Author Topic: Spitfire structural failures (Read 6371 times)

Angus · « **Reply #15 on:** July 23, 2004, 08:56:02 AM »

Well, the 109 has its UC mounted on the Fuselage while the Spitty has them on the wings, so the 109 spreads them to get them as far out as possible. Clever.
But the 109K has a wider UC than most of them right?
Anyway, I have it straight from an old German Ace who flew 109's as well as testing several allied types, that the Landing of the Allied types were very pleasant, and the Cockpit of the 109 was the worst of them all, even worse than the Spitty....
Ground looping in the 109 would BTW normally kill the pilot.
The low level aerobatics I refer to I have seen. Spitty taking off going straight into a loop, and also very high loops ("0" shaped) with recovery right above the ground, consequtively. Never seen any warbird do that at all in that manner, and following the pattern would even be a tough one for a normal aerobatics plane (well, a lighter one, the acceleration in the dive was quite impressive)
Strange....

Angus · « **Reply #16 on:** July 23, 2004, 08:56:39 AM »

Oh, what's a 105 and what's a phookat???

hogenbor · « **Reply #17 on:** July 23, 2004, 09:47:35 AM »

Hmm, I am moderator on the forum of my favourite band. Not really comparable to this of course, but things get out of hand there too sometimes.

If this kind of thing would happen there, this thread would be deleted and the 'gentlemen' who insult each other here would be banned indefinitely.

I love the game, I love WWII aviation, heck I even love to read old documents about it! I love the Spitfire and the 109, both excellent examples of their kind with a very long and distinguished service record from long before until even longer after the war. This both makes them contenders for greatest fighter of all time, and speaks volumes about how good they both were.

Come one guys, act mature and state publicly that both the 109 and Spit were excellent aircraft and both had weaknesses. You both want one of them so DESPERATELY to be the best that it is not slightly amusing anymore, it's downright obsessive, sick even.

In general the 109 and the Spitfire were always competitive with each other, right though the war. Both parties continuously tried to wring the best out of them with refinements on all fronts. Sure, some were better than others but in AH at least they are all pretty well matched.

I have seen Spits fly and saw many 109's as well 'in the flesh'. Can't it just be enough to admire the men who built, designed and flew them and take your hat off for those who died in them, whether their cause was wrong or right? Guess not

phookat · « **Reply #18 on:** July 23, 2004, 10:06:49 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by MiloMorai
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.

No, it's not. I don't know where you're getting this stuff. Mr. Angus didn't bring up the Spit figures either, gee I guess he must be a real scumbag. Why not just ask nicely for the figures, if you don't have them yourself? You would have more credibility, and then some kind of meaningful discussion might take place.

Angus-- it's a toejamit.

Wotan · « **Reply #19 on:** July 23, 2004, 10:09:23 AM »

Quote

Now where does it say Only 121 accidents involving the Spitfire during the war??

[/b]

Milo

Quote

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.

They guy you quoted is clearly implying that since they only investigated 121 instances that it proves

Quote

what an incredibly low percentage of Spitfires were destroyed by structural failure/ engine failure

So you may not like Isegrim but he called you correctly on this one.

niklas · « **Reply #20 on:** July 23, 2004, 03:45:26 PM »

When the accident happened over the channel, was this guy called and dived to the wreck some doozen yards below the water?
Was he always called to every accident? Where did they know whether it was a structural failure? Only if it could be observed, correct?
To be called to 121 accidents doesn´t mean that only 121 true accidents happened.
And when for moral reasons no accelorator indicator were installed, you can be sure that they tried to keep the accidents as much secret as possible.

niklas

Angus · « **Reply #21 on:** July 23, 2004, 04:07:24 PM »

I do not see the accidents caused by c of g instability. They were not that many, and the Supermarine works got on the matter very quickly so that may explain it.
The cure came rather quickly, the mechanical one that is, and the dynamic one came almost instantly, i.e. how to react once the thing started happening.

Now my landing/takeoff accident count was more of a teaser for Barbi, just couldn't resist

I have no figures for Spitfires in that category. However, some pilots were surprized to find out that once one got the hang of it, the Spitty was easier to land than i.e. some trainers used before, for example the Harvard!

Getting back to the topic of structural failiure, the Spitty was however an amazing aircraft and could handle quite a lot of pressure. The wing, which would be the first thing to break, was still a very strong unit, and flexible (before eventually breaking) as well.

GScholz · « **Reply #22 on:** July 23, 2004, 04:11:54 PM »

Someone here said the Spit's wings had a 10G breaking point. The 109 was designed to survive 12G's ... of course it's a lot easier for the Spit to achieve 10G's than for a 109 to achieve 12.

Angus · « **Reply #23 on:** July 23, 2004, 05:03:24 PM »

I have read one account of a 109E breaking both wings while recovering from a dive in which a Spitty was following and recovered from.
The 109's were 2, the other one compressed and hit the sea.
Early Spits up to Mk V had 10G as listed. Later designs were a good bit stronger. Not that it mattered much though.
I am reading up on sustainable G loads now (without loosing alt), I'll give you a little text on it later.
(Interesting stuff alarm!!!!)

GScholz · « **Reply #24 on:** July 23, 2004, 05:14:40 PM »

Early 109Es had a problem with wing breakage in high-speed dives, but the problem was soon fixed.

GScholz · « **Reply #25 on:** July 23, 2004, 05:16:20 PM »

Sustainable G loads is not the problem, it's the instantaneous loads that kill inexperienced pilots.

VooDoo · « **Reply #26 on:** July 23, 2004, 10:09:45 PM »

Quote

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.

Could you name that thread

?

Guppy35 · « **Reply #27 on:** July 24, 2004, 02:00:14 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by VooDoo
Could you name that thread ?

Was this one:

http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=105441&highlight=Spitfire

I had the images in the photo hanger but moved em out to save space as I was using up my allotted amount. I'll be happy to post em here again if that will help. You can see the posts where I quote the Spit drivers on carrying that weight in bombs and where I had the photos in there.

Dan/Slack
Heck with it. Reloaded them to picture hanger. here they be.

VooDoo · « **Reply #28 on:** July 24, 2004, 02:39:13 AM »

Thanks alot ! And I have a 1 more question in that thread.

VO101_Isegrim · « **Reply #29 on:** July 24, 2004, 03:23:12 AM »

Too bad none of these pictures shows rough airfields. Read the Spitty 9 manual, Spittys are forbidden to use that 1000lbs loadout from anywhere else than well prepeared hard surface fields. Moreover, they were forbidden to land with that weight, max. extra load to land with was one 500lbs bomb, or equivalnt.

FYI, 109s did reguarly carried out missions with 1100lbs external load from Norway down to South Africa.

Ie. 1x300lit DT + 2x20mm gunpods was very common thing to be seen on 109s. The DT should weigt ~250 kg, the gunpods weighted 235kg, loaded.

Or, in case of (armed) recce G-4s, 2x300lit DT was carried under the wings, again 500kg, no restrictions of from where to take off or how to land.

The G-2/R1 config, 1x500kg, plus two DTs. That`s 2000lbs, even though it was experimental only.

And it tells a lot about the strenght of the wing on 109, that the diving limitations were exactly the same with the 517lbs weighting gunpods under the wings as clean (527mph IAS).

Can we see a reference to that 10 G max. load factor of the Spit?