Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Virage on February 25, 2004, 06:58:50 PM
-
Sorry if these reports are old news.. reports also include rolling data.
Flying characteristics (http://jsbsim.sourceforge.net/spit_flying.pdf)
Stall characteristics (http://jsbsim.sourceforge.net/spit_stalling.pdf)
Many more cool flightsim/aerodynamics links (http://jsbsim.sourceforge.net/fslinks.html)
-
Keep in mind that the Spitfire Mk Va had fabric ailerons.
-
I read the charts as 8-10 seconds for a spit to do a 180 turn. AH spitv does more than 180 in 8 secs.
Also read chart as showing a 80 mph take off speed.
AH spitv gets airborn at a lower speed.
tested with 100% fuel, no wep.
-
Keep in mind they are different aircraft.
The Spitfire Mk V in AH has more power and alloy control surfaces.
Not saying it is correct, just that it is different.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
Keep in mind that the Spitfire Mk Va had fabric ailerons.
Keep in mind that this report mentions metal ailerons for the tested aircraft (flying characteristics. page 2: "Ailerons: (METAL COVERED)"
niklas
-
Looks like one of the early type Mk V's
Ailerons were metal, but not yet satisfactory. There was a C of G problem along with the hypersensitive elevator control, that got fixed in later Mk V's as well. (It caused fatal accidents).
Very nice documents. Wish we had similar ones for more aircraft types.
-
Originally posted by Angus
There was a C of G problem along with the hypersensitive elevator control, that got fixed in later Mk V's as well. (It caused fatal accidents).
Not sure about that, all Spitfires were known for their "hypersensitve" (=very light) elevator control. ie. 4lbs/G, where usually 6-7 waas found ideal. Not sure about if it cause fatal accidents (probably it could if pullouts were very harsh, some Spits lost wings in dive recoveries - pilot would not be able to do violent pullups if the elevators would be too heavy).
It was a two-edged weapon, it allowed for tight turns to be made at high speeds on one hand, not being restricte by control forces as much, but also meant that the aircraft was very touchy to handle, and one had to be very careful with the elevator movements. As the report states, a mere 3/4 inch was enough to bring the plane to the edge of stall.. not very ideal of stallfighting, one needs a solid hand and nerves of steel! The fact that the ailerons were very heavy, the pilot has to deal with almost zero resistance in pulling/pushing movements, but very high ones in the side direction, didnt make it easier either. The report otherwise agrees with what I have read in other reports, at 400mph as much as 60-70 lbs stickforce was not enough to deflect the ailerons even half of their range. So it seems a very good description, the most detailed I have seen.
It`s also interesting to compare what Jeff Ethell said after flying one.. It matches up nicely.
Sitting behind this demon V-12 churning out so much power is intoxicating...the earth falls away at a rapid rate, at least for something with a propeller. A look around reveals the excellent visibility out of the bubble canopy. This lessens, to a degree, the impression of being buried within a Spitfire, though that feeling of being a part of the machine does not change. The elevator is very light while the rudder is stiff and the ailerons even more so. Every Spitfire I've flown takes a bit more muscle to roll than most fighters. As speed increases both rudder and ailerons get heavier, resulting in a curious mismatch at high speed...one has to handle the almost oversensitive elevators with a light fingertip touch while arm-wrestling the stiff ailerons. Pilots had to keep this in mind during combat, particularly when going against the FW 190 which had a sterling rate of roll and exceptionally well harmonised controls. That being said, the aircraft is very well balanced and delightful to manoeuvre. Whipping a Spit around the clouds ranks right up there at the top of aviation's great experiences.
-
Isnegrim: Was that from....errrr. ...that pilot who flew various WW2 planes and died in a P38 accident? What was his name again....hmmm. I think I have it somewhere on my HD.
Anyway, the elevator controls were always very light compared to other aircraftm and the problem with the mk V was that the tenderly balanced c of g together with the easy and short travelled elevator authority allowed the aircraft to be pushed into an infinately high G pitch, eventually disintegrating the aircraft. The cause was the C og G shifting backwards under G loads.
That was fixed by adding bob weights to the stick itself, making it self-centering and heavier to move under high G.
-
Isegrim I'll show you another use of the Bold bbs tag :
Sitting behind this demon V-12 churning out so much power is intoxicating...the earth falls away at a rapid rate, at least for something with a propeller. A look around reveals the excellent visibility out of the bubble canopy. This lessens, to a degree, the impression of being buried within a Spitfire, though that feeling of being a part of the machine does not change. The elevator is very light while the rudder is stiff and the ailerons even more so. Every Spitfire I've flown takes a bit more muscle to roll than most fighters. As speed increases both rudder and ailerons get heavier, resulting in a curious mismatch at high speed...one has to handle the almost oversensitive elevators with a light fingertip touch while arm-wrestling the stiff ailerons. Pilots had to keep this in mind during combat, particularly when going against the Fw 190 which had a sterling rate of roll and exceptionally well harmonized controls. That being said, the aircraft is very well balanced and delightful to maneuver. Whipping a Spit around the clouds ranks right up there at the top of aviation's great experiences.
The aircraft stalls like a Piper Cub
We all new you are a 109 fan.
Now that is settled can you stop being biased and make interesting post ?
Original (and complete) Ethell report can be found here (http://www.airandspacemagazine.com/ASM/Web/Special/Ethell/pirep2.html)
-
Straffo, can you pls tell me what new was in re-posting the same text I did ? Stall characteristics? Everyone who ever read smtg about the Spits flying chararchteristics knows about it was very good. But that doesnt mean it was stall safe. Different things, straffo. A pilot with a gentle hand could "ride" the stall, but movements with the stick considered normal in another plane would still stall it. If you dont get the difference, sorry then.
I neither do understand what does my admiring towards the 109s design has to do anything with the topic.
-
By putting some part in bold you put emphasis to some selected part and making this non neutral.
but movements with the stick considered normal in another plane would still stall it. If you dont get the difference
That's perhaps explain why spitfire's pilot were not trained in mosquito :rolleyes:
-
" All Spitfires are exceptionally easy to land with no inherent tendency to swerve or groundloop ( unlike a certain German a/c:eek: ). Just reduce power to idle, flare to a three point attitude and she sets down on a feather almost every time. This is a great surprise to most considering the narrow track undercarriage and full swivel, non-locking tailwheel. Why doesn't it drop a wing violently or make the pilot stomp on the rudders? I wish I knew. The genius of managing to combine light aircraft characteristics with such high performance is nothing short of miraculous compared to most other wartime tailwheel types. One or two landings in the Spitfire and you are in love for life."
-
I can fully agree with the Moron, (Shaun Innes in RL), that the Spitfire was an easy plane to land, as long a good, smooth runway was provided. It`s a logical result of the plane being very nose heavy, which on the other hand made it prone to nosing over and the propellor hitting the ground. One of the reasons the Soviets refused to use it as frontline fighter - the plane was not capable to reliably operate in rough conditions ( unlike a certain German a/c :p ). A tail heavy plane, aka a taildragger, such as the P-51 or Bf 109 would be free from that flaw, severe breaking was possible, but would show tendency to ground loop, lockable tailwheel and a wider u/c easing that problem somewhat. Its all design features, characteristics traded for one another... and the battlefield results proved which characteristics were valuable for a WW2 fighter, and which were not... Something not really considered by laughable flamers like Moron, infamous for his hate against anything German.
-
Originally posted by Virage
Also read chart as showing a 80 mph take off speed.
AH spitv gets airborn at a lower speed.
No, 80mph is about right for the Spit V in Aces High. I consider 80mph to be sufficient to pull up a bit and bring the wheels up on rollout. Any speed below that is pushing it.
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
Originally posted by VO101_Isegrim
Something not really considered by laughable flamers like Moron, infamous for his hate against anything German.
No Barbi not a German hater but not blind like you are the the faults in LW a/c.:rolleyes: :rolleyes: Like you claiming the 109 had good vision to the rear for the pilot compared to what a bubble canopied Spit or P-51 pilot had.:rofl :rofl
As for hate, your hate for anything American and British is well shown on any forum you post on.:) You could not post a balanced unbiased post if your life depended on it.
Are you saying the LGs used by Spitfires in Africa were well prepared?:rofl :rofl When the LW was kicked out the RAF took them over.:eek: Found lots of wrecked Messicraps laying around.:)
-
You see Milo, or should I use your real name, Shaun Innes, I have hard time to understand what is so great devoting your life to post such totally meaningless text. I doubt anyone would pay attention to it, or believe any of your claims regarding me. But I definitely find it entertainig that there is such a fool who spends his day with nothing more than this miserable little show you run all day. Too bad the cost is paid by others who would be interested in an intelligent discussion, which is made impossible by your constant rantings.
-
The meaningless text was in response to your meaningless text.:)
They don't have to believe what I say as they can see very clearly for themselves. Example: your sig quote.:eek:
If you did not post your obviously biased post on all things German, others would not have to keep correcting your claims for those not so well informed.:aok
Anyway, there has to be truth in what I say for you keep on coming up with these post defending yourself:) and accusing me of bias.:) A typical ploy by an ambulance chaser.:)
-
Do not wish to comment on his nonsense more, it would wreck the thread, which is his goal... but it`s worth to take a look on his post on other forums, he does the same everywhere.. look for the strange similiarity of style of "MandMs"... I wonder where the old "Milo Morai" nick went after 12th February...? The mods there flushed it down the toilet. AH`s mods should do the same here. Then there would be some normal discussion again. :cool:
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/6/ubb.x?q=Y&a=tpc&s=400102&f=63110913&m=124101332&p=3
-
Originally posted by Dead Man Flying
No, 80mph is about right for the Spit V in Aces High. I consider 80mph to be sufficient to pull up a bit and bring the wheels up on rollout. Any speed below that is pushing it.
-- Todd/Leviathn
As I said in my post ... 100% fuel, no wep. No problem.
Try it.
I don't know how 48in. manifold equates to AH power settings, maybe our spitv has more juice. The 80 could also be a result of pilot technique and not a limitation of the aircraft.
-
Barbi, this thread was going along very nicely until you started with the insults and your anti British bias showed once more.:eek:
Moron is not my nick, while your nick is Barbi, from your original nick, Barbarossa Isegrim.
Oh, and what name did I use when you claimed I cursed you up, down, in and out for getting shot down several times by you. You never did come up with a name.:lol More vile lies from Barbi, but that is normal.
Interesting thread. Also interesting is the Luft boys register within days of you Barbi, and your bud Huckles, getting the boot. :D I was sad to see Huckie get the boot for I enjoyed our sparing matchs. He definately had much more 'class' than you could ever hope to have.
-
MiloMorai will you please STFU. If you want to attack Isegrim, do it in the O'Club. Same goes for you Straffo, Isegrim is biased ... we are all biased one way or another. In his post he emphasized the part that related to Angus' question. He didn't cut out the good parts of the text about the Spit's controls. He did nothing wrong in my book, so stop fediddleing attacking him. It is ruining every thread you guys participate in. Recognize bias when you see it and treat the info with a bit of scepticism, but don't make personal attacks because of it. The same goes for you Isegrim.
-
I did not attack Barbi, but he sure attacked me, eh Scholz.:) Better re-read the thread. All I did was post another part of the Ethell report and the next thing Barbi is insulting.
Barbi begins his attacks on any person, when his bias is pointed out.
Now your bias is showing. :eek: :aok
Nice to see you included Barbi as an afterthought.;)
-
I vote : GSholz
-
both the fighters are GOOD fighters, i like all of them and i couldnt put down one or the other as a failure. Like some people saying the 109 failed simply because there wasnt any left by the end of the war... HELLO the fighter factories and planes was bombed to BITS........
.....anyway VO101_Isegrim have you ever thought that the german that tested the spit might have had a different oct fuel? making the fighter less powerful? Oh and not to mention he had been trained for one concept of fighting/flying compaired to the spits concept.......quiet down the 109 isnt great, nor is the spit nor is the 51, or the LA7 etc etc......
-
MiloMorai,
While I agree with you about Isegrim's level of bias, you are being disingenious when you say your reply with bolded text wasn't an attack on him. It was. It was passive, but it was a direct attack on his implied statement.
Wotan is right, we are all biased. Some of use just fight our bias' better than others, but we are never the ones best able to judge our success in controling our own bias'.
-
Originally posted by Virage
Try it.
I try it every flight. And, like I said, I consider 80mph to be the "safe" minimum vertical speed for a Spit V on takeoff. I would not attempt to maneuver or do anything other than extremely light stick inputs at anything below that. If I'm rolling from a vulched field and hit 80mph, I know I'm in a far better position than any lower speed.
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
Re: Spit Ailerons
From Cheif Test Pilot, Jeffrey Quill's book "Spitfire-A Test Pilot's Story"
Paraphrasing some of this. He speaks about the problems with the metal ailerons and how they were almost completely stiff in a dive of 470mph. His experience with the Spit I while flying in the B of B with 65 Squadron only heightened his concerns and what he saw as the need for metal ailerons.
When the first metal ailerons were introduced they let some veteran pilots try them to see their reaction. "All Pilot's agreed there was a vast improvement in aileron control, the only criticism being that now control was a little too light."
Interestingly, I just happened to come across a quote from a service pilot today talking about the FRXIV. "The first loop I ever attempted in the aircraft was the most shuddering affair I can ever remember, as you had to 'motor' the machine around on the Griffon engine throughout the manouver. Conversely it's rate of roll was astounding!"
So I guess it comes down to a pilot's perception of things. Jeff Ethell was flying Rudy Frasca's full span wing MKXVIII TP280 when he wrote about the Spit. A much heavier beast then a V or an IX obviously and without the clipped wing the roll rate would have been less.
Quill's book spends a lot of time talking about the longitudinal stability issues too and the introduction of the bob weights to the elevators. The structural failures that were happening prior to this had to do with incorrectly loaded aircraft that upset the C of G.
AS for getting off the ground in a Spit, I remember Pierre Closterman talking about taking off in his fully loaded Spit IX in front of some P47 pilots, in about 50 yards and slow rolling it on the deck as he pulled the gear up just to show off.
As for stall characteristics. Whenever I've read stuff by Spit pilots or talked to them, one of the comments made is the Spit always gave a lot of warning before it stalled out. With the lower wing loading of that big wing, it's not a huge surprise. It also had a lot of "float" on landing because of that. But it would shudder and then gently drop a wing when it stalled.
Bottom line is it was a heckuva fine combat plane, as were many others of it's contemporaries, regardless if you want to like it or not :)
Dan/Slack
-
A 50 yard takeoff? I'd have to see that to believe it.
-
Pierre Closterman told more tales then pinocchio.
(http://www.ludus.info/toons/pinocchio.jpg)
-
How could they (in AH) model controls which require 40lbs of side force to full aileron control and at the same time only 3 degrees of stick movement (with minimal force) to bring the aircaft to the verge of stall? How could they model an aircraft which is not even satisfactorily stable in longitudinal axis?
They can't.
Of course the Spit was a great combat aircraft at its time. It also had its weaknesses which were one by one fixed at the time of its existence in service. The problem is that they are not usually modelled in any game making the Spit such an easy ride which wipes the virtual skies where ever if flies.
IMO Isegrim is right about the aileron control. If he is or was biased before it doesn't mean he is wrong now. It just gives you a decent weapon to whack his comments down showing the level of this conversation is not worth participating. Or would you just like to pad each others backs here?
You need a few of us 109 geeks to mess things up a bit.
With valid comments, of course.
Cheers.
PS. Nice links Virage. Thx!
-C+
:aok
-
Originally posted by Batz
Pierre Closterman told more tales then pinocchio.
Clostermann never pictured his book as the ultimate accurate book about WWII but more as a book reporting the daily life of a fighter pilot.
Btw be warned that Clostermann is pretty sensitive on this subject and if you want to avoid any problem with him and his lawyer you should better make this post disappear.
-
Guppy,
do you have any factual roll rate information other than is already well-known (NACA 868 and the two above NACA handling tests of Spit VA) ?
It would prove interesting.
-
Originally posted by straffo
Btw be warned that Clostermann is pretty sensitive on this subject and if you want to avoid any problem with him and his lawyer you should better make this post disappear.
He ought to be.
I have faith in my ability to defend myself from whatever may be directed my way.
But thanks for your concern.....
-
well ... I wanted to warn you (even if it's pretty improbable he will look here) ,I've heard of forum shut down and so on ...
-
Originally posted by Batz
Pierre Closterman told more tales then pinocchio.
I don't think there is any question that he got some of his facts wrong in the book. One of the most glaring to me was his mention of red nosed mustangs escorting the October 43 Schweinfurt fortresses and meeting "Major Beeson" when he landed his red nosed Mustang at Manston with damage.
That couldn't have happened before April of 44.
Regardless, the Spit got off the ground in a hurry :)
Dan/Slack
-
This is the NACA tested Spit Va W3119 a very early Spit V with the external armored windscreen, flat canopy etc.
For anyone who has read Robert Stanford Tuck's biography "Fly for your Life" By Larry Forrester, this is also the Spit that Tuck did his little airshow at Wright field with.
To quote from the book "It happened that Wright Field had the only Spitfire in America-a Mark V. Unfortunately almost every pilot in the Air Corps had had a go on her and like a car that had too many drivers, she was the worse for wear...'She was very tired, very sloppy-she'd had the guts caned out of her all right.'"
W3119 was at Wright Field first in April of 41 and NACA saw her in July of 41.
With Stanford Tuck describing W3119 as "tired and very sloppy" while at Wright Field, you have to wonder how she was when NACA had her after this.
Now the Tuck biography has some errors too, such as mentioning Mustangs being tested with Merlin engines at Wright at the same time. While the Mustang I was around, the first Merlin conversion wasn't until October 42 in England, but it's a direct quote of Tuck on the condition of that Spit when he flew it so take it for what it's worth :)
Dan/Slack
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/ah_169_1077898704.jpg)
-
I also read of someone here in Finland flying an old Brewster shortly after the war and it too was described as "sloppy". The aircraft's handling deteriorates as the airframe becomes "loose".
AFAIK the roll rate particularly suffers if the wings become soft.
So a sloppy old aircarft surely could be a bad example when service performance is measured.
-C+
-
From Isengrim:
"I can fully agree with the Moron, (Shaun Innes in RL), that the Spitfire was an easy plane to land, as long a good, smooth runway was provided. It`s a logical result of the plane being very nose heavy, which on the other hand made it prone to nosing over and the propellor hitting the ground."
For your knowledge, the Spitfire was at times used on dreadful runways, in N-Africa for instance. This was not a good condition for any WW2 fighter really. The Spitfire had a weakness in its narrow undercarriage, however strength in it subtle stall, lots of float on ground effect, and low stalling speed.
A Spit pilot once told me that at 80 miles they were already pulling the gear up, experienced pilots would be up quicker and at lower speeds than ever indicated in the manual.
Has any of you seen a Spitfire take off and do aerobatics?
I have. The biggest gaggle I've seen at once were around 20!
I've seen a 2-seater Spit IX take off in a distance I estimated to be approx 150 metres (being a Farmer with lots of field work in my life, I am rather good at guessing in this field), level off while engaging gear-up, then go straight into a loop! I have also seen a later model spit (probably a clipped XIV do incredible aerobatics that I am not sure I could even copy in AH.
From it all, the Spit seemed to fly extremely comfortably, almost by itself, however the pilot could just whoop it into incredible breaks and such like waving a magic wand.
The "float" at landing was also quite evident.
I have seen many other planes from ww2 while flying (F4U, P39/40/47/51, Yak, F4F, F6F, F8F, F7F), but nothing so far has compared to the Spits. After seeing that, I've been a bit "biased" I guess, but at least it is based on actual eye encounter. :D
-
Good thing you liked the Spits floating characteristics at landing:
Maybe you find this interesting, too:
A curving final approach is flown at 200kph, and once aligned with the runway the forward field of view is poor. The threshold is crossed at 175kph, the throttle closed, and the aircraft flared to the 3 point attitude. The '109 floats like a Spitfire and controls are effective up to touchdown
The only advantage of the Spit vs. the 109 in landing was that it was not so prone to swing (nose heavy plane vs. tail heavy). Visibility was just as bad, if not worse, as it had longer, broader nose, and the wings were more forward as well.
The Brits used the Spit in NA, however, for some strange reason, it wasn`t that much preferred to more rugged types like the P-40 pr Hurricane... of course the RAF did not have much of a choice over them, unlike the Soviets who didn`t use them for long under the poor conditions, because they had their own fighters more capable to be operated under ill-equipped fields of Ukraine.
The following is from a discussion, what Soviets thought of it:
Another thing was the narrowly spaced landing gear, poor rear view from the cockpit, and the tendency to stick its nose in the mud when taxiing.Problems with rear visibility were noted by Russian sources even in IXs.It was implied that it is a WORSE frontline fighter than other available models, and recommended that the plane be used in PVO. All of these qualities didn't matter if Spits were used as interceptors in PVO (where concrete runways were available), but they weren't that great as frontline fighters.
The point is that Spits USSR got were worse than German or new Soviet frontline fighters specifically in the conditions of the Eastern front air war. But as interceptors in the PVO they were unmatched simply because USSR did not produce an analog -- so there is nothing to compare them with.
-
but soviets hate everything but soviet manufactured goods/planes etc
-
The Russians didn't like the LF IX, that's why they accepted roughly 1/5th of the LFIX's produced :) 1,188 to be exact.
Where did you read that they didn't like the Spit V in the desert? Certainly with the Vokes filter the performance wasn't the same as a clean Spit V, but I've never seen a quote or comment anywhere that has a P40 or Hurricane pilot suggesting he not take a Spit and remain in either of those two aircraft.
I just finished reading T.F. Neil's book on his Malta experience and he spends much of it lamenting the poor performance of the Hurricane vs the 109F and wondering why they can't get Spits.
I'd also be curious as to what you believe a 'rough' airfield is, Since Spits operated off the PSP in France, North Africa, Italy the backwaters of the CBI etc. They were meant to fly from grass strips too in England.
If we're talking boulder strewn, potholed, cratered stretches of dirt, i suppose they had a problem but then again most aircraft would :)
Dan/Slack
-
Visibility was just as bad, if not worse, as it had longer, broader nose, and the wings were more forward as well.
nose width
Spitfire > ~2.75ft
109G > ~ 3.0ft
pilot's head to back of spinner
Spitfire > ~10ft
109G > ~9.75ft
~ used 1ft rule, no inches
A curved approach was used, only straightening out just before touch-down.
-
I keep wondering about Milo`s figure claims...
Spit nose being 2.75 feet... that`s 84 cm... the Merlin 66 was 78cm wide... wider than DB 605A.
I also keep wondering about the lenght... Merlin 66 was 225cm long.. save 5cm, almost as long as DB 605A... still, the Spit also mounted the fuel tank behind the engine, giving extra lenghts. Griffon was some half meter longer.. how could the Spit`s nose be the ~same lenght...
I keep wondering, how Milo managed to arrive at those bull numbers... :D
-
Hmm, there must be a measurable picture around somewhere to check this out.Maybe someone will post something more accurate.
Anyway, I seem to recall that the Spit IX should be indistinguishable from the Spit V. Maybe that appeals to fast combat and not scrutiny, I do not know.
However, from my point of view, the Spit nose looks similar or longer than the 109's. Just my eyes ;)
Gunther Rall mentions the taxiing/landing characteristics of allied planes vs the 109. He seems to favour ALL of them to the 109, including the Spitfire! There I shall not be the judge, never seen the 109 flying :(
(However, I have seen the 108. Delightful little plane I belive)
Now, about the desert spits,,,,,,peww...
They had the dreadful Vokes filter,decreasing speed.
Their climb was less hampered by this though, and generally their performance was better than any other's allied plane around, until the P38 arrived, but note that by then there were Mk IX's around as well. (I'll look it up if you like, this (hemm) is from memory, but I have read some 3-5 autobiographies that include the N-African campaign, i.e. from the Allied side.)
The Hurricane would have been very much better in rough cirkumstances like that, very much better than either the Spit or the 109. After all, unmodified Hurricanes even landed on a relatively small aircraft carrier without an accident already in 1940
However, when the mud period of the Tunisian fields started, ANY plane had a bad time. Even tanks and infantry did.
Then finally...about the nose-heaviness.
This is something I am curious about. I always believed that the 109 was rather more nose heavy. Why? Lighter airframe with a heavier engine, and a more backward wing, hence center of lift.
One source states that 5 % of 109's were lost in landing accidents, but as the war presented so different circumstances, there must be more accurate data around about this.
I even have a picture of a beautifully "nosed in" 109 !
(on a concrete runway)
Well, keep it alive
Angus
-
Be curious all you want since you never specified what Mk.:)
Just because the engine was 'such and such' width does not mean the fuselage was that wide.:eek:
And, to add, the cowling on the 109 was higher at the windshield than on the Spitfire.
Did you forget the 109 had 2 mgs and a cannon mounted behind the engine where the Spifire had its fuel tank?
Numbers for a Mk V.:)
To keep you happy, the distance from pilot to the back off spinner was only ~5-6" less on the Mk IX than on the Mk XIV. The Mk IX added ~12" to the nose over the Mk V.
I checked on some better drawings and the 109F had a distance of 10.5ft.:)
Now go measure some drawing yourself instead of generalizing if you don't like my numbers.:)
If you need some drawings go here http://www.airwar.ru/other/draw_fw.html
-
Originally posted by Angus
Hmm, there must be a measurable picture around somewhere to check this out.Maybe someone will post something more accurate.
Anyway, I seem to recall that the Spit IX should be indistinguishable from the Spit V. Maybe that appeals to fast combat and not scrutiny, I do not know.
However, from my point of view, the Spit nose looks similar or longer than the 109's. Just my eyes ;)
(http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/FvsF/S14vsK4_nosecomp.jpg)
Well I did some comparisons of forward view, taking my scale K-4 and spitty 14 drawings.. it`s all there to see, just a few comments:
1, Inverted Vee engine is broad at the base, an ordinary Vee engine is broader at the top. ONE of the advantages of using inverted-vee engines is that the upport cowling can be made nice narrow, plus it can angled down towards the prop - just see the picture.
2, The sighting view is thus better on the 109. Also, since the DB engines were built angled somewhat upwards compared to the sighthing line, and Motorkanone followed that, deflection shooting was even more easier...
3, The tall tail wheel of late 109s gave a distinct advantage, raising the tail on the ground improved forward vision during taxying, the cowling was less obstructive this way.
4, The Spit`s cocpit is also much more back, while the wing is forward, limiting sight over the wings.
5, Blue line shows best sighting line via the REVI. (connects REVI and cowling top)
6, Light blue line shows best taxying view over cowling. Connects apprx. pilot head position with top of the propellor hub.
7, The relative sighting angle of the two planes is show with pink. Also the relative size of the Spits forward fuel tank vs. the armament bay of the109 in front of the pilot .
It also nicely illustrates the old wisdom, why make something big if you can make it smaller and better ? ;) :p
This is something I am curious about. I always believed that the 109 was rather more nose heavy. Why? Lighter airframe with a heavier engine, and a more backward wing, hence center of lift.
Nah. The 109 was a taildragger, a nose heavy plane. The engine was NOT heavier, in fact it was very comparable in timeframe (early Merlin vs. DB 601 about 610kg, two stage Merlins vs. DB605 about 730 kg). In fact the two-stage Griffons were a good deal heavier, close to the DB 603 (Griffon 65 weighted 898 kg, DB 605 D 745 kg).
If the wing is backward, than it shift the CoG backwards, not fore.
Also if you note, the 109`s u/c, when extended, contacts the ground more forward than the Spit, it`s practically below centre of engine (in fact the 109`s u/c rests to some extent on the engine bearers... smart as usual). That shifts CoG even more backwards. The Spit`s u/c is under the back of the engine.
Moreover, fuel tanks... Spit : in front of pilot.. 109.. behind pilot (which means it gives some additional protection for pilot... smart again). Also on late 109s, MW50 tanks is even further back, that`s some 90-100 kg total, quite a weight.
-
Isegrim,
That Spit profile looks more like a Packard-Merlin 266 powered Spitfire Mk XVI than a Rolls-Royce Griffon 65 powered Spitfire Mk XIV. The chin is rounded like on a Merlin Spit.
It was noted that the Griffon of the Mk XIV gave a bit better gunsight view than over the nose of Merlin Spits.
-
Hehe, Spit vs 109...once again
And it has not turned inflammable yet?
First this:
" ONE of the advantages of using inverted-vee engines is that the upport cowling can be made nice narrow, plus it can angled down towards the prop"
I am quite well aware of this. This is definately in the 109's favour. This allowed a better view over the top, a better center of prop-power, and also, in that case, a cowling gun armament.
Then:
" deflection shooting was even more easier... "
Yup. Because of the formentioned view. Then, cental positioned guns even made that better.
Now we come to the not-agreed section.
First:
"Nah. The 109 was a taildragger, a nose heavy plane. The engine was NOT heavier, in fact it was very comparable in timeframe "
The Spitfire was a taildragger....practically any WW2 fighter was a taildragger (not P39 and P38, ok, and some....)
The DB engine was roughly the same weight pr time, pr power as the Merlin/Griffon. If anything, the cup goes to the Merlin, however, the difference is very little.
The engine of the 109 was however heavier in relation to the total weight, and the weight of the 109 was more forward compared to the center of lift. How about the C of G? I'd like to see more data on that, but I seem to recall that the 109's C of G would be more forward than the one of the Spit..
Also note that C of G shifts under G loads. That would not apply to taxxing though...
Then this:
"It also nicely illustrates the old wisdom, why make something big if you can make it smaller and better ?"
Well, there we go. This thread shall long live.
I can but say this. Pit those two together in a dogfight with equally skilled pilots, co-alt, co-E
In most cases with a historical setup (Timeframe), the Spitfire outperforms the 109. i.e., a Spitfire will be able to hold a 109 off without running, but not the other way around.
The engines match up closely. The airframes do not as much.
The Spitfire, being bigger, can be hurled around easier at almost any speed. In a co-weight + co-power situation, the difference would be quite marked.
Actually,the DB was tested both in Spits and Hurris.
While delivering roughly the original power, there was, - if anything - an increase in the performance of those airframes under DB-Power!
Finally....about your pics...
This is presumably a Mk XIV bubble-hood Spitty. It has as long a nose as they would get. It has a bit roomier cockpit than the 109 (almost any WW2 fighter had), and it looks as that your center of look-line is put higher in the 109. A pilot will only be able to put his head as high as it goes untill hittin the top, which seems to be LOWER in the Spits case.
Or is your LW man a Flathead?
-
All the Nazi's were flatheads, you mean you didn't know that?!
-
Originally posted by Urchin
All the Nazi's were flatheads, you mean you didn't know that?!
dont be racist :mad:
-
I hvae nothing to contribute other than I like cheese, please carry on :D
-
Originally posted by Overlag
dont be racist :mad:
LOL..... OK... go look up racist in the dictionary. No.. really. Do it.
-
Originally posted by Urchin
LOL..... OK... go look up racist in the dictionary. No.. really. Do it.
calling someone a nazi should be a bannable offence.....
that guy is a german, NOT a nazi
oh and as you asked me to.........
Discrimination or prejudice based on race.
-
I am very pleasently surprised at Barbi's presentation. I give you a well done even though some of your points are debatable and will let ride, other than his reference point of the tip of the spinner. Pilot postion would be better.
I will remind him of a 'discussion' though, on rear view, in which I posted some drawings that I was told were 'garbage. There is a simularity between his and mine.:)
The Spitfire is not a Spitfire Mk XIV for sure. Several points will show this. One being the non-retractable tail wheel. Others are the panel lines for the engine cowling, the too long carb inlet and the wrong shape/size of rudder for a 'bubble top'.
Angus, did not the pilot of the Spitfire open his canopy raise his seat when landing? Several photos show this (eyes almost level with the top of the windshield)
...................
Overlag, Barbi is a Hungarian.:)
-
Originally posted by Overlag
calling someone a nazi should be a bannable offence.....
that guy is a german, NOT a nazi
oh and as you asked me to.........
OK.... maybe English isn't your first language.. so I'll spell it out for you.
Is a "Nazi" a race?
-
Originally posted by Urchin
OK.... maybe English isn't your first language.. so I'll spell it out for you.
Is a "Nazi" a race?
yes and no....but a german is a "race" and calling him a nazi just because hes german is...well nasty...
-
Eh? would got called a nazi? thought nazi comment was just about the view height for 109 being high on the pic.
-
Yea, it was... but for the ESOL folks i guess it is a little confusing.
-
If necessary, I think the pilot could crank the seat up. Never looked at it really.
Anyway, the cockpit is smallish, and a man of larger statue would be having his head against the top of the bubble.
That Spit....what model is it then? (too lazy to look it up)
-
Angus, as Karnak stated, a Mk XVI.
Opening the canopy was a safety concern as well, in case of a turnover allowing the pilot to escape, unlike the 109's pilot who would be trapped.
-
109 pilots taxied with the hood open as well. Why would you even say such a thing?
-
Originally posted by thrila
Eh? would got called a nazi? thought nazi comment was just about the view height for 109 being high on the pic.
its still calling someone a nazi. he isnt a nazi just because he was german in 1933-1945 :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by GScholz
109 pilots taxied with the hood open as well. Why would you even say such a thing?
Was this directed to me Scholz? If so where did I say that?
It would be very few and far between from any photos I have seen. Did not see any in the Prien/Rodieke 109 book. Anyways, only if they wanted the heavy canopy to come crashing down while bouncing around on the "rough fields". It also played heck with the hinges.
-
One would not taxi at any speed with that hinged canopy of the 109. I also think it got closed by the fitter/rigger on many occasions.
Sliding hoods are another matter. And then the Spitty had that little door on the left side for comfort- and escape.
If the 109 flipped over, it somehow usually killed the pilot. I am curious to know more about why exactly.
-
LOL sometimes the never ending debate cracks me up.
GScholz, what folks are talking about is not whether the hood was open when taxying(sp). I think you misunderstood the point is all. It wasn't a condemnation of the 109
Part of landing procedure, written in the manual, for Spit drivers was to open the hood and set the emergency exit door to half cocked position. This kept the sliding canopy from slamming forward if there was a accident. It was a safety measure that the 109 didn't have. It allowed for an easier escape in the event of an accident, turning over ect. Look for photos of Spits landing. I think you'll find most, if not all have the canopy open. I just went through all my Spit stuff and couldn't find one landing with the canopy closed. There is a mix and match of Spits taking off with it either opened or closed however.
They also had that nice little crowbar set in the cockpit door for bashing open the canopy should that be an issue.
Spit profile in Ingrim's diagram is clearly a Merlin engined bubble top IX/XVI. Yes there were a few IXs that had the bubble top too. Same airframe, with the designation being determined on which Merlin went in the 66 or 266 built in the US.
Spit pilots did tend to crank the seat up for take off and landing, and then adjust it down once they closed the canopy and settled in for the actual flight.
Griffon Spit variants had a better angle of site over the nose to the Merlin Spits. This was noted with the first Griffon variant, the XII.
Dan/Slack
-
I seem to recall that the ADFU tactical trials document that was at the now apparently defunt :( Fourth Fighter Group website stated that the gunsight view of the Spitfire Mk XIV had a 1.5 degree better view over the nose than did the Spitfire Mk IX.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
I seem to recall that the ADFU tactical trials document that was at the now apparently defunt :( Fourth Fighter Group website stated that the gunsight view of the Spitfire Mk XIV had a 1.5 degree better view over the nose than did the Spitfire Mk IX.
In the tactical trials of the Griffon Spit XII the quote is:
"Sighting View-Owing to the engine having been set lower then the Merlin in the V or IX, the sighting view over the center of the cowling is increased from 100mph standard to 120mph[equivelent deflection angle of an aircraft in the gunsight], which gives a total of 4 degrees downward view."
Dan/Slack
-
The drawing is from some Polish Spit book I got from the net. It shows a Mk XIVe, a Griffon 65 Spit (5 blade propellor). IIRC FR XIV`s mounted the bubble canopies, not sure about the standard F XIV ever mounted one. I don`t know the Spit cowlings too well, but it serves the purpose as the relative dimensions are correct to each other. And the tailwheel is non retracted since it shows the plane on the ground... also as K-4. It would be nice to get similiar views from the cocpit to illustrate better, but I don`t have good Spit cocpit photos - the one I have is a bit unfair as the camera is low. On the 109 photos, I can see the whole cowling very well.
It`s worth to check out this. Video done inside of a Bf 109G to illustrate what the pilot saw. Not that restricted as the popular myth says IMHO.
http://www.jagdgeschwader4.de/Flugzeuge/Me109/JG4-Film-109.AVI
Also, I don`t believe the Spit`s cocpit was any roomier than the 109`s. I could test either (sadly I missed the 109E that was restored here..), so it`s a bit theoretical, but al the photos I seen of both cocpits actually tells me the Spit is just as small, if not smaller. Perhaps there`s more headroom.. In any case, I don`t get why that much of a talk about cocpit size. Spit and 109 were interceptors, not escort/LR fighters.. Besides, I don`t feel uncomfortable in my car, even though I doubt it would have any more room than the 109`s cocpit. It`s not an issue. Most WW2 fighters were "cramped", with rather few exception, usually radials that were wide enough to start with.
Re: 109 canopy.. I don`t think the non-open state was much of a problem. As for easyness of dropping the canopy, you only had to pull two levers, and bye-bye... a swinging canopy has much less chance of jamming than a sliding one. Messerscmitt kept this even on the Me 262. I guess he had a reason. Personally, I have never heard dying inside a turnover 109 was anything common. In fact, I heard a lot of stories to the opposite, pilots crawling out from 109s that did travel a hundred meter - while looping on it`s wings... if one looks on the Messer`s front canopy struts, he can see what massive bolted steel pieces are used. The razorback design also helps a lot, the plane would rest on these two, instead of smashing our flyier`s head. And from G-6 onwards, the Revi 16B gunsight was mounted, it could be swinged down before crashlanding, in order to keep it away from the pilot`s face.
Angus, you can see on this picture how high the eyeline was in a 109, as on my drawings :
http://www.jagdgeschwader4.de/Flugzeuge/Me109/Fotos/Bilder/Bf-109-G2%20(7)_JPG.jpg .
And here a good photo from the cocpit :
(http://www.jagdgeschwader4.de/Flugzeuge/Me109/Fotos/Bilder/Bf-109-G2%20(5)_JPG.jpg)
**Khmmm*** I wish I had a similiar good quality photo of a Spit`s cocpit...
-
Just to clarify Ingrim. The drawing from the book must have a typo as it is definately a low back Merlin engined Spit 16(XVI). The cowling is for the Merlin and the tail is the earlier smaller pointed tail, not the broader tail and rudder of the XIV.
For comparison, a profile I did of a low back Spit 16. It's the same bird
Dan/Slack
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/ah_169_1078171531.jpg)
-
Hi Angus,
>Sliding hoods are another matter. And then the Spitty had that little door on the left side for comfort- and escape.
Well, the real emergency mechanism was a "knock-out panel on the port side of the hood". I guess the crow bar stored on the door was used to break the panel.
The sliding hood could slide shut if the airplane overturned, so the door had an intermediate position to prevent this. The door only worked as an emergency escape if the hood was slid back, thus the need for the additional knock-out panel.
>If the 109 flipped over, it somehow usually killed the pilot. I am curious to know more about why exactly.
Well, I've not heard of pilots being killed, but if the Me 109 flipped over with the hood in place, you'd be trapped in the airplane. (That's what happened to Black 6!)
Accordingly, normal emergency procedure was to jettison the hood before coming in to an emergency landing. Not only the hinged part would depart, but also the rear portion that was normally fixed. (The Black 6 pilot didn't follow that procedure since replacement canopies are hard to come by nowadays.)
It's my impression that when it came to bailing out, the Me 109's emergency release was considerably more reliable than the British escape mechanisms. The advantage of the British system of course was that it was standard procedure to land with open canopy, so the pilot should normally have an escape route even in the case of an accident during a non-emergency landing.
Sliding back the hood additionally provided improved view if the canopy fogged or iced up, or at night. The Me 109's cockpit heating and ventilation was said to be better than the Spitfire's, but even Galland noted that in bad weather the Me 109 could lose visibility, and opening the hood was not an option then.
Pros and cons, as usual :-)
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
HoHun, the knock out panel on the port side of the Spit canopy was gone as soon as they bulged it out, probably in late 41, early 42. You'll see Spit Vs with either the flat side canopy with the knockout panel early and bulged canopies without the panel too. I haven't seen an IX with it outside of the early converted Vs for testing.
The crowbar was for the canopy itself. I believe the knockout panal was more for visibility should the canopy ice up, fog over. Way too small for anyone to crawl out of :)
image shows the prototype Spit XII DP845 with the flat side, knockout panel style canopy that first flew in November 41 and the bottom shows the last Spit XII MB882 with the bulged sided canopy that the spit used from 42 on.
Dan/Slack
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/ah_169_1078180084.jpg)
-
Isegrim,
The Spitfire's cockpit wasn't roomy by any means, but it did have more room than the Bf109.
Certainly neither were P-47 or P-51 like though.
Just from looking at pictures, the Fw190 looks like it had the best cockpit of any WWII fighter. Or maybe the Me262.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
Isegrim,
The Spitfire's cockpit wasn't roomy by any means, but it did have more room than the Bf109.
Certainly neither were P-47 or P-51 like though.
Just from looking at pictures, the Fw190 looks like it had the best cockpit of any WWII fighter. Or maybe the Me262.
On of the comments made by Spit pilots was that it was like you strapped it on. This was said is a positive manner as they felt more a part of the plane.
Having been in the cockpit of a Spit, it's certainly roomy enough to do the job.
Was it a 51 or a 47? Nope, An old AW pilot who was a WW2 flyer in 39s and 47s in the Med, talked about one of his first flights in a bubble top P47D-27RE. He came up alongside a C47 and was able to duck down below the rim of the canopy to make it look like it was a pilotless Jug. Not something he could have done in the smaller cockpit of a 39.
Spit pilots who transitioned to the 51 appreciated the cockpit set up as it made it easier to take those long range flights.
Dan/Slack
-
Up to and including the G model 109 there was problems jettisoning the canopy.
A test report was done, #109 18 E 43
"In spite of repeated improvements to the canopy jettison system of the 109G, complaints were still recieved that the canopy refused to jettison or did not do so without without problems"
-
Hi Dan,
>HoHun, the knock out panel on the port side of the Spit canopy was gone as soon as they bulged it out, probably in late 41, early 42.
I found it in the Spitfire II's Pilot's Notes, so that would fit.
>The crowbar was for the canopy itself. I believe the knockout panal was more for visibility should the canopy ice up, fog over. Way too small for anyone to crawl out of :)
I agree. Seems I misunderstood what the Pilot's Notes meant with "for emergency use" :-)
(The term I connected with the small panel was "clear vision panel".)
Anyway, if the Spitfire really overturned with the hood closed, the small door would be blocked anyway, and the way out would require use of the crowbar to smash the plexiglass. Getting through the small door (if it could be opened at all) from a position hanging upside down in the seat harness ... I don't know, sounds rather difficult.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Originally posted by HoHun
Hi Dan,
Anyway, if the Spitfire really overturned with the hood closed, the small door would be blocked anyway, and the way out would require use of the crowbar to smash the plexiglass. Getting through the small door (if it could be opened at all) from a position hanging upside down in the seat harness ... I don't know, sounds rather difficult.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
Hi Henning,
I think that was why the pilot's notes were specific about sliding back the hood and setting the side door in preperation for landing so that it did not allow the canopy to slam forward in an accident.
As for getting out through that door. I'm sure it was done, and I imagine it was a bit like the time the two 38 Pilots got into the cockpit of 1 38 like the 51 drivers did a few times in rescuing downed pilots. Once back at base, the two 38 drivers were asked to duplicate the event for the cameras and they were not able to do it. It clearly had happened as they went out with two 38s and returned with 2 pilots in 1 38, but without the adrenilen, fear etc, they couldn't do it again.
Keep in mind the door would have been part of the escape as the canopy would have to have been open too, with the higher profile behind the cockpit keeping the pilot from getting crushed as would have been the case with the 109.
You'd mentioned Black 6's accident and the pilot in that case was not able to get out of the cockpit until they could lift the tail to open the canopy if I remember right.
Dan/Slack
-
OK I guess I'll counter my own thoughts with the words of a Spit XII pilot I corresponded with back in the 1980s. He had an engine failure on take off in August of 44 in Spit XII MB875. His description from a letter he sent me follows:
"My memory of that (the engine failure) was it started OK but seemed to lack all the power that was needed to get off. Belly tank on it as well, which to me made it a bit dicy to pull the undercarriage up as I had seen one go up in flames which landed and the belly tank went up. I just trusted that the brakes would pull it up in time but didn't. I went between 2 parked aircraft, hit an embankment, flipped upside down and went backwards on its back for 75-100 yards. Naturally I passed out, but luckily the canopy was still open. When I came to I released the parachute, forgetting about the Mae West clipped to it, and dropped the short distance on to my head so I was cramped upside down and couldn't get out through the small opening. I think it ran through my mind about it going on fire. However some ground staff came running up and lifted the plane up and managed to drag me out. Colin Gray(The Wing Commander) arrived and asked how I was and gave me a cigarette, said to go to the hospital and take 10 days leave."
Take it for what its worth. It's a first hand account anyway :)
Dan/Slack
-
The left hand knockout panel is the little door right?
On my wall, I have a picture of a Spit IX, double canopy, model 1943 or so, with the door open.
Anyway, I read a cool account of a crash-flipover, where the plane rushed onwards with the canopy near the ground, - the pilot (Alan Deere!) managed to crab out of the side door with his mouth already full of dirt!
-
Originally posted by Angus
The left hand knockout panel is the little door right?
On my wall, I have a picture of a Spit IX, double canopy, model 1943 or so, with the door open.
Anyway, I read a cool account of a crash-flipover, where the plane rushed onwards with the canopy near the ground, - the pilot (Alan Deere!) managed to crab out of the side door with his mouth already full of dirt!
Knockout panal is on the canopy on early Spits. Look at the image I posted of the two different Spit canopies. It's on the top canopy.
All Deere's crash was in a Spit I on August 31, 1940 when he was taking off from Hornchurch with two other Spits in the midst of a bombing raid. A bomb went off and knocked all three down with Deere going over on his back and getting the dirt and rocks in his eyes and mouth. The Spit I would have had the knock out panel on the canopy, but as you say, he crawled out through the small side door.
Dan/Slack
-
The side panel would surely have been helpful to get out wounded pilots, too, as T.F. Neil described in his book when they unsuccessfully tried to get a wounded pilot out of a Hurricane after it received a Bred/Saf .50 through its pilot armor, and pilot, of course. They got him out but after he managed to assist the ejection himself.
Maybe it was so rare to have wounded pilots to land on three wheels that the side door was not considered worth keeping.
Or did it weaken the airframe?
-C+
-
Originally posted by Charge
The side panel would surely have been helpful to get out wounded pilots, too, as T.F. Neil described in his book when they unsuccessfully tried to get a wounded pilot out of a Hurricane after it received a Bred/Saf .50 through its pilot armor, and pilot, of course. They got him out but after he managed to assist the ejection himself.
Maybe it was so rare to have wounded pilots to land on three wheels that the side door was not considered worth keeping.
Or did it weaken the airframe?
-C+
Spit always had that side door outside of the pressurized variants, the VI, VII, PRX & PR19. Hurri never had it.
Dan/Slack
-
Sorry Gup, I was a bit unclear there. I didn't mean that Hurri had the side panel, just that it would have been handy as in that incident Neil wished the Hurri had had the side panel just like the Spitfire. :(
-C+
-
"In most cases with a historical setup (Timeframe), the Spitfire outperforms the 109. i.e., a Spitfire will be able to hold a 109 off without running, but not the other way around"
All that means is that it can outurn it.
The 109E was faster, accelerated and climbed better than Spit I at usual combat heigths. Roll rate was similar, the 109 prolly a bit faster.
The 109F was, faster, acclereated better and climbed better trhan Spit V, roll rate and surprisingly turn were improved over the 109E.
109G2 was clearly better in climb, speed, accel over the early spit IX and maintained this through late 1943. High Alt G2/G4 with GM1 added more performance.
G6 was worse than spit IX due to weight and intro of new advanced spit 9 models particularly specialized in low high roles. But G6AS was faster. And G6 with Mw50 could prolly keep up.
Spit XIV was faster than the G6AS acceled and climbed better. G10 and K4 variously adressed that issue with K4 again being faster. Climb was similar depending on sources for K4.
So no its prolly not fair to say that Spits had dominance over the 109s. In fact its more that 109s had dominance until mid/late 1943 and intro of new spits. By early 44 the spits got performance advantages through G6as adressed some of that but in comparsion to late spit 9s. 109s did not get advantage or parity over spit 14 until the g10 and k4 late in 44.
Final WW2 developments saw the spit 21 and 22 getting faster and more heavily armed. The next 109 was to be the K14 with a new more powerful DB605L (two speed two stage supercharger) and four blade prop. This incresed speed and especially climb performance tremendously and would have made it faster and better climing thatn the 21/22 spits. Armament could now be impoved by new cannon such as extra mk108 in wings. Fitting anew 900rpm Mk108 in the engine. Fitting an Mk103M in the engine. Or perhaps even one of the new Mg213 which fired 30mm mine shells at 1200+rpm or a new 1000+ meter per second velocity 20mm shell at 1400+ rpm. :)
-
Hi Guppy,
>I think that was why the pilot's notes were specific about sliding back the hood and setting the side door in preperation for landing so that it did not allow the canopy to slam forward in an accident.
I just found a mention of an wartime accident in which the Spitfire pilot slid back the hood, but neglected to lock it. It slammed forward on landing and injured him badly.
I guess the open side door would block the canopy's way forward even if the latter was not locked? Opening the former seems like a very important safety measure then.
(I just saw the RAF Historical Flight's Spitfire II, and noticed that it had the side door open as well at least during taxying. I'll have to check the photographs I took to see whether it was already open right after touchdown. Unfortunately, my line of view to the approach end of the runway was blocked so that I don't have any pictures of the landing itself!)
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Hi Dan,
>You'd mentioned Black 6's accident and the pilot in that case was not able to get out of the cockpit until they could lift the tail to open the canopy if I remember right.
That's correct. The Black 6 pilot didn't follow the wartime procedure of jettisoning the hood before an emergency landing because of the difficulty of getting a replacement canopy.
That was of course a dangerous risk to take. However, as they say in the Warbirds business: "Don't bother to bail out, because if you wreck our Warbird, we're going to find you and kill you anyhow!" ;-)
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
So the argument is that the rollrates in the NACA test are not valid because the Spitfire was "tired"?
Crumpp
-
Think so yes.
Recommended read about the Spitty's aileron stuff is "Spitfire, a test pilot's story" by J. Quill.
-
That could explain the discrepancy in the NACA roll rates on the FW-190 with the Luftwaffe and RAF reports. Unfortunately it is the only record in existence of the "measured" roll rates. The RAF test praises the roll rate of the 190 saying:
"Incrediable alieron rolls which would tear the wings off a 109 or a Spitfire were possible."
"Appears to the following pilot to simply flick 180 degrees in a roll no Spitfire could possibly follow"
"Extremely fast, precise, and controllable rate of roll."
The Luftwaffe calls the roll rate:
"A significant advance in fighter aircraft performance which will have positive result in combat."
The 190A5/U4 the USAAF tested was in "good condition" for a crash-landed captured aircraft. In fact though, it needed extensive repair on the engine and airframe that is listed under the test set up. Including missing main wing spar bolts. It was a "tired" airframe. Does anyone have the Detailed Aircraft Set up for the NACA roll rate test's?
Also in reference to that 190A5's condition:
In glancing over the Luftwaffe FW-190A1 thru FW-190A9 Technical manual I noticed a large section devoted to aileron adjustment. In fact, jigs and templates for aileron adjustment are listed as part of the special tools FW-190's needed for maintenance. At the top of each page was what appeared to be a caution statement saying improper adjustment of the ailerons had an adverse effect on the maneuverability of the 190. This is confirmed by Hpt. Gollabs report to the RLM on 190 performance. It is also appears to be part of the maintenance crews pre flight and post flight checks to confirm the proper adjustment.
All the test flight reports I have seen ONLY the German and the USAAF test mention aileron problems in a turn with the 190. The German report warns against improper aileron adjustment AND denotes it's adverse effect on the 190's turn performance. The USAAF test simply notes aileron flutter, reversal, and tip stalling.
Here is the actual verbiage from the RLM report:
http://www.terra.es/personal2/matias.s/fw190.html
My Pilots Manuals and Technical Manuals for the FW-190 are in the possession of a German engineer and pilot friend of mine who is checking my translations and attempting to answer some other questions. When I get them back their will be more info on this posted at the above website.
Obviously no one is claiming the 190 should outturn Spitfires or any other plane, which historically it could not. This does though point to the obvious lack of detailed technical knowledge the allies had in the day to day maintenance of Luftwaffe Aircraft and calls into the question using strictly allied sources as the end all word in German Aircraft performance. And questions the NACA report results as the definitive answer to roll rate performance.
Let me know your thoughts on this.
Crumpp
-
I believe the figures in NACA 868 for the Spit and Fw 190 are from British tests.
Interestingly, the British checked Fw 190 roll rate from a secondary source as well. They measured the observed rate of roll of 190s recorded on Spitfire gun cams. Those rolled at up to 120 deg/sec. (They used the background to determine that the Spit wasn't also rolling)
In glancing over the Luftwaffe FW-190A1 thru FW-190A9 Technical manual I noticed a large section devoted to aileron adjustment. In fact, jigs and templates for aileron adjustment are listed as part of the special tools FW-190's needed for maintenance. At the top of each page was what appeared to be a caution statement saying improper adjustment of the ailerons had an adverse effect on the maneuverability of the 190. This is confirmed by Hpt. Gollabs report to the RLM on 190 performance. It is also appears to be part of the maintenance crews pre flight and post flight checks to confirm the proper adjustment.
That's true for all Frise ailerons, afaik. Certainly it's very noticeable in Spitfire reports.
-
So you believe the test results from NACA are valid Nashwan? Your reply is somewhat confusing although the 120/sec would seem right. That would mean 180 degrees in 1.5 seconds or 360 degrees in 3 seconds. Does it list what speed?
Crumpp
-
So you believe the test results from NACA are valid Nashwan?
The NACA 868 roll rates for the Spit and 190 are from British tests, and I think are pretty valid, with the proviso that there is natural variation in every plane:
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/282_1089738390_nacaroll.gif)
The NACA reports linked at the start of this thread were done by NACA themselves, and Guppy has already posted the condition of that aircraft.
Your reply is somewhat confusing although the 120/sec would seem right. That would mean 180 degrees in 1.5 seconds or 360 degrees in 3 seconds. Does it list what speed?
No, iirc they said they had no way of checking speeds from the gun cams. I think they checked a lot of films, though, so it probably covers a broad spread of speeds.
-
I once looked at guncam films in the IWM London.
A 190 was caught on its 6 by a P51. Down on the deck at full speed it did not try rolling, probably did not have the alt for anything vicious. The 51 shredded the 190.
Poor guy, probably inexperienced while the P51 pilot was a Wing commander.
-
Where not those graphs results obtained from calculations?
-
National Advisory Committee on Aeronautics is a US Government organization that now falls under NASA. So these are not British tests.
http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay/Evolution_of_Technology/NACA/Tech1.htm
Is this test Wartime data as is indicated on the bottom of the graph based on actual flying or is this calculated from a slide rule?
According to the USAAF/RAF tactical trials conducted in England during the Winter 43/44 the 190 out rolled the P51B under all flight conditions.
According to NACA chart it should not have above 360 mph IAS.
If this is wartime data then it probably IS the FW-190A5/U4 the USAAF tested on 24 Feb 1944 against a Corsiar and a Hellcat in the United States. The Military received that FW-190 from the Bureau of Aeronautics.
Crumpp
-
868 is a Naca report. That doesn't mean all the data in the report was collected from Naca tests.
In fact, the report says:
"The purpose of the present paper is to summarize rather completely the available information....
No new investigations were attempted in preparing the present paper, although some of the data and analyses had not previously been published"
The British tests were definately tests. They say they used a "rat" to measure angle of bank, a Henschel stick force indicator, and criticise the common way of testing with a stopwatch as inacurate.
According to the USAAF/RAF tactical trials conducted in England during the Winter 43/44 the 190 out rolled the P51B under all flight conditions.
Have you got the details (speeds, rollrates etc)? All data is helpfull. This wouldn't be the first set of contradictory tests. I know early US tests showed the 190 and F4U to have similar rollrates, which I don't think was borne out by other tests.
If this is wartime data then it probably IS the FW-190A5/U4 the USAAF tested on 24 Feb 1944 against a Corsiar and a Hellcat in the United States.
It's definately from the British test. The graphs match exactly for the clipped and normal Spits and the Fw190.
-
I am digging through the National Archives. I have the report number for the test's that the NACA is based on. Thanks.
Crumpp
-
"Obviously no one is claiming the 190 should outturn Spitfires or any other plane, which historically it could not."
So you haven't seen the guncam where 190 (alleged) easily turns with and inside P47 and even pulls lead after turning a while with it.
Do you base that claim to wingloading figures?
Ill try to find a link... :)
-C+
-
"Obviously no one is claiming the 190 should outturn Spitfires or any other plane, which historically it could not."
The key phrase is "which historically it could not". Yes the FW-190 could easily outturn a P47 at certain altitudes and speeds. At others the situation was reversed.
If you read the F4U, F4F, and FW190A5/U4 Tactical trials it is pretty evident that something was wrong with the FW they tested. Alieron reversal is not a characteristic of the FW-190 UNLESS the Alierons are improperly set.
Crumpp
-
Nashwan,
I have ordered the original test the NACA results are based off of from the UK National Archives. According to Gripen the RAF had three FW-190's to choose from to conduct the test. For some odd reason they choose the one which had the stiffest ailerons. This may have been due to other factors that would have rendered the other FW-190's unsuitable for the test.
We will see.
Crumpp
-
Crumpp,
There is no "some odd reason" for that particular Fw in the test, it's just typical variation of the frise type ailerons as the report notes.
gripen
-
I got the report coming.
Thanks
Crumpp
-
I have ordered the original test the NACA results are based off of from the UK National Archives. According to Gripen the RAF had three FW-190's to choose from to conduct the test. For some odd reason they choose the one which had the stiffest ailerons. This may have been due to other factors that would have rendered the other FW-190's unsuitable for the test.
It could also be that they didn't have the others at the time the tests were conducted, but did by the time the report was finished.
I have seen some, or possibly even all, the report myself, but I only have brief notes now.
I've often been tempted to order from the pro, but the cost has put me off. AFAIK, you have to pay £10 for a quote on how much the report will cost. If you don't mind me asking, are the reports expensive? I fully understand if you'd rather not say how much.
-
They are scanning a copy and making a pdf. file. I haven't heard back from them yet but I will let you know.
Crumpp
-
Heard from the NA today. The cost is 83 pounds and some change. It takes a few weeks for them to get around to doing it but it is coming.
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
I got the report coming.
Thanks
Crumpp
Thanks; that's a lot of bread for a virtual hobby (83 quid!?!).
Nonetheless ; I've always understood the Spit IX to have the highest WWII mach number.
If I quote a number; I'll only show my ignorance (Badz; +Tiff, help!); but I'm reasonably sure some inbred, buck tooth Imperial chinless Wonder managed to spin the prop off a reasonably standard Spit IX in a presumably controlled dive to record the highest documented mach speed in a WWII fighter aeroplane. (Then again; that's what younger sons are for; don'tcha know? )
Think what he could have achieved if the crate had been not_a_spit and there fore any good?
Perk the 1942 rides!