Author Topic: Spitfires (Read 3077 times)

Krusty · « **Reply #60 on:** January 07, 2008, 02:35:11 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Guppy35
You really didn't just call WW2 Spitfire pilots "morons" did ya Krusty?

No, I didn't. I said a retired british WW2 Spitfire pilot said "any moron can fly a spit."

Guppy35 · « **Reply #61 on:** January 07, 2008, 02:42:51 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Krusty
No, I didn't. I said a retired british WW2 Spitfire pilot said "any moron can fly a spit."

Who was it? I've never heard that one

Krusty · « **Reply #62 on:** January 07, 2008, 02:46:39 PM »

Saw it ages ago. Just did a quick search. This is a shorter clip of a longer thing (the one I remember was longer).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3e-Ra0dH-Lg

EDIT: Name listed as Gerald Stapleton

P.S. Nit-picking correction: He used "idiot" not "moron"

alskahawk · « **Reply #63 on:** January 07, 2008, 03:52:24 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Krusty
FYI spits are about as easy as they come for being able to out-turn 90% of the planeset, and out-run 80% of it, outclimb 98% of the planeset, out shoot everything (hispano trumps all), and they're pretty decent on acceleration too.

You learn in a spit you can't move to any other plane without re-learning everything. On the other hand, you learn in ANOTHER plane, and it applies naturally to the spit. See what I'm saying? Spit's an easy mode plane, anybody that denies this only flies the spit.

Even a BOB spitfire pilot said the Me109 was a lovely plane, but it took skill to fly. Any old moron could fly a spitfire. And that's how they kept their numbers up, they didn't need to train them as much. The LW had to train their pilots more to do the same thing, so they were behind the numbers curve.

Your comments on the spit (in AH) are right on. The spit spoils you. A new player can get away with so much and take so much for granted that when he/she decides to try another plane they are often disappointed.
One on the many myths about Adolf Galland's comment 'Give me a squadron of spitfires". Is that he believed that the 109 was inferior to the spit. My thinking is that Galland believed that for the average pilot the spitfire was a better aircraft. For an experianced pilot such as Galland and many of the others the Bf109 was deadly.
Success in war is often putting more superior numbers at a point than the other guy. This was difficult to do with the training time required for the Bf109 series. Look at Hartmann. It took him quite a while before he became proficient. The Luftwaffe in BoB would have been vastly different except for the skills and tactics developed in Spain by many of the key aces.
Having said all this, is the spit superior? As someone who has flown the online spitfires for many years I can say that a good online 109 pilot is tough to beat. I'm not talking about the BnZ 109 guy who runs away. Like it's real counterpart the online Bf109 is deadly in experienced hands.

SgtPappy · « **Reply #64 on:** January 07, 2008, 04:41:20 PM »

This is why it's very helpful to start on a new plane. I began with the Hellcat and then went to the Corsair and THEN stuck my butt in a Spitfire. I did it because people would continuously insult my Spitfire, but I later learned that it actually DID help... completely changed my view of dogfighting... though with the H2H gone, I'm probably as bad as ever heheh. I'll find money maybe once I get a decent job.

Thanks for the info Widewing, it's a great help.

You said that the prop runaway isn't dependent upon oil pressure loss right? But isn't the prop over-revving at very high RPM from the loss of oil pressure the definition of a runaway prop?

Quote

Loss of pressure means the prop will stay where it was set, or creep up to the high rpm stops under dynamic load.

I've never read about a prop that stayed at set RPM after oil pressure loss... what determines whether the prop over-revs or stays at its setting?

Also, I understand now that the P-38 handled HS props badly.. it was on the P38K(?) not sure. I meant, however, that the P-38 did not suffer from the prop runaway because it was most often fitted with Curtiss Electric props.

Widewing · « **Reply #65 on:** January 07, 2008, 06:03:52 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by SgtPappy
This is why it's very helpful to start on a new plane. I began with the Hellcat and then went to the Corsair and THEN stuck my butt in a Spitfire. I did it because people would continuously insult my Spitfire, but I later learned that it actually DID help... completely changed my view of dogfighting... though with the H2H gone, I'm probably as bad as ever heheh. I'll find money maybe once I get a decent job.

Thanks for the info Widewing, it's a great help.

You said that the prop runaway isn't dependent upon oil pressure loss right? But isn't the prop over-revving at very high RPM from the loss of oil pressure the definition of a runaway prop? I've never read about a prop that stayed at set RPM after oil pressure loss... what determines whether the prop over-revs or stays at its setting?

Also, I understand now that the P-38 handled HS props badly.. it was on the P38K(?) not sure. I meant, however, that the P-38 did not suffer from the prop runaway because it was most often fitted with Curtiss Electric props.

Here's a link that should help you visualize how the Hydromatic prop works to limit pitch.

Link 1

If you examine the cam, you will see that the slot limits blade rotation. Blade indexing determines max and min angle.

If you can scare up a copy of Hamilton Standard, Hydromatic Quick-Feathering Propellers Service Manual, 140A or Rev B, this will absolutely clear up and misconceptions of prop function. Also, some aircraft had a separate oil supply for the prop, operated by an independent pump.

Curtiss props were far more likely to over-speed as the prop blades were set via an electric motor. Loss of electrical power (a common problem in P-38s with a single generator) could result in the prop changing pitch. This could result in various issues, not the least of which was over-speeding (running away).

My regards,

Widewing

SgtPappy · « **Reply #66 on:** January 07, 2008, 06:47:17 PM »

Thanks WW! Oh yes, that's true loss of electric power would result in prop inefficiency; I should be less vague as the CE props didnt overspeed from loss of oil pressure.

True say about the aileron trim, Krusty. Looking closely I do notice that it's all about the pilot slightly adjusting his stick's 'centre'. Thanks, though, I've had trouble understanding the previous threads on the Spit's mis-leading aileron trim