Spitfire Mark I Handling

[SirNuke]

I don't know you tell me. Still waiting to hear where your apparently isolated opinions about Spitfire handling originate.


Please just everybody watch this video in fullscreen and think does the centre of gravity appear to be in the right place?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BoQRbhR7Fgk

its funny how the tail falls first

[nrshida]

I think it's more that the tail stays down which is odd.

There's nothing significant aft of the CoL to account for this and if the first Mark of this type was so bad in real life it would have never been developed right through the war. Sorry, I know the Spitfire is hated here, as are the British by a lot of people, but Reginald Mitchell was a design genius and an experienced one at that by the time he penned the Spitfire.

Please look into the CofG and see if there's an issue.

[Charge]

"Sorry, I know the Spitfire is hated here, as are the British by a lot of people"

That is a childish accusation. I don't know any such people on this BBS.

"Reginald Mitchell was a design genius and an experienced one at that by the time he penned the Spitfire."

There is not really nothing special about the Spitfire. It had a large wing which had to be designed and manufactured carefully to negate the effects of its size. The problem with such design was that it was not really suited for mass production and after all it did not really offer anything a simpler design could not have achieved as well. Of course the design is visually appealing and the Spitfire is possibly the most beautiful fighter of WW2, but it was not "magical" -if you get what I mean. It had its drawbacks as any other design and what bugs me is that in this kind of simulation it can utilize all its  pros and none of its cons, or maybe one, the one you are trying to promote to be taken away.

What comes to flight testing the stall behavior was measured by cutting the throttle and pulling the a/c into a stall, from level flight, and recovered, and that's what was reported and that is how I tested it, power on and power off and it performs normally. IRL It was NOT pulled into a vertical climb, power cut, and made the aircraft fall prettythang first towards the ground! The results of such test do not surprise me at all. The point is, as I stated earlier, that the MAC may be prone of shifting forward if the flow direction is not what is supposed to be and it seems that is what happens in the tail slide, and that is mainly because of elliptic planform.

-C+

[nrshida]

That is a childish accusation. I don't know any such people on this BBS.

Why would you notice it, you're Finnish aren't you?

There is not really nothing special about the Spitfire. It had a large wing which had to be designed and manufactured carefully to negate the effects of its size. The problem with such design was that it was not really suited for mass production and after all it did not really offer anything a simpler design could not have achieved as well. Of course the design is visually appealing and the Spitfire is possibly the most beautiful fighter of WW2, but it was not "magical" -if you get what I mean. It had its drawbacks as any other design and what bugs me is that in this kind of simulation it can utilize all its  pros and none of its cons, or maybe one, the one you are trying to promote to be taken away.

I didn't ask for your opinion about the design, I asserted that the designer would not have made a schoolboy's with the CofG and CofL and if he had and it was this bad it would never have become the primary fighter aircraft of Great Britain for as long as it was.

What comes to flight testing the stall behavior was measured by cutting the throttle and pulling the a/c into a stall, from level flight, and recovered, and that's what was reported and that is how I tested it, power on and power off and it performs normally. IRL It was NOT pulled into a vertical climb, power cut, and made the aircraft fall prettythang first towards the ground! The results of such test do not surprise me at all.

Irrelevant. Take other Aces High aircraft and perform the same test. Most of them recover by themselves (a few notable exceptions which had known issues). The test is especially relevant since this aircraft was noted for its docility of handling and self-recovery and our Mark I is demonstrably not so.

The point is, as I stated earlier, that the MAC may be prone of shifting forward if the flow direction is not what is supposed to be and it seems that is what happens in the tail slide, and that is mainly because of elliptic planform.

Have you got anything to support your MAC-shifting theory? Any evidence or flight testing etcetera, or is it just your personal theory?

[GScholz]

All I've ever heard from pilots who flew the Spit is that is was a viceless aircraft in the air. Now, that is of course a truth with modifications if you push it well beyond its envelope, like we tend to do in this game.

[nrshida]

All I've ever heard from pilots who flew the Spit is that is was a viceless aircraft in the air. Now, that is of course a truth with modifications if you push it well beyond its envelope, like we tend to do in this game.

I agree, now put this comment into context within the confines of Aces High: we also have the Fw190, which does not do well when pushing the stall envelope, then at the other end of the spectrum we have the Vought Corsair which by all accounts had nasty stall characteristics in real life, yet I think it is fair to say is very docile here. Then the Spitfire, which even in its earliest form is described as you say. Where on the Aces High spectrum of docility should it fall? Where does it fall now?

[GScholz]

Actually, that's a different issue. The departure characteristics of the Fw190 and F4U were regarded as bad because they gave little or no warning to the pilot before stalling a wing, not because they were hard to recover from a stall. Stalling a wing in either aircraft would result in a snap roll which was lethal at low altitudes (like when trying to get back onto the deck of a carrier). How these aircraft compared to the Spitfire in stall-recovery or in "post-stall maneuvering" I do not know.

[nrshida]

Actually, that's a different issue. The departure characteristics of the Fw190 and F4U were regarded as bad because they gave little or no warning to the pilot before stalling a wing, not because they were hard to recover from a stall. Stalling a wing in either aircraft would result in a snap roll which was lethal at low altitudes (like when trying to get back onto the deck of a carrier). How these aircraft compared to the Spitfire in stall-recovery or in "post-stall maneuvering" I do not know.

Perhaps what I said was misleading, I was referring to departure as well as recovery and I thought I read that neither of these aircraft had what could be described as any 'self-correcting' attributes at all. Again, I read that the Spitfire had to be held in a spin as neutral controls would allow the aircraft to recover itself.

Look, all bias aside, the Spitfire Mark I isn't what I'd consider my main ride and I do not discriminate against German aircraft either. It's just this thought occurred to me during a recent discussion during the BoB scenario. I did some reading and formed this theory about the centre of gravity being in the wrong place.

Please tell me at least one other person did some flight testing while considering this hypothesis?

[earl1937]

I've been reading a little bit about the Spitfire to see if I could find any real life accounts which match the handling characteristics of our in game version. Specifically I was looking for info regarding the virtually unrecoverable flat spin and inverted flat spin AH's Mark I enters so readily. I can find no mention (although my Spitfire library is hardly extensive). The aeroplane is consistently referred to as docile, pleasant to handle and forgiving. Surely a far cry from what we have.

I then read up on spins and contributing factors and formed a theory / question:

Does AH's Spitfire Mark I have its centre of gravity too far aft?

The C.G. generally speaking moves to the rear with fuel burn. That is why you burn the fuseledge tank first in a P-51, so that the C.G. doesn't inhibit maneuvering in combat. I would suggest that you run some stall tests with full fuel, then land, take up 25% and do the same stalls. It might be enlighten to you about what the difference is.

[LCADolby]

The Spit 1 has it's tanks behind the pilot. Loss of fuel should move the CG forward surely.

[GScholz]

Spit I had its tanks forward of the cockpit. Marked D and E here:





I have too little knowledge on the Spit I's departure characteristics to make an informed opinion, so I'll leave that to those in the know. I will however add that the Fw190's reputed bad departure characteristics were only in accelerated stalls; the stall came suddenly and virtually without warning, but all that was needed to recover would be to center the controls (just like with most aircraft). At very low altitude this was lethal however as you would often find yourself in an inverted dive after recovery. In a normal (non-accelerated) stall from low speed (like in a typical landing situation) the Fw190 gave ample warning with intense pre-stall buffeting before it gently dropped a wing.

[BaldEagl]

I've been flying the Spit I a lot lately and the only problem I notice is the occasional inverted flat spin.  If you stall trying to go over the top and the engine dies there's no more power to pull you out of it and trying to manage the airflow to do so is difficult at best.  I suspect in real life they didn't push the envelope that hard.  It just happened to me two nights ago and I ended up having to bail.

[earl1937]

The Spit 1 has it's tanks behind the pilot. Loss of fuel should move the CG forward surely.

Spit fuel cells were in front of the cockpit and with the loss of weight in the frontal area, the moment arm, being influenced by the length of the fuseledge, causes the C.G. to move to the rear. If I am correct, I think the distance of travel for the C.G. was 8 inches, beginning at the canopy brace where the canopy and wind shield came together. You can generally tell where the C.G. is located, by looking where the main spar is located in relation to the cockpit in single engine aircraft. The 8 inches of travel for the C.G. is measured to the front of the wind screen.

[Puma44]

I've been flying the Spit I a lot lately and the only problem I notice is the occasional inverted flat spin.  If you stall trying to go over the top and the engine dies there's no more power to pull you out of it and trying to manage the airflow to do so is difficult at best.  I suspect in real life they didn't push the envelope that hard.  It just happened to me two nights ago and I ended up having to bail.

Have you tried extending the landing gear?  Every once in a while, I can get the nose to drop enough to regain control by doing this.

[LCADolby]

There was a diagram showing them behind it, I guess the one I looked at was misleading.