Spitfire Mk IX - stability issues

[VO101_Isegrim]

That could be thrilla, I am not sure where did I find it. Could you post the original quote?

[Angus]

Izzy:
I belive the rolls referred to by Henshaw are flick rolls ro one side, from start to stall. I may have that quote somewhere, or a similar one.
Roll rate from left to right improved with every mark, but the biggest leap was from Mk I and II to Mk V. There were also clipped Mk V's as faras I know.
Same period as the 109's biggest improvement in rollrate, from E to F models.
The Mk VIII introduced a much stiffer wing BTW. Both shorter and longer span, not so sure if they ever clipped them.
And from your quote of Jeffrey Quill, I am sure you realize that after he had been complaining about the roll rate of the early model Spitfires, he got to fly the 109E and found it in this respect EVERY BIT AS BAD, IF NOT WORSE, hence this assumption "we were not the only ones in trouble"
(The following part is the best, something like if he had known the characteristics of the 109 before, he would have treated it with much less respect in combat)
Anyway, the way you forwarded this was in such a manner, that one might have been tempted to assume that the Spitfire gradually rolled worse through the years, which it didn't.
I just finished another test pilot's story. He got the chance to fly a captured 109F or G, but to my dismay, he wouldn't fit into the cockpit.

Oh, and Crumpp, I envy you for knowing a different kind of language.I just stuck with the Euro stuff, Danish, Swedish, Icelandic, German,and oh, English.
Well, small nations need to learn more, for not everything is published in every language.
I still think Gripen's command of English is quite good

[Angus]

Oh, what Thrila said. Wasn't there when I started typing.
And from Crumpp:
"have you ever seen it with an FW-190 whipping about the air? "

Of course not, there aren't any. When the new ones start doing anything something more than runway hopping,let me know, Germany is not so far away, especially with wife's family over there. Maybe we meet
I've seen 51's, F4U's, F6F's, F7F, F8F, P40, P39, YAK-3,Meteor, Hurricane,and probably some more.
The Spitty boys were the only ones who did something delightful   in the air, something that made you NOT want to be in their cockpits.
The Meteor surprized me too, and had me sweating for a sec when it performed a slow loop at very little altitude.
F7F & F8F had the tightest formations flying I saw.

[VO101_Isegrim]

Originally posted by Angus
Izzy:
I belive the rolls referred to by Henshaw are flick rolls ro one side, from start to stall. I may have that quote somewhere, or a similar one.

[/B]

Could you post that qoute, please?

Originally posted by Angus

The Mk VIII introduced a much stiffer wing BTW. Both shorter and longer span, not so sure if they ever clipped them.

[/B]

Do you have details on that "stiffer wing"? Anyway, I have seen MkXII roll tests (ie. MkVIII wing structure), and those weren`t any more impressive at high speeds than the others.

Originally posted by Angus

And from your quote of Jeffrey Quill, I am sure you realize that after he had been complaining about the roll rate of the early model Spitfires, he got to fly the 109E and found it in this respect EVERY BIT AS BAD, IF NOT WORSE, hence this assumption "we were not the only ones in trouble"

[/B]

Well that`s true, both locked up badly at high speeds. But if you look up comperative tests, you`ll see the 109E was a bit better, roll rate at 400mph was comparably bad, but required only about half the stickforce, to the great ease of the pilot to apply it in practice IMHO.

Originally posted by Angus

Anyway, the way you forwarded this was in such a manner, that one might have been tempted to assume that the Spitfire gradually rolled worse through the years, which it didn't.

[/B]

I am quite sure it did. Not at the peak, but the weight increase, especially as plenty of it was in the wings the initial inertia was larger to overcome in the later models, hence the roll initiated slower. Physics..

Originally posted by Angus
I just finished another test pilot's story. He got the chance to fly a captured 109F or G, but to my dismay, he wouldn't fit into the cockpit.

[/B]

Yeah it was quite small. Even though, Gunther Rall (or Stigler?) commented that he sat in both the Mustang`s and Spit`s canopy, which he didn`t feel anything bigger. And seeing Mike Hanna (RIP) in Spit`s cocpit, which he filled out completely didn`t convince me otherwise. Even though personally I don`t think it had any great importance. It`s a fighter, not a saloon car, after all.

[gripen]

Well, my native language (finnish) has nothing to do with the issue here. The  RAE 1231 says:

" It will be seen that the Mustang alone bests the required time, but the F.W.190 and clipped wing Spitfire come quite close to the A.D.M. Standard. Both the standard Spitfire V and Typhoon are down on this rolling criterion."

So there was a requirement for time to bank 45 degrees and only the Mustang reached this requirement. The roll rates given in the fig.5 and the NACA 868 are measured values and those are what the tested planes reached.

Shortly: Crumpp mixes up requirement and the measured value.

gripen

[Nashwan]

Do you have details on that "stiffer wing"? Anyway, I have seen MkXII roll tests (ie. MkVIII wing structure), and those weren`t any more impressive at high speeds than the others.

The Spit XII had the Spit Vc wing structure.

[Angus]

Izzy, nonono
"I am quite sure it did. Not at the peak, but the weight increase, especially as plenty of it was in the wings the initial inertia was larger to overcome in the later models, hence the roll initiated slower. Physics.. "

Nope. The roll as documented gradually got better.
It had mostly to do with constant manufacture improvements actually.

I'll see if I can find that quote on the flicks. Thrila might be quicker about it than me. I belive it actually came from an old games manual, who was full of candy

Half the stickforce of a 109 is already tough, because of the room and short travel. The Spitfire pilot had the chance to jab an elbow against the side for leverage.
Strong pilots rolled nicer, - some worked out for the purpose!

Gunther Rall sat in the canopies of a Spitfire as well as P51 and P47. He found them all bigger. He also commented quite favourably on their flying characteristics and manufacture quality (especially engine) compared to what he knew.
Come on, P51 cockpit now being as small as a 109......

BTW, Rall is a rather small guy.

[Charge]

" It will be seen that the Mustang alone bests the required time, but the F.W.190 and clipped wing Spitfire come quite close to the A.D.M. Standard. Both the standard Spitfire V and Typhoon are down on this rolling criterion."

So you could initialize and complete a roll more quicker in a P51 than in a 190?

Somehow I find it hard to believe that especially when no speed is mentioned.

What is A.D.M. standard?

-C+

[VO101_Isegrim]

Originally posted by Angus

Nope. The roll as documented gradually got better.
It had mostly to do with constant manufacture improvements actually.

[/B]

I`d like to see anything that supports this. All I have seen shows the contrary: no improvement and even decrease..

Originally posted by Angus

Half the stickforce of a 109 is already tough, because of the room and short travel. The Spitfire pilot had the chance to jab an elbow against the side for leverage.

[/B]

Hmm, hmm, the 109 had about half the stickforce required on the Spit for a full stick throw. 109`s aileron forces were relatively small - 20 lbs required for a full stick throw at 300mph, resulting a roll of 80-90 deg/sec. I have also talked to a 109G pilot, and he said that in dives the ailerons were still light, much unlike the elevator.

And tell me why a 109, or any other pilot couldn`t "jab an elbow against the side" - and how could a Spit pilot do it, if the cocpit was so roomy?

Gunther Rall sat in the canopies of a Spitfire as well as P51 and P47. He found them all bigger. He also commented quite favourably on their flying characteristics and manufacture quality (especially engine) compared to what he knew.[/B]

Extremely hard to believe in the case of the Stang or the Spit. Both were very cramped and narrow. The P-47 was huge of course. And I am VERY much sceptic anybody praisng the P-51s flying characteristics, handling was certainly not it`s strong point. The Spit was nice, and many pilots liked it because the elevator forces were small, it was not tiring to do manouvers. A comfort factor if you like.. aileron forces were huge on the other hand, higher than any fighter I know, making control harmony on the Spit probably the worst at high speed.

Come on, P51 cockpit now being as small as a 109......[/B]

Sorry, it wasn`t anything bigger. The width was kept as narrow as possible, to match the witdh of the engine. Quite obvious how narrow the fuselage was, just look at it. Or read reports - the USN certainly complained about the "extremely cramped headspace" on the P-51.

[Angus]

Well,old Spit sticks converting to P51's found the cockpit rather roomy.
And Rall:
"I could really detect the tactical difference between differences between the German, British, and American planes. This gave me the greatest respect for the P51 Mustang and its extremely comfortable cockpit, good rear visibility, long range, maneuverability, and an electrical starting system"
Of the Spitty his impression:
"The Spitfire, too, was a very maneuverable aircraft, very good in the cockpit. All these planes had a stable undercarriage. The Bf109 did not. For young pilots,sometimes, the undercarriage of the 109 gave them problems because it was very narrow and relatively high"

IZZY: I'll take Rall's words as more accountable than yours any time.....

[VO101_Isegrim]

Problem is, you can`t even understand your own qoute, Angie...

Where does it say engine quality?
Where does it say about the Spit having bigger cocpit??
Etc.

You qoute Rall, and then it becomes mixed up in your head with your own wishful thoughts.

On the factual side, the Spit`s undercarriega track was ~1.7m, the 109`s 2.1 meter.

Here`s an interview with Stigler...

"How did the cockpit feel in the 109?

The cockpit was small, but one got used to it after a while. In the end it felt comfortable since you felt like part of the plane. The Spitfire's cockpit did not feel that much roomier to him either. The 262 cockpit however was larger in comparison. It also had a long flight stick, giving the pilot lots of leverage in flight. "

[Nashwan]

" It will be seen that the Mustang alone bests the required time, but the F.W.190 and clipped wing Spitfire come quite close to the A.D.M. Standard. Both the standard Spitfire V and Typhoon are down on this rolling criterion."

So you could initialize and complete a roll more quicker in a P51 than in a 190?

Somehow I find it hard to believe that especially when no speed is mentioned.

What is A.D.M. standard?

"ADM standard" referred to time to bank at 400 mph IAS, iirc.

At that sort of speed, the P-51 did have better roll than the 190

[Nashwan]

Hmm, hmm, the 109 had about half the stickforce required on the Spit for a full stick throw. 109`s aileron forces were relatively small - 20 lbs required for a full stick throw at 300mph, resulting a roll of 80-90 deg/sec.

What's the source for this?

[gripen]

Originally posted by Nashwan
"ADM standard" referred to time to bank at 400 mph IAS, iirc.

Yep, the speed was 400 mph IAS. The method used in the report to calculate the time to bank 45 degrees is rather primitive but good enough because all the planes tested had pretty similar inertia (single engined fighters).

gripen

[VO101_Isegrim]

AVIA 6 / 10126.