translations and attempting to answer some other questions. When I get them back their will be more info on this posted at the above website.

Obviously no one is claiming the 190 should outturn Spitfires or any other plane, which historically it could not. This does though point to the obvious lack of detailed technical knowledge the allies had in the day to day maintenance of Luftwaffe Aircraft and calls into the question using strictly allied sources as the end all word in German Aircraft performance. And questions the NACA report results as the definitive answer to roll rate performance.
Let me know your thoughts on this.

Crumpp

Nashwan · « **Reply #88 on:** July 13, 2004, 10:41:01 AM »

I believe the figures in NACA 868 for the Spit and Fw 190 are from British tests.

Interestingly, the British checked Fw 190 roll rate from a secondary source as well. They measured the observed rate of roll of 190s recorded on Spitfire gun cams. Those rolled at up to 120 deg/sec. (They used the background to determine that the Spit wasn't also rolling)

Quote

In glancing over the Luftwaffe FW-190A1 thru FW-190A9 Technical manual I noticed a large section devoted to aileron adjustment. In fact, jigs and templates for aileron adjustment are listed as part of the special tools FW-190's needed for maintenance. At the top of each page was what appeared to be a caution statement saying improper adjustment of the ailerons had an adverse effect on the maneuverability of the 190. This is confirmed by Hpt. Gollabs report to the RLM on 190 performance. It is also appears to be part of the maintenance crews pre flight and post flight checks to confirm the proper adjustment.

That's true for all Frise ailerons, afaik. Certainly it's very noticeable in Spitfire reports.

Crumpp · « **Reply #89 on:** July 13, 2004, 10:52:19 AM »

So you believe the test results from NACA are valid Nashwan? Your reply is somewhat confusing although the 120/sec would seem right. That would mean 180 degrees in 1.5 seconds or 360 degrees in 3 seconds. Does it list what speed?

Crumpp