Author Topic: Spitfire structural failures (Read 6369 times)

MiloMorai · « **on:** July 22, 2004, 02:08:17 PM »

Since Issy has tried to derail the 109 fuel thread with non-related subject matter, here is what was posted, by Berkshire Hunt, on the Ubi-Il-2 board.

I thought I remembered reading an interview on this subject many years ago- and finally found it in a yellowed copy of Alfred Price's 'Spifire At War' (published 1974). It's germane to this discussion (as my teacher used to say) because the person being interviewed is none other than Mr Eric Newton who spent the war with the Air Accident Investigation Branch. He was still employed by them as an investigator in 1974- the time of the interview- so presumably still had the facts at his fingertips. This body was, and is, independent of the RAF.

Mr Newton was called in to investigate Spitfire crashes which could not be immediately attributed to pilot error (the same crashes which are detailed in Morgan and Shacklady). He says:

"Out of a total of 121 serious or major accidents to Spifires reported to us between the begining of 1941 and the end of the war, 68 involved structural failure in the air. Initially the most common reason for such failures, with 22 instances in 1941 and 1942, was aileron instability. The symptoms were not at all clear cut: the aircraft were usually diving at high speed when they simply fell to pieces. Only after one of the pilots had survived this traumatic experience and parachuted successfully were we able to find the cause. During his dive he saw both of his ailerons suddenly flip up, producing an extremely violent pitch- up which caused the wing to fail and the aircraft to break up. In collaboration with RAE we did a lot of tests and found that aileron up- float was made possible by stretch in the control cables; in those days tensioning was a hit or miss affair with no compensation for temperature. On our recommendation the RAF introduced a tensometer which ensured accurate tensioning of the controls; this, and the simultaneous introduction of metal surfaced ailerons ('42/'43), cured almost all the cases of aileron instability in the Spitfire.

The next most serious cause of structural failure in the Spitfire was pilots overstressing the airframe. She was extremely responsive on the controls and one must remember that in those days there was no accelerometer to tell the pilot how close he was to the limit. So it was not difficult to exceed the aircraft's 10G ultimate stress factor (what was the 109's?- Berkshire) during combat or when pulling out from a high speed dive; during the war we were able to put down 46 major accidents to this cause, though undoubtedly there were many other occasions when it happened and we did not see the wreckage. Incidentally, if there was a structural failure in the Spitfire it was almost inevitably the wing that went; the fuselage was far less likely to fail first (the same for most low wing monoplane fighters?-except the Typhoon?- Berkshire).
I once asked a very senior RAF officer why the accelerometer- technically a simple instrument- was not introduced during the war. He replied that he was sure it would have an adverse effect on the fighting spirit of the pilots (same was said re the parachute in WW1!- Berkshire).
Whether that would have been so I cannot say. But I do know that when they finally introduced the accelerometer into service in the Hunter in 1954, and began educating the pilots on structural limitations and the dangers of overstressing, accidents to this cause virtually ceased.

After structural failure the next largest category of accidents proved on investigation to have followed loss of control by the pilot (36 cases). Of these 20 occured in cloud and could be put down to pilot error; one must remember that in the rush to get pilots operational instrument training was not up to peacetime standards.

A further 13 accidents were shown to have been caused by oxygen starvation; the oxygen system had been used incorrectly with the result that the pilot had passed out and the aircraft had crashed. As a result of our investigations the system was modified to make it easier to operate.

The remaining 3 accidents in the loss of control category were initiated by the pilot pulling excessive G and blacking himself out.

Engine failures and fires contributed a further 17 accidents, and the remainder could be put down under the 'miscellaneous' heading (long story here about fuel leaks and explosions on the ground- Berkshire)

As I have mentioned we investigated a total of 121 Spitfire accidents during the war. The causes did not always fit simply into neat categories mentioned above. For example, a pilot might lose control in cloud and his aircraft then broke up in the ensuing dive due to aileron instability- in that case the accident would have been listed under two categories. There were one or two accidents caused by the light- weight plastic bucket seats fitted to some batches of Spitfires. The trouble was they were not strong enough and if there was a heavy pilot who pulled a bit of G they tended to collapse- on to the elevator control runs which ran underneath. We soon had that type of seat replaced.

In the nature of my work I tend to concentrate on an aircraft's failings and ignore its good points; but how safe was the Spitfire? I think the figures speak for themselves; a total of more than 22,000 were built, and we were called in on only 130 occasions- and in not all of those was the Spitfire at fault. If one considers that she was not a simple trainer built for ease of handling, there can be no doubt that the Spifire was a remarkably safe little aircraft."

To summarise:
There were 121 Spitfire crash investigations between 1941 and May 1945 involving serious structural failure:
22 aileron instability
46 pilot overstressed airframe
20 pilot error in cloud
13 misuse of oxygen system- pilot error
3 pilot blacked out
17 engine failure/fire

(22,000 produced)

I shall refrain from calculating percentages to show what an incredibly low percentage of Spitfires were destroyed by structural failure/ engine failure for the reason outlined by Mr Newton. Nevertheless, there is absolutely nothing here to suggest that the Spitfire had some kind of endemic weakness.

VO101_Isegrim · « **Reply #1 on:** July 22, 2004, 03:02:26 PM »

I really don`t want to waste much time on a 3rd rate cretin that is generally ignored on all forums as a result of his behaviour.

I just wish to respond to the part where the blending of truth and lies began.

Only 121 accidents involving the Spitfire during the war? I guess not even Naswhan would believe such sillyness. Obviously the guy Mindless Moron quoted from intentionally wanted to blurr together the total number of Spit accidents and the number of incidents reported to a single guy. Cheap trick, good to fool people in the kindergarten. But even when just tipping the top of the iceberg, we a lot more.

From Spitfire, History :

When the tail unit failed on a Spitfire, it often sheared off at fuselage frame No. 19. In 1942, an official at RAE Farnborough noted that out of 36 Spitfire accidents, the tail unit had broken off in flight during 24 of these mishaps.By 1944, the Spitfire was often used in the fighter-bomber role and it was reported that the engine mounting U frames had frequently buckled in dive pullouts. About 35 Spitfires from Biggin Hill Wing were found to have this fault.

Funny that S:H mentions alone 36 structural failures suffered alone to the cause of a weak tail unit.

The below partial, and far from complete list is well known.

---------------------------------------
Mar 39...Mk I....K9838...Structural failure in dive.
Jan 41...Mk I....N3191...Both wings broke off in dive.
Jul 41...Mk I....X4354...Port wing broke off in dive.
Aug 41...Mk I....X4381...Starboard wing broke off in dive.
Mar 41...Mk I....X4421...Both wings broke off in dive pullout.
Jul 41...Mk I....X4662...Stbd wing broke off in dive pullout.
Jun 41...Mk I....X4680...Wings/tail broke off in dive pullout.
Nov 42...Mk I....X4621...Failed to recover from dive.
Apr 43...Mk II...P7352...Broke up in dive.
Sep 41...Mk II...P7522...Both wings broke off in dive.
Jun 43...Mk V....BL531...Both wings broke off in dive.
Feb 42...Mk V....AA876...Disintegrated in dive.
Jul 43...Mk V....BL389...Pilot thrown from aircraft in dive.
Jan 43...Mk IX...BS251...Structural failure in dive.
May 43...Mk IX...BS385...Structural failure in dive.
Aug 43...Mk IX...BS441...Disintegrated in dive.
Oct 46...Mk IX...PL387...Disintegrated in dive.
Jan 48...Mk XVI..SL724...Crashed after recovery from dive.
Sep 48...Mk XVI..TD119...Crashed after recovery from dive.
Aug 42...Mk I....N3284...Broke up in flight.
Aug 41...Mk I....N3286...Broke up in flight.
Sep 40...Mk I....P9546...Structural failure in flight.
May 42...Mk I....P9309...Lost wing in flight.
Apr 43...Mk I....X4234...Lost wing in spin.
Sep 42...Mk I....P9322...Broke up in flight.
Aug 43...Mk I....R6706...Aileron failure which led to crash.
Jan 43...Mk I....X4854...Starboard wing broke off in flight.
Nov 40...Mk II...P7593...Stbd wing and tail broke off in flight.
Dec 41...Mk II...P8183...Port wing broke off in flight.
Jun 42...Mk II...P8644...Starboard wing broke off in flight.
May 41...Mk II...N8245...Structural failure in flight.
Feb 44...Mk II...P7911...Flap failure which led to crash.
Sep 42...Mk V....AD555...Flap failure which led to crash.
Mar 44...Mk V....BL303...Flap failure which led to crash.
Dec 41...Mk V....BL407...Structural failure suspected.
Jun 42...Mk V....AB172...Structural failure in flight.
Mar 43...Mk V....AA970...Structural failure in flight.
Jun 43...Mk V....BL290...Port wing broke off in flight.
May 43...Mk V....BR627...Port wing failed in spin.
Oct 41...Mk IV...AA801...Structural failure in flight.
Feb 43...Mk IX...BS404...Structural failure in spin.
Feb 45...Mk IX...MH349...Wing failed during aerobatics.(pg.318)
Sep 46...Mk IX...MJ843...Port wing, tailplane broke off in loop.
Apr 43...Mk V....EP335...Wings, fuselage, tail, damaged in dive.(pg.63)
Jul 42...Mk VI...AB200...Wings buckled in dive at 450mph IAS.
Apr 44...Mk IX...MA308...Wings severely buckled around cannons.(pg.63)
Feb 44...Mk XI...EN409...Many wing rivets failed in dive.(pg.389)
Apr 44...Mk XI...EN409...Prop/gear broke off at 427mph IAS.(pg.389,399)
Nov 44...Mk IX...MH692...Tail section damaged in dive.(pg.318)

One has to be really bind to go by such small details, but some people manage to.

This alone, and the data about the tailplane failures show how many more Spits were lost in structural failure accidents, than is willing to be admitted by Spit fans like Berkshirehunt. Simply for these people reality does not exist, the Spit was best in everything, no problems at all. Routinely I can see statements from a certain Spit fan that the Spitfire would not overheat at all, or the new one, which seems to be it would left anything behind in a dive. I guess in BS-hunt`s dreamland, the 'safest fighter of all times' line, is also added.

I say it`s their choice what they want to believe in. This crap, or the historical reality, which sadly also includes years of investigation why structural failures occur, banning of dive bombing sorties, buckling wings in dive bombings and so on. I guess no fighter was free from structural defects, but it`s historical combat report hardly makes the Spit to be on the safe, or tough airframe side. Oddly enough, at the same time, quite a few restrictions were imposed on it - only small sized bombs could be carried, 'heavy bombload' (=less than 500kg..) missions were to be only flown from well prepeared smooth runways, carrier-borne versions virtually managed to knock themselves out with a hughe number of landing gear and airframe failures during landings etc. But reality never bothered dreamers too much.

MiloMorai · « **Reply #2 on:** July 22, 2004, 03:38:23 PM »

You are not ignored because of your NAZI Germany is uber BS you continually try to push on everyone.

Still with that reading disability Barbi? Seems so. Re-read what was written several times more so you do not continue to embarrass yourself.

"Out of a total of 121 serious or major accidents to Spifires reported to us (so Barbi notices) between the begining of 1941 and the end of the war"

Now where does it say Only 121 accidents involving the Spitfire during the war?? Improve you reading skills Barbi

You are an expert at blending truth with outright lies. But what else is expected from an ambulance chaser.

These are grouped with politicians and bankers.

Does not tail failure not fall in the category 'structual failure'? BH in his post, list 46.

Your outright hatred for the Spitfire truely clouds your judgement, that is if you were really capable of any judgement.

Are you sure you are not describing your atitude towards the Messicrap;) 109 in the last 2 paragraphs?

phookat · « **Reply #3 on:** July 22, 2004, 03:48:19 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by MiloMorai
You are not ignored because of your NAZI Germany is uber BS you continually try to push on everyone.

Leave the politics out of this. And wipe the spittle from your face, while you're at it.

MiloMorai · « **Reply #4 on:** July 22, 2004, 04:41:44 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by phookat
Leave the politics out of this. And wipe the spittle from your face, while you're at it.

Nothing political at all. All that Nazi Germany produced during WW2, Barbi considers superior (uber) to what ever was produced by other countries.

If I had meant pre or post Nazi Germany, Nazi would not have been put in.

Well might have said pre-nazi or post nazi.

That spittle I have to wipe off my face, is that the spittle Barbi adorned me with? Missed his personnel insults, did you?

Have an nice day now.

Guppy35 · « **Reply #5 on:** July 22, 2004, 05:08:38 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by VO101_Isegrim
I really don`t want to waste much time on a 3rd rate cretin that is generally ignored on all forums as a result of his behaviour.

I just wish to respond to the part where the blending of truth and lies began.

I hate to even step in this one, but your anti Spit bias is way too strong Ingrim.

You find the stats that fit what you want to believe and forget the ones that don't work.

None of the fighters of WW2 were without failings. But as the Spit and 109 were in production from before the war to the end, I'd suggest that in itself that speaks to the strength and quality of the aircraft.

That either could compete with the best of the rest at the end, also speaks to this.

We did the Spits carry bombs thread already and I posted numerous photos of Spits carrying 1000 pounds of bombs from rough airfields. That's old news.

So you go and take whatever German kite you like and enjoy it, but give the Spit was a worthless piece of crap aircraft line a rest will ya. It gets old.

You can enjoy the history of all aircraft without having to take sides. As I've said before I'm a Spit fanatic from long before computer flight sims, but I like 109s as well. I don't have to take sides.

And quit biting on Milo's rants. He trolled you well this time

Dan/Slack

MiloMorai · « **Reply #6 on:** July 22, 2004, 05:27:14 PM »

Guppy, what rant???

"Since Issy has tried to derail the 109 fuel thread with non-related subject matter, here is what was posted, by Berkshire Hunt, on the Ubi-Il-2 board."

This is a rant?

As for the 2cd post, I am not as diplomatic as you.

I don't beat around the bush giving a spade some flowery name and even this post (2cd) I would not consider a rant.

Guppy35 · « **Reply #7 on:** July 22, 2004, 05:37:51 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by MiloMorai
Guppy, what rant???

"Since Issy has tried to derail the 109 fuel thread with non-related subject matter, here is what was posted, by Berkshire Hunt, on the Ubi-Il-2 board."

This is a rant?

As for the 2cd post, I am not as diplomatic as you. I don't beat around the bush giving a spade some flowery name and even this post (2cd) I would not consider a rant.

OK Rant was maybe the wrong word

But you know as well as I that all you have to do is say "Spitfire" and Isegrim is going to get worked up.

Dan/Slack

MiloMorai · « **Reply #8 on:** July 22, 2004, 05:42:50 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Guppy35
OK Rant was maybe the wrong word

But you know as well as I that all you have to do is say "Spitfire" and Isegrim is going to get worked up.

Dan/Slack

Thats for sure he gets all worked up and goes on a rant.

Like a bull seeing the red cape of the matador. Now if he sees Spitfire and my name together, he goes berserker.

phookat · « **Reply #9 on:** July 23, 2004, 01:49:55 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by MiloMorai
Nothing political at all. All that Nazi Germany produced during WW2, Barbi considers superior (uber) to what ever was produced by other countries.

I don't seen that here. Maybe there's some history, whatever. Mainly what I see here over the past few days is that you're getting owned. Piece of advice-- cool off, or let the other Spit guys speak in your stead.

Angus · « **Reply #10 on:** July 23, 2004, 05:03:52 AM »

5% of 109's were lost ONLY in takeoff/landing accidents.
That makes ummmm.....roughly 1500 aircraft...
+
Oh, how about giving Issy a ticket to Duxford, then he can watch Spitties while flying

Not to mention doing impossible low level aerobatics......

VO101_Isegrim · « **Reply #11 on:** July 23, 2004, 05:20:43 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Angus
5% of 109's were lost ONLY in takeoff/landing accidents.
That makes ummmm.....roughly 1500 aircraft...

[/b]

Is this counts as a lot, Angus? I doubt that. USAAF and RAF statistics show roughly half of the total losses are made up by accidents.

The British lost some 1900-odd fighters during the Battle of Britain, but only some 950 or so were lost in combat. The rest was written down in accidents, of which I have no doubt the vast majority were take-off/landing ones, considering that`s the most risky manouver for any plane to perform.

You know I really wonder how many Spitties were lost in landings. That 5% figure, wherever it comes from (as there`s no definietive source for this anywhere), doesn`t seem to be anything special to me. Luckily enough, the 109 had much wider undercarriage than the Spit, you know that.

Quote

Oh, how about giving Issy a ticket to Duxford, then he can watch Spitties while flying

Not to mention doing impossible low level aerobatics......

[/b]

I think this is a very constructive idea.

Angus · « **Reply #12 on:** July 23, 2004, 05:25:38 AM »

"109 had much wider undercarriage than the Spit, you know that."

Doesn't look that way to me, but I'll measure it next time I see them

Look very similar really....

VO101_Isegrim · « **Reply #13 on:** July 23, 2004, 05:32:11 AM »

Track width, 2.0-2.1m on Bf 109F-K.
Was about 1.6m on the Spitty IIRC.

Anyway, 'wide' is a bit of an odd wording in both cases.

BTW, I don`t know what manouvers the Spitty could perform at low level, but surely not the ones that Messerscmitt`s 105 can.

MiloMorai · « **Reply #14 on:** July 23, 2004, 06:53:43 AM »

phookat, better improve your history. Oh, and get some reading glasses.

............

Angus, Issy said the truth about the 109s track, it was slightly wider. But, what hurt the 109 was its l/g geometry. Once the 109 touched down, the toe-in, if only one wheel was in contact, would cause a ground loop if the pilot was not very quick, and even then, could still be in 'trouble'. If the ground loop was violent enough the 109 could turn 'turtle'' trapping the pilot in the cockpit. A damaged, inverted a/c is not a nice place to be trapped with a fuel tank just above.

The Spitfire's track was closer to 1.8m, not 1.6m.

I would like to know what this (quote) "Messerscmitt`s 105" is.

Now phookat, notice how Issy puts up some numbers for RAF fighter losses (total - all causes) during BoB but fails to give us what the LW fighter losses (total - all causes) were during BoB for comparison. He includes all fighters, but this thread is about Spitfires (and now 109s). Just another case of his attempting mis-direction and skewing facts in trying to prove how uber Germany was.