Author Topic: Spitfire Mk IX - stability issues (Read 3523 times)

VO101_Isegrim · « **Reply #75 on:** September 08, 2004, 04:32:33 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Nashwan
Isegrim, still waiting for the source for your claimed rollrate figures for the 109.

I am not convinced it would worth the effort, you of course would only debate them with this or that excuse. And frankly, I don`t feel giving sources to one who almost never gives his own. It`s 6 separate sources in agreement by the way .

Crumpp,

Izzy please give me you email addy and I will send you a copy of the test.

I have sent it at around noon already, but here`s it, no secret, really : executor@index.hu

Crumpp · « **Reply #76 on:** September 08, 2004, 04:37:43 PM »

got it you can edit it out if you want.

Crumpp

Karnak · « **Reply #77 on:** September 08, 2004, 04:59:23 PM »

MiloMorai,

Surely you can do better than that? Nothing at all? That's absurd.

Barbi,

So you don't think the Spitfire had any decisive advantages? Just slight marginal ones that were outdone, with the exception of light elevators, by the Bf109 from 1943 on?

Oh, you're wrong about the mirror. It was useless drag. By the time a Bf109 or Fw190 was in effective gun range it was about the size of a dash mark in a paperback book in the mirror. Couple that small size with vibrations, glare, other places keeping your eyes busy and a narrow field of view it was practually useless in it's designed role.

You two both seem highly partisan and unrealistic in your appraisals of your pet aircraft. I don't see why you even bother posting anymore given your absolute assurance that your respective pet aircraft is the best ever.

You really ought to take off the rose colored glasses when looking at your favorite fighters.

Angus · « **Reply #78 on:** September 08, 2004, 06:22:59 PM »

"Better view on the Spit "down backwards down"? Go on and prove, it`s wishful thinking"

Izzy, the Spitfire had a very forward wing, which has the down side of a poor view over the wing forwards, and a better view down backwards.
How can it work othervise.
As for Karnaks Spice,,,,(Which is a very nice twist in here)

109 has as mentioned, better production and maintenance, BY FAR.
By a some margin while being a small plane, it's very fast for each given hp, faster than the Spitfire for the same Hp from the F model onwards.
It's a good climber, always close to the spit (better and worse) in a given timeframe, however inferior once the weight and power are the same. Since the Spitfire was under normal condition a heavier plane, the climbrate was usually roughly the same.
109 Has a better inital acceleration in a dive, while having worse climb under banking condition. The Spitfire was probably the best climber of WW2 once banking was applied.
The 109 has a very nice centerline armament (due to it's inverted engin partially), while the Spitfire had it's weapons in the wings, which gives a convergience problem. However the Spitfire sported 2 cannons from 1941 onwards, giving it the same or more firepower at times untill the end of WW2. (109 could of course raise that with gondies, but the spit also with 4x and even 6x Hizookas)
More?

MiloMorai · « **Reply #79 on:** September 08, 2004, 07:44:02 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Karnak

You two both seem highly partisan and unrealistic in your appraisals of your pet aircraft. I don't see why you even bother posting anymore given your absolute assurance that your respective pet aircraft is the best ever.

You really ought to take off the rose colored glasses when looking at your favorite fighters.

No need to with Kurt Tank's a/c.

The only one partisan, is Issy.

Angus · « **Reply #80 on:** September 08, 2004, 08:04:47 PM »

Chuckle....
Izzy:
"The 109 was a better concept to start with, and was continously improved - not much happened with the Spits airframe in that regard after Mitchels death, Supermarine put up with reinforcing the airframe here and there, putting bigger engines, bigger radiators, more guns, and more fuel into it to make up for the lack of those improvments. But in the majority of aspects, I think the 109 was superior - say at a 3 to 1 rate."

What did Willy do to the 109?
Perhaps this:
"reinforcing the airframe here and there, putting bigger engines, bigger radiators, more guns, and more fuel into it "
I actually think that's mostly what he did o

How was the final Spitfire? slow&sluggish and probably not able to roll if I'd take your words for it. Not to mention horrible view and a weak undercarriage coupled with extremely short range. Range and roll got "worser" as the "hungry" merlins got bigger, right?
I'll try to dig up the stats comparing the first and last Spits nicely. It's of course somewhat anecdotal....but you luv it anyway.
Untill then, please youselves by reading my signature

Staga · « **Reply #81 on:** September 09, 2004, 02:34:16 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by MiloMorai
The only one partisan, is Issy. [/B]

If that's what you really think then I feel sorry for you.

MiloMorai · « **Reply #82 on:** September 09, 2004, 10:59:06 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Staga
If that's what you really think then I feel sorry for you.

You might be interested in Issy's views in this thread, http://www.1jma.dk/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=3705

Angus · « **Reply #83 on:** September 09, 2004, 11:06:08 AM »

Hehe, I knew from another thread already that Izzy hated Churchill (Winnie Poo). I recall myself asking him clearly about whether his opinion was that the Brits should have surrendered to Hitler, since he stated that they had "foolishly fought on".
Surely, Izzy did not answer.
This colour may be something to bear in mind when looking at Izzy's data.
Well, I never got over the "over the nose view anyway"
Does anyone have a link or pic of that still?

MiloMorai · « **Reply #84 on:** September 09, 2004, 11:46:33 AM »

Angus is this the thread?

Spitfire NACA reports

02-26-2004

Angus · « **Reply #85 on:** September 09, 2004, 12:27:07 PM »

Hehe, yes it is.
The famous flathead izzue, *chuckle*

Saved that pic for analysis

Karnak · « **Reply #86 on:** September 09, 2004, 12:30:16 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by MiloMorai
You might be interested in Issy's views in this thread, http://www.1jma.dk/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=3705

After reading that thread I'd have to say that Barbi is insane. A Nazi apologist even.

VO101_Isegrim · « **Reply #87 on:** September 09, 2004, 01:28:33 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Karnak
After reading that thread I'd have to say that Barbi is insane. A Nazi apologist even.

So I am a nazi apologist for thinking Churchill was a pathethic figure, and the British Empire wasn`t exactly a "nice place" for those millions living oppressed in colonised India, Burma, South Africa etc. etc., to put it mildly. I must admit, that`s the most cretinic reply I have seen in ages. Churchill wasn`t smart = he`s a naziapologist. Bravo, idiot.

It appears Karnak can`t stand if someone questions the horrid ideology of the BE, ie. the White Man`s, and especially the British, "god given" right to rule on these "poor savages".
His reaction is like if I hit a nerve, probably because Karnak shares this racist ideology as well. Churchill did so, it was admitted even by others in that discussion. And Karnak seems offended when poor Winston is hurt... hmmm, a connection, maybe?

Karnak, do you believe the BE was a good thing, the British had "God-given" right to rule on other people?

If that`s what you think, I am proud that we are in disagreement in that matter. I wouldn`t want to have racists as my friends.

BTW it`s appears it`s typical for Angie and Milo to run away from questions, and starting to fingerpointing when the ground gets hot and they fail to prove the point. They need an excuse, a diversion.

Here`s the pick that proves the nose over view thing.

Let`s see if Angie can make a clown himself for the third time. I admit he`s awfully good at that.

Here`s the picture for the 109`s pilot eye level in the cocpit. Or, "The famous flathead izzue, *chuckle*", as Angie calls it, crying out deception, because it doesn`t get into his tiny little brain that it was a bit different than in his imagination.

.

Oh come on, Angie, make a fool of yourself again, I enjoy the show so much. You and Milo togher almost have half the intellectual capacity of a normal man, so probably that`s why you sound like a halfwit when you work together.

Oh BTW, Milo Moron`s real name is Shaun Innes. On the forum he posted links to, he`s now postins as "Raven", after being banned for his untolerably racist posts pointed against today`s germans, and opening topics calling them "murdering bastards" and "butchers". I guess he well deserved it. And I guess he was very brave to say all that anonymously.

Guppy35 · « **Reply #88 on:** September 09, 2004, 01:56:00 PM »

You know.....Just once I'd like to see one of these threads not become a pissing contest that seems to demand that either the Spit is a complete disaster, waste of time horrrible aircraft, or the 109/190 is.

Is it not possible that all three were great aircraft?

It's hardly worth contributing anymore because every last one of these threads ends up in the same spot.

Dan/Slack

Furball · « **Reply #89 on:** September 09, 2004, 02:03:08 PM »

who was it who said:-

"between the wars, we forgot how to make aeroplanes we could see out of"

Was it Hartmann?