Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: artik on September 04, 2004, 01:51:16 AM
-
Yestoday I have flown Spitfire Mk IX at CT (I think it was first time I did number of real sorties in Spit 9 in AH2).
I have noticed it is not stable as it was in AH1. In AH1 it was allmost easy mode plane - now I've get stalled too much time with not hard stick pulls at all. After short time I started to control it much better but anyway it is not seems to be the same.
Actually I'm not spit player (I allmost do not fly it) I fly mostly 109G and know to handle it well but I found Spit less stable then 109.
Maybe just I forgot how to fly Spits.......
What can you tell? What is your opinoin?
P.S.: I never fly with stall limiter or combat trim ;) I like to control plane myself
-
Some planes were enhanced in overall stability, others were greatly reduced.
For instance, IMO the US planes are among the most enhanced in basic stability.
They were always very reliable at slow speeds with flaps even in AH1, but in AH2 they are even better.
While the turning radius itself doesn't seem to have changed much, a few notch of flaps will let the US planes pull hard AoA without much worries of abrupt stall. The P-51s can actually afford to duke it out with La-7s and Yaks in pure knife fights, and even the P-47s can easily out maneuver 109s during slow speed brawls.
The La-7 and La-5FN is also much more stable at slow speeds.
On the contrary, the Bf109s are a bitc* to fly now. Pulling AoA near stall will almost immediately flip the plane over. A decent P-47 will outturn a 109 within one circle turn, because the 109 just can't ride the edge of the stall like it used to. No matter how hard you pull the stick, at whatever speed(not just in high speed turns) the P-47 will just pull harder AoA without stalling. In the 109s, the moment you hear the stall alarm it will start to wiggle. Only a F-4 or a E-4 stands any chance in outturning any US plane - all the G models - G-2, G-6, G-10 - are easily outturned by all US planes.
The Spitfires in AH2, are all very sensitive to rudder input. In AH1, I used to pull a lot of deflection shots with momentarily max stick pull with hard rudder. This used to kill speed at a very fast rate, and sort of 'barge' the plane through the edge of stall. I typically remember the situation by the sound. Despite the stall warning sound(I use the buffeting sound for stall.wav) the Spit would still maintain that turning radius for a very long time with hard sticj pull and max rudder.
However, in AH2, abrupt rudder will destabilize the plane. The spits are still one of the most stable planes in the set, but they just aren't what they used to be.
Even the Hurricane and the A6M has simular problems now. Even with plenty of speed a harsh stick pull will flip a Zero over. In AH1 the Zeros were virtually stall-resistant - and only when the speed dropped so low that the plane couldn't fly any longer, it stalled out. Well, not in AH2.
.........
I understand this to be a good thing. Like the 109, the Spitfires are small, light planes equipped with powerful engines. I can understand the fact that these planes will suffer more due to torque.
However, I do have some gripes about the US planes now. I like it that the US planes aren't the 'pigs' they used to be, and are very versatile and dangerous planes. But I'm kinda thinking their stability issues may be a bit overdone. Just a feeling, nothing solid.
-
The NACA found in tests that the Spitfire has markedly low longitudal stability - this is probably due to the plane having very light elevator (too light in the NACA`s opinion), and of course stability and manouveribilty are confronting charactheristics. If the plane was manouverable around an axis, it was neccesary unstable in that axis, too. For example, the 190 was stable at all axis expect in the roll axis - it had exceptional roll rate; the 109 was stable in all axis expect directionally - it was known for having a powerful rudder.
-
For 109G-10 I didn't mentined any changes. It allways had very good rudder input that had allways helped me to control it on high AoA - or recover it from stalls. When I get into spitfire I had found it is very hard to recover stalls and it is very sensitive for hard stick input.
I had never had problems with its stabilty - anyway I never used to turfight in it when for spitfire is is much different - you mostly have to make angles fight becasue of lack of speed.
Don't know about US planes - it is interesting - I allways had problem to control Pony (one of the reasons I didn't liked it - besides most its problem - low climb ratio in comparsion with 109)
Thanks, for interesting information
-
The Spitfire flying Characteristics...
From German Pilot Hans Schmoller-Haldy, a 109 Pilot from Jg 54.
"I was able to fly a captured Spitfire at Jever. My first impression was that it had a beautiful engine. It purred. The Engine of the Messerschmitt was very loud. Also the Spitfire was easier to fly, and to land, than the Me 109. The 109 was unforgiving of any inattention. That was my first and lasting impression"
Wonder if this thread will heat up from this, - hopefully not too much ;)
Anyway, I have to agree. The Mk IX is tougher than it was. But bear in mind that ours is a high alt variant, and while being heavier than the Mk V, at low alt it has not much more power.
In AHI it was frigging Uber, now not so much any more.
-
The Spitfire was hands off stable.
http://www.thetongsweb.net/AH/EAAjanuary1999.pdf
Crumpp
-
Issy failed to mention that the Spit had mods done to 'heavy up' the elevator, but that is to be expected from him.
He also failed to mention that some Spit pilots did not like the mod.
Kurt tank on the ailerons of the 190: "After aileron input the plane returned back to its neutral position."
quote:
the 190 was stable at all axis expect (except???) in the roll axis
-
Look up the NACA report on Spitfires and Eric Brown`s comments on 109s/190s, to improve your view on the subject.
And Angie, you should REALLY spend some time reading scientific reports on your favourite fighter, rather than relying all the time on anecdotes.
ie.
"The longitudal handling characteristics of the Spitfie were observed to be poor in rough air. This behaviour was attributed to the airplane`s neutral static longitudal stability and relatively light wingloading..."
and conclusion no.2
"In all flight conditions the stick fixed longitudal stability was either neutral or unstable, and therefore failed to meet the accepted requirements. The requirement for stable stick force gradient was not met in all conditions of flight except for the condition with flaps down, power on."
And Milo, can we see an exact source how bob weights would 'cure' instability ? According to Milo, bob weights were a cure for EVERYTHING. :D Well, they may cured wing breakages on the Spit, to an acceptable extent, at least..
-
Originally posted by VO101_Isegrim
Look up the NACA report on Spitfires and Eric Brown`s comments on 109s/190s, to improve your view on the subject.
And Milo, can we see an exact source how bob weights would 'cure' instability ?
According to Milo, bob weights were a cure for EVERYTHING. :D
Again with your inability to read/comprehend English Issy.
"The NACA found in tests that the Spitfire has markedly longitudal stability - this is probably due to the plane having very light elevator "
Never said it cured everything.:eek: But, the the bob weights helped eleviate the marked instability you so much like to harp on.:)
If you are going to tell 'stories' Issy don't just tell part of the 'story'. It is well known how much you so love :aok the Spitfire.
-
:rofl
-
Issy, you're at it again, yer ####-end.
This anecdotal evidence is unfortunately from a German 109 fighter pilot trying his hand at a Spitty for the first time.
Anecdotal, but still there. How do you measure HANDLING EASYNESS by tests anyway? This 109 pilot, after ONE FLIGHT already finds the Spitty easier to handle and land than the 109! Does that count as anything or are you coming again with "its a LIE" statement?
You mentioned Spitfire longitutional instability. That was a true problem in a line of the Mk V series and later on in the Mk 21 (same problem as the P51 there, fuselage tank)
It was cured by Bob-weights, making the elevator heavier, steadily growing heavier with G.
The cure was good. The Spitfire from late Mk V onwards was longitudionally calibrateable.
Anyway, I am somewhat offended by some persons disbelief of anecdotal evidence, especially in fields where there is very little or none test data versus anecdotal evidence corresponding nicely between hundreds of pilots of both/many sides of WW2. I consider that as a lack of maturety.
Anecdotal evidence is forwarded as it is, - it can be discussed and debated against other anecdotal evidence. But I'll bloody well take a WW2 Pilot anecdotal statement against an Izzy-ediet calculation any day!!!!!
-
Izzy,
I think you are confusing stick forces with stability. The Spitfire had horrible control forces harmony. That did not make it unstable or hard to fly.
In fact Werner Molders called the Spitfire "Childishly easy to fly".
It was very honest airplane that gave it's pilot ample warning when it was near the edge of it's envelope.
IMO the Spitfires handling characteristics, which are totally different from it's performance characteristics, are what kept the RAF pilots alive in the early days of WWII.
The RAF was forced to send pilots with very little Air-to-Air Combat training into the fray early in the war. Gentle handling allowed them to fly at the edge, survive, and learn.
When the situation was reversed in 1944 and the Luftwaffe was forced to send under trained pilots into combat things were different. Neither the 109 nor the 190 had gentle handling. The 190's especially were not an "honest" airplane. It could fly right up to the edge of its envelope with no warning as to how close a pilot was to stalling. Its vicious stall ensured fledging combat pilots did not "push" the plane. Since they could not "fly at the edge" many of them died in their initial combats with no chance to learn.
The Spitfire's performance was good on top of it's gentle handling. IMO it was the premier angle fighter in the European Theater.
Angle fighting is also much easier to learn and more natural for a beginner to master. Human nature wants to lock on the enemies tail, never lose sight, and follow them around the sky, knowing at any second they will be in your gun site.
Energy fighting takes skill and discipline to master. It's not natural to let the enemy go and extend, lose sight of them for a second on the reversal, or point your nose not at the enemy but where you think he will be to make a snapshot.
Given two airplanes with very similar flight envelopes, it is the one who can fly closest to the edge that will win.
Anyway, I am somewhat offended by some persons disbelief of anecdotal evidence, especially in fields where there is very little or none test data versus anecdotal evidence corresponding nicely between hundreds of pilots of both/many sides of WW2. I consider that as a lack of maturety.
Exactly! In every instance I have found so far if you check out the science it backs up the anecdotal evidence.
A simulation is not a simulation if you cannot reproduce the anecdotal evidence as well. The Science and History work together IMO.
Crumpp
-
Jolly Well Agree Crumpp M8!
Here is a nice line from you:
"A simulation is not a simulation if you cannot reproduce the anecdotal evidence as well. The Science and History work together IMO. "
Nail hit on the head if I may say so. And in my humble opinion, HTC has done a ver very very very good job on this, always on the search for improvements. ;)
-
Nail hit on the head if I may say so. And in my humble opinion, HTC has done a ver very very very good job on this, always on the search for improvements.
Definately agree.
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by VO101_Isegrim
And Milo, can we see an exact source how bob weights would 'cure' instability ? According to Milo, bob weights were a cure for EVERYTHING. :D Well, they may cured wing breakages on the Spit, to an acceptable extent, at least..
Supermarine Cheif Test Pilot Jeffrey Quill devotes a chapter of his book "Spitfire-A Test Pilot's Story" to the issues of longitudenal Stability and Range Issues.
He speaks at length on the bob weights and their use and the effect it had in helping increase the stability. He also goes on to describe how increasing the elevator horn balance also made a big difference.
Too tired to quote the entire chapter however :)
Not sure what you want, but I'll type of specifics from the book if you want
Dan/Slack
-
Guppy, you might want to check out Ring`s site, there are lenghty reports on those bob weights.
http://prodocs.netfirms.com/
Angie, you don`t need to read those, you have your anecdotal evidence that proves the Spit is better in everything, ROFLOL.
-
I've got Quills book.
I also have the autobiography of Tony Bartley, who worked as a test pilot together with Quill, and was one of the first to analyze the problem. A rare book that one.
Those two pretty much sum it up. The Spit IX did not suffer from these problems any more, - this was tied up with a line of the MkV model and got analyzed and cured.
Bartley was quite an interesting pilot. A veteran of BoB and a test pilot, he was a very active pilot in the N-African theater as the Sqn-Ldr of the famous 111. An excellent tactician, he developed some nice tactics against the LW's 190's (led by Heinz Bar?) which totally outperformed the Trop-Mk V Spitfires at the time.
-
Originally posted by Angus
I've got Quills book.
I also have the autobiography of Tony Bartley, who worked as a test pilot together with Quill, and was one of the first to analyze the problem. A rare book that one.
Those two pretty much sum it up. The Spit IX did not suffer from these problems any more, - this was tied up with a line of the MkV model and got analyzed and cured.
Bartley was quite an interesting pilot. A veteran of BoB and a test pilot, he was a very active pilot in the N-African theater as the Sqn-Ldr of the famous 111. An excellent tactician, he developed some nice tactics against the LW's 190's (led by Heinz Bar?) which totally outperformed the Trop-Mk V Spitfires at the time.
I don't have that book in my library sad to say. Sound like I'll have to go hunting for it :)
My best 'primary source" is a former B of B vet and Supermarine service test pilot named Clive Gosling. He's mentioned in Quill's book as well. When I first started hunting Spit XII info back in 81-82, his was the first letter to arrive in the mail box, ironically on my wedding day. I'm not sure what was more exciting :)
He put up with a lot of dumb questions over the years and I've got a huge file full of his responses. Needless to say a real thrill to correspond with him for all these years. Had the chance to have dinner with him at the RAF club in London too way back when. Someday I'll get back to England again.
Too many of those guys leaving us sad to say. Image is Clive at work in DP845 the Spit XII prototype
Dan/Slack
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/169_1094496429_dp845.jpg)
-
Make sure you pass on our thanks, Dan. Guys like him literally saved the world.
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
Make sure you pass on our thanks, Dan. Guys like him literally saved the world.
Crumpp
Thanked many times over. And if it sounds like there's a bit of hero worship involved here, you aren't mistaken :)
Dan/Slack
-
Angus, do you have the title and ISBN # for that book?
Cool Guppy, ya lucky dog :) Nice pic too! (Report on that aircraft at my sig btw)
-
I got that book at Motorbooks in London. They have a .com website. They are on a side street off Charing cross road, very near to St.Martins.
Lucky me got their last copy, and even autographed!
I think they'd be able to get a copy for you, they are rather nice.
ISBN: 0-947554-63-7
Guppy: Are you British (did I ask you before?), and if so, whereabouts in the Island do you live?
Tony Bartley actually got married to actress Deborah Kerr. One of the wedding guests is someone who's autobiography I also have, - i.e. Geoffrey Page.
I higly recommend his book, "Shot down in Flames" as well as Tony Jonsson's Book "Dancing in the skies".
(Tony flew quite a bit together with Bartley in 111, N-Africa. He once showed me a letter from Bartley actually)
About the stability issue, Bartley has a short episode about this. Mail me at burns@isholf.is and I'll scan it and mail it to you guppy :)
-
Originally posted by Angus
I got that book at Motorbooks in London. They have a .com website. They are on a side street off Charing cross road, very near to St.Martins.
Lucky me got their last copy, and even autographed!
I think they'd be able to get a copy for you, they are rather nice.
ISBN: 0-947554-63-7
Guppy: Are you British (did I ask you before?), and if so, whereabouts in the Island do you live?
Tony Bartley actually got married to actress Deborah Kerr. One of the wedding guests is someone who's autobiography I also have, - i.e. Geoffrey Page.
I higly recommend his book, "Shot down in Flames" as well as Tony Jonsson's Book "Dancing in the skies".
(Tony flew quite a bit together with Bartley in 111, N-Africa. He once showed me a letter from Bartley actually)
About the stability issue, Bartley has a short episode about this. Mail me at burns@isholf.is and I'll scan it and mail it to you guppy :)
Just a wannabe Yank in the RAF, Angus :) Spent a semester of college in London in 1980 and really got hooked on Spits and the RAF then. Started the Spit XII research and back to England in 86 for the 41 Squadron Reunion. Ongoing passion since then.
I have Page's book among many others. Seems like the RAF guys wrote the most biographies :)
Dan/Slack
-
Tell me where I got it wrong:
Spit
The Spitfire was "unstable" because of very light elevator and heavy ailerons in certain speed. This means that in slow speed the elevator control wasn't overly sensitive but provided good feeling of the state of flight and with wash-out features of the wing the warning of a stall was good and the a/c could be pulled into an overly stalled condition where the a/c could be "flared" on its wingtips (this also made it easy to land except that soft damping of the wheels made it easy to ground loop) .
As the speed increased the elevator became very sensitive so that the a/c could be pulled into a sudden stall with a very slight pull of the stick where as at the same time the ailerons became heavy and in high speed very very heavy. The bob weights helped in this with the elevator but only after some G was applied. AFAIK the hinge improvement cured the nasty tendency of the a/c tightening the turn by itself once the CoG started shifting in a turn.
So it had a bad control harmony as the speed increased (except in slow speeds) and I'd imagine the gunnery to be difficult while maneuvering.
Bf109
The 109 was more balanced in controls but in high speeds the elevators became almost too heavy but this in turn made the a/c a stable gun platform. The rudder lacked an inflight trim making the flight in some speeds tiresome as the rudder needed a constant pressure to keep the a/c straight.
It had quirks in takeoff and landing which needed complete attention from its pilot and careful training.
FW190
The 190 was the best in contols of them all added that it needed very little trimming if at all through its flight envelope. AFAIK the 109 pilots converting to 190 thought the controls to be too light but that is understandable considering what they were familiar with. I have never heard that the 190 was "unstable" in rolling axis even if it was its strength. That would mean that its rolling plane was overly light in controls opposed to elevator plane and AFAIK this was not the case in 190 as it was always praised of having very harmonous controls.
Fire away.
-C+
-
The Spitfire was "unstable" because of very light elevator and heavy ailerons in certain speed.
Stability has little to do with control harmonization. Where the lack of control harmony hurt the Spitfire is in the pilots ability to apply the controls.
Just check out RAE 1231. The Spitfire could not come anywhere near it's calculated rate of roll due to the pilots ability to apply the necessary stick forces.
Crumpp
-
"Stability has little to do with control harmonization."
Ty Crumpp, you are right. I wasn't clear on that.
I was only talking about control harmony which is what artik was referring to IMO.
-C+
-
"Just check out RAE 1231. The Spitfire could not come anywhere near it's calculated rate of roll due to the pilots ability to apply the necessary stick forces. "
Got a link for it?
Anyway, earlier Spits roll rate were often helped with a strong pilot. Sailor Malan was for instance famous for taking his Spits into rolls that nobody could follow.
What Mk is RAE 1231?
-
I will email you the full report Angus.
1. The curve in the NACA roll rate report is the average of only 4 measured rolls. 2 are below the curve, 1 is on the curve, and 1 is WAY above the curve.
2. The RAF test pilot states the FW-190 test had the stiffest alerions of the three 190's he had flown.
3. The clipped wing spits rolled just a fraction of a second worse than the FW-190. The normal winged spits where hopelessly outrolled especially at high speed due to stick forces.
And of course they factor in the pilots ability to actually conduct the rolls given the control harmony/forces.
Crumpp
-
Thanks Angus, I'll see if I can run that down :)
-
Crumpp, email me that too, if you`d please.
I have some others on that, too.
-
Can't seem to find your email Izzy in my Address book. Gotta clean it out because it has gotten so large I am losing emails addy's! If you still have mine shoot me an email real quick and I will send you the report.
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
Just check out RAE 1231. The Spitfire could not come anywhere near it's calculated rate of roll due to the pilots ability to apply the necessary stick forces.
I have the RAE 1231 right front of me and I can't find such statement from it. The roll rate curves are for 50 lbs stick force which should be reachable for a average pilot.
Originally posted by Crumpp
1. The curve in the NACA roll rate report is the average of only 4 measured rolls. 2 are below the curve, 1 is on the curve, and 1 is WAY above the curve.
Well, apparently you are talking about gun camera film measurements now. These have nothing to with the instrumented measurements in the RAE.
gripen
-
I wonder how the Spit VIII did at rolling. It was not clipped, however had a much stiffer wing than prefious models. My guess is a lot better than the IX, however worse than clipped.
But nothing rolled as easily as a 190....
-
I have the RAE 1231 right front of me and I can't find such statement from it. The roll rate curves are for 50 lbs stick force which should be reachable for a average pilot.
You need to look on page 3 of the report. On the table listing the A.D.M. standard time to 45 degrees value and the actual measured rate of roll average to 45 degree. It is right next to the utterly dismal aileron reversal speed of 580mph EAS for the standard wing Spitfire.
The normal wing spitfire measured results were almost twice what calculated results say the roll rate should be at.
Well, apparently you are talking about gun camera film measurements now. These have nothing to with the instrumented measurements in the RAE.
No I am talking about the measured results. You copy of the report does not include the actual roll plots??
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
You need to look on page 3 of the report. On the table listing the A.D.M. standard time to 45 degrees value and the actual measured rate of roll average to 45 degree. It is right next to the utterly dismal aileron reversal speed of 580mph EAS for the standard wing Spitfire.
Well, you need to understand what that table means. These are calculated banking times at 400mph and are based on 50 lbs roll rate curves (fig.6). So the results match exactly measured roll rates.
Originally posted by Crumpp
No I am talking about the measured results. You copy of the report does not include the actual roll plots??
The graph which contains four curves for the Fw 190 (fig.5) is based on gun camera films.
gripen
-
According to NACA report the clipped wing Spit could match the 190 in rolls only in a narrow speed range, otherwise it was inferior.
Don't remember how big the gap was though...
-C+
-
Well, you need to understand what that table means. These are calculated banking times at 400mph and are based on 50 lbs roll rate curves (fig.6). So the results match exactly measured roll rates.
I understand exactly what that table means GRIPEN.
You need to learn to read English better. The report clearly states the Spitfire could NOT reach its calculated roll rate as well as the table reflecting this!
The graph which contains four curves for the Fw 190 (fig.5) is based on gun camera films.
Yes ONE of the Graphs in the report is this table. NOT the one I am talking about.
The report clearly states both the Typhoon and the standard wing spitfire are down on the ADM 295 criteria and cannot come near their calculated rates.
According to NACA report the clipped wing Spit could match the 190 in rolls only in a narrow speed range, otherwise it was inferior.
Actually the clipped wing spit does quite well. The most interesting was the Mustang, which according to this report actually beats the 190 at high speeds. The USAAF tactical trials between a P51B have a different result though. According to them the FW-190 is superior in the roll at all altitudes and speeds.
I tend to think the FW-190A tested in those trials did not have such stiff ailerons.
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
I understand exactly what that table means GRIPEN.
You need to learn to read English better. The report clearly states the Spitfire could NOT reach its calculated roll rate as well as the table reflecting this!
Your problem is exactly that you can't understand the table in the page three. The A.D.M. standard time is a requirement calculated from the wing area and only the Mustang reached this standard. The roll rate curves (fig.5) are measured max steady roll rates and using these values the time to bank 45 deg can be estimated following the procedure described above the table.
Originally posted by Crumpp
Yes ONE of the Graphs in the report is this table. NOT the one I am talking about.
Well, I quess you are talking about the fig.2 or fig. 4 which both actually contains around 20 or more data points not 4 like you claimed above.
gripen
-
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/715_1094128619_pilopinions.jpg)
-
Your problem is exactly that you can't understand the table in the page three. The A.D.M. standard time is a requirement calculated from the wing area and only the Mustang reached this standard. The roll rate curves (fig.5) are measured max steady roll rates and using these values the time to bank 45 deg can be estimated following the procedure described above the table.
Break out your Swedish-English dictionary and start looking up words in that report. It is spelled out in black and white Gripen. No speculation no thought needed. THEY TELL YOU THE RESULTS! Only the Mustang reached its exact measured results is correct. The FW-190 was .07 seconds off its calculated time.
The Spitfire was calculated to roll 45 degrees in .85 seconds at 400mph. It could only roll 45 degrees in 1.35 seconds because in the formula they assume 1/2 second for the pilot to apply the stick forces and a 1/4 second for the plane to reach max rolling velocity for 45-degree bank.
1. Either the pilot cannot apply the stick forces in under a 1/2 second at 400mph.
2. The plane does not respond and cannot reach max rolling velocity in a 1/4 second.
The rolling ability of the Spitfire was a liability in a dogfight leaving the plane unable to change direction quickly compared to the FW-190A. It could turn tight circles but was not very "nimble".
Crumpp
-
Crumpp
Even within a Spitfire variant, no two planes rolled the same, given the same pilot. That was especially marked with the earlier models, the fixes most markedly being executed on the Mk V series.
Each and every Mk V had to be calibrated, and often a set of ailerons working badly on one plane did a good job on another! There were "rogue" Spits in most squadrons.
These problems were overcome in later models as the wings became stiffer.
The clippings were a short solution in the start, but turned out to be something to stay when combat alts dropped and speed+roll were more important than turns and ceiling.
Oh, and this:
" It could turn tight circles but was not very "nimble". "
You should see how a Spitfire can be whipped about, - I've had the fortune to see it. It's bloody well nimble I'll tell you
;)
P.S. I thought Gripen was Finnish? Anyway, be it Finns or Swedes, those are notorious for being multi-language persons. Can you read Swedish?
-
I though you liked anecdotal evidence, Angie. ;)
Here`s more :
This if form Alex Heshaw, the Chief pilot of the Castle Bromwhich Spitfire plant. He basically flew hundreds of Spitfires after they left the factory and were tested for airworthyness.
"I loved the Spit, every Marks of it. But I must admit, that altough later Marks were much faster, they were also progressively inferior to previous Marks in manouveribility. When we checked how a Spit behaves during roll, we counted how many complete rolls we could do under a given time. With the Mark II and V, we did 2 1/2 rolls, but the Mark IX was heavier, and only capable of 1 1/2 rolls. The later, more heavier versions could do even less. Designing an aircraft is about finding balance. It`s hardly possible to improve performance without degrading other properties of the aircraft. "
These problems were overcome in later models as the wings became stiffer.
Yep, but not until the Mk 21 (luv to see roll data for that one).
Jeffrey Quill :
So we were not the only ones in trouble in 1940. The metal ailerons solved the immediate problem but the non-repeatability difficulty persisted and I always felt that the lateral control characteristics fell far short of perfect at high indicated airspeeds. Joe Smith believed this too. He began to plan a fundamental change in the aileron design, but it was not possible to introduce this until the arrival of the stronger and stiffer wing in the Mk 21 series.
P.S. I thought Gripen was Finnish?
I believed that one, too, but since every single guy from Finnland seems to be an extremely nice, friendly and cheerful guy, which Gripen is not, I am quite sure Gripen originates to Sverige, and not the Soumi. Just like his nick.
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
Break out your Swedish-English dictionary and start looking up words in that report. It is spelled out in black and white Gripen. No speculation no thought needed. THEY TELL YOU THE RESULTS!
Please quote that part of the report which says that the Spitfire failed to reach it 's calculated rate of roll as given in the fig.5 and NACA 868.
Basicly you are mixing requirement for time to bank 45 degrees (A.D.M. standard) and measured peak roll rates in the fig.5.
gripen
-
Even within a Spitfire variant, no two planes rolled the same, given the same pilot.
Your absolutely right. In the report we see the absolutely worst of three FW-190's being tested.
You should see how a Spitfire can be whipped about, - I've had the fortune to see it. It's bloody well nimble I'll tell you
I am sure it is and I am jealous that you got to see it! However have you ever seen it with an FW-190 whipping about the air?
P.S. I thought Gripen was Finnish? Anyway, be it Finns or Swedes, those are notorious for being multi-language persons. Can you read Swedish?
Since you ask, bro. I am only fluent in Vietnamese, Spanish, and a good bit of German. English is of course, my native language.
Ong Khoe Khong, Ban toi?? :)
Crumpp
-
Isegrim i dont believe that the 1st quote is quite correct. I've got the actual quote in a book somewhere. It's quite a bit different, whoever put that quote on the net did a poor job. I can't remember it word for word but he performed flick rolls, releasing the controls and counting how many rolls it performed without imput. No timing was involved. It wasn't a measurment of an aileron roll, more of the aerobatic qualities of the spit decreasing as it gained weight with each mark.
-
That could be thrilla, I am not sure where did I find it. Could you post the original quote?
-
Izzy:
I belive the rolls referred to by Henshaw are flick rolls ro one side, from start to stall. I may have that quote somewhere, or a similar one.
Roll rate from left to right improved with every mark, but the biggest leap was from Mk I and II to Mk V. There were also clipped Mk V's as faras I know.
Same period as the 109's biggest improvement in rollrate, from E to F models.
The Mk VIII introduced a much stiffer wing BTW. Both shorter and longer span, not so sure if they ever clipped them.
And from your quote of Jeffrey Quill, I am sure you realize that after he had been complaining about the roll rate of the early model Spitfires, he got to fly the 109E and found it in this respect EVERY BIT AS BAD, IF NOT WORSE, hence this assumption "we were not the only ones in trouble"
(The following part is the best, something like if he had known the characteristics of the 109 before, he would have treated it with much less respect in combat)
Anyway, the way you forwarded this was in such a manner, that one might have been tempted to assume that the Spitfire gradually rolled worse through the years, which it didn't.
I just finished another test pilot's story. He got the chance to fly a captured 109F or G, but to my dismay, he wouldn't fit into the cockpit.
Oh, and Crumpp, I envy you for knowing a different kind of language.I just stuck with the Euro stuff, Danish, Swedish, Icelandic, German,and oh, English.
Well, small nations need to learn more, for not everything is published in every language.
I still think Gripen's command of English is quite good ;)
-
Oh, what Thrila said. Wasn't there when I started typing.
And from Crumpp:
"have you ever seen it with an FW-190 whipping about the air? "
Of course not, there aren't any. When the new ones start doing anything something more than runway hopping,let me know, Germany is not so far away, especially with wife's family over there. Maybe we meet ;)
I've seen 51's, F4U's, F6F's, F7F, F8F, P40, P39, YAK-3,Meteor, Hurricane,and probably some more.
The Spitty boys were the only ones who did something delightful in the air, something that made you NOT want to be in their cockpits.
The Meteor surprized me too, and had me sweating for a sec when it performed a slow loop at very little altitude.
F7F & F8F had the tightest formations flying I saw.
-
Originally posted by Angus
Izzy:
I belive the rolls referred to by Henshaw are flick rolls ro one side, from start to stall. I may have that quote somewhere, or a similar one.
[/B]
Could you post that qoute, please?
Originally posted by Angus
The Mk VIII introduced a much stiffer wing BTW. Both shorter and longer span, not so sure if they ever clipped them.
[/B]
Do you have details on that "stiffer wing"? Anyway, I have seen MkXII roll tests (ie. MkVIII wing structure), and those weren`t any more impressive at high speeds than the others.
Originally posted by Angus
And from your quote of Jeffrey Quill, I am sure you realize that after he had been complaining about the roll rate of the early model Spitfires, he got to fly the 109E and found it in this respect EVERY BIT AS BAD, IF NOT WORSE, hence this assumption "we were not the only ones in trouble"
[/B]
Well that`s true, both locked up badly at high speeds. But if you look up comperative tests, you`ll see the 109E was a bit better, roll rate at 400mph was comparably bad, but required only about half the stickforce, to the great ease of the pilot to apply it in practice IMHO.
Originally posted by Angus
Anyway, the way you forwarded this was in such a manner, that one might have been tempted to assume that the Spitfire gradually rolled worse through the years, which it didn't.
[/B]
I am quite sure it did. Not at the peak, but the weight increase, especially as plenty of it was in the wings the initial inertia was larger to overcome in the later models, hence the roll initiated slower. Physics..
Originally posted by Angus
I just finished another test pilot's story. He got the chance to fly a captured 109F or G, but to my dismay, he wouldn't fit into the cockpit.
[/B]
Yeah it was quite small. Even though, Gunther Rall (or Stigler?) commented that he sat in both the Mustang`s and Spit`s canopy, which he didn`t feel anything bigger. And seeing Mike Hanna (RIP) in Spit`s cocpit, which he filled out completely didn`t convince me otherwise. Even though personally I don`t think it had any great importance. It`s a fighter, not a saloon car, after all.
-
Well, my native language (finnish) has nothing to do with the issue here. The RAE 1231 says:
" It will be seen that the Mustang alone bests the required time, but the F.W.190 and clipped wing Spitfire come quite close to the A.D.M. Standard. Both the standard Spitfire V and Typhoon are down on this rolling criterion."
So there was a requirement for time to bank 45 degrees and only the Mustang reached this requirement. The roll rates given in the fig.5 and the NACA 868 are measured values and those are what the tested planes reached.
Shortly: Crumpp mixes up requirement and the measured value.
gripen
-
Do you have details on that "stiffer wing"? Anyway, I have seen MkXII roll tests (ie. MkVIII wing structure), and those weren`t any more impressive at high speeds than the others.
The Spit XII had the Spit Vc wing structure.
-
Izzy, nonono
"I am quite sure it did. Not at the peak, but the weight increase, especially as plenty of it was in the wings the initial inertia was larger to overcome in the later models, hence the roll initiated slower. Physics.. "
Nope. The roll as documented gradually got better.
It had mostly to do with constant manufacture improvements actually.
I'll see if I can find that quote on the flicks. Thrila might be quicker about it than me. I belive it actually came from an old games manual, who was full of candy ;)
Half the stickforce of a 109 is already tough, because of the room and short travel. The Spitfire pilot had the chance to jab an elbow against the side for leverage.
Strong pilots rolled nicer, - some worked out for the purpose!
Gunther Rall sat in the canopies of a Spitfire as well as P51 and P47. He found them all bigger. He also commented quite favourably on their flying characteristics and manufacture quality (especially engine) compared to what he knew.
Come on, P51 cockpit now being as small as a 109......
BTW, Rall is a rather small guy.
-
" It will be seen that the Mustang alone bests the required time, but the F.W.190 and clipped wing Spitfire come quite close to the A.D.M. Standard. Both the standard Spitfire V and Typhoon are down on this rolling criterion."
So you could initialize and complete a roll more quicker in a P51 than in a 190?
Somehow I find it hard to believe that especially when no speed is mentioned.
What is A.D.M. standard?
-C+
-
Originally posted by Angus
Nope. The roll as documented gradually got better.
It had mostly to do with constant manufacture improvements actually.
[/B]
I`d like to see anything that supports this. All I have seen shows the contrary: no improvement and even decrease..
Originally posted by Angus
Half the stickforce of a 109 is already tough, because of the room and short travel. The Spitfire pilot had the chance to jab an elbow against the side for leverage.
[/B]
Hmm, hmm, the 109 had about half the stickforce required on the Spit for a full stick throw. 109`s aileron forces were relatively small - 20 lbs required for a full stick throw at 300mph, resulting a roll of 80-90 deg/sec. I have also talked to a 109G pilot, and he said that in dives the ailerons were still light, much unlike the elevator.
And tell me why a 109, or any other pilot couldn`t "jab an elbow against the side" - and how could a Spit pilot do it, if the cocpit was so roomy? ;)
Gunther Rall sat in the canopies of a Spitfire as well as P51 and P47. He found them all bigger. He also commented quite favourably on their flying characteristics and manufacture quality (especially engine) compared to what he knew.[/B]
Extremely hard to believe in the case of the Stang or the Spit. Both were very cramped and narrow. The P-47 was huge of course. And I am VERY much sceptic anybody praisng the P-51s flying characteristics, handling was certainly not it`s strong point. The Spit was nice, and many pilots liked it because the elevator forces were small, it was not tiring to do manouvers. A comfort factor if you like.. aileron forces were huge on the other hand, higher than any fighter I know, making control harmony on the Spit probably the worst at high speed.
Come on, P51 cockpit now being as small as a 109......[/B]
Sorry, it wasn`t anything bigger. The width was kept as narrow as possible, to match the witdh of the engine. Quite obvious how narrow the fuselage was, just look at it. Or read reports - the USN certainly complained about the "extremely cramped headspace" on the P-51.
-
Well,old Spit sticks converting to P51's found the cockpit rather roomy.
And Rall:
"I could really detect the tactical difference between differences between the German, British, and American planes. This gave me the greatest respect for the P51 Mustang and its extremely comfortable cockpit, good rear visibility, long range, maneuverability, and an electrical starting system"
Of the Spitty his impression:
"The Spitfire, too, was a very maneuverable aircraft, very good in the cockpit. All these planes had a stable undercarriage. The Bf109 did not. For young pilots,sometimes, the undercarriage of the 109 gave them problems because it was very narrow and relatively high"
IZZY: I'll take Rall's words as more accountable than yours any time.....
-
Problem is, you can`t even understand your own qoute, Angie...
Where does it say engine quality?
Where does it say about the Spit having bigger cocpit??
Etc.
You qoute Rall, and then it becomes mixed up in your head with your own wishful thoughts.
On the factual side, the Spit`s undercarriega track was ~1.7m, the 109`s 2.1 meter.
Here`s an interview with Stigler...
"How did the cockpit feel in the 109?
The cockpit was small, but one got used to it after a while. In the end it felt comfortable since you felt like part of the plane. The Spitfire's cockpit did not feel that much roomier to him either. The 262 cockpit however was larger in comparison. It also had a long flight stick, giving the pilot lots of leverage in flight. "
-
" It will be seen that the Mustang alone bests the required time, but the F.W.190 and clipped wing Spitfire come quite close to the A.D.M. Standard. Both the standard Spitfire V and Typhoon are down on this rolling criterion."
So you could initialize and complete a roll more quicker in a P51 than in a 190?
Somehow I find it hard to believe that especially when no speed is mentioned.
What is A.D.M. standard?
"ADM standard" referred to time to bank at 400 mph IAS, iirc.
At that sort of speed, the P-51 did have better roll than the 190
-
Hmm, hmm, the 109 had about half the stickforce required on the Spit for a full stick throw. 109`s aileron forces were relatively small - 20 lbs required for a full stick throw at 300mph, resulting a roll of 80-90 deg/sec.
What's the source for this?
-
Originally posted by Nashwan
"ADM standard" referred to time to bank at 400 mph IAS, iirc.
Yep, the speed was 400 mph IAS. The method used in the report to calculate the time to bank 45 degrees is rather primitive but good enough because all the planes tested had pretty similar inertia (single engined fighters).
gripen
-
AVIA 6 / 10126.
-
AVIA 6 / 10126.
Is that in answer to my request for a source to this statement:
Hmm, hmm, the 109 had about half the stickforce required on the Spit for a full stick throw. 109`s aileron forces were relatively small - 20 lbs required for a full stick throw at 300mph, resulting a roll of 80-90 deg/sec.
AVIA 6/10126 is listed as a comparison of Mustang and Spitfire, and contains no 109 information, afaik.
What is your source for the claimed 109 roll performance?
-
You think it`s, the 'claim' as you call it, unrealistic ?
-
It's a "claim" because you won't say what source it's based on.
As to whether it's realistic or not, it depends on the source, doesn't it?
Proper instrumented test or a made up figure?
Care to back it up by telling us the source?
-
From Izzy:
"Problem is, you can`t even understand your own qoute, Angie...
Where does it say engine quality?
Where does it say about the Spit having bigger cocpit?? "
My bigger spit-than-109 cockpit comes from rather plastic sources I am afraid. Many things involved. However many sources.
So, how did I get the remote idea that a Spitfire's cockpit, say alone a P51 cockpit, could possibly be roomier that the one of a Besterscmitt 109?
(in no particular order)
1. Spitfire pilot too big to fit into one (Later test pilot Neville Duke)
2. Numerous anecdotals (you luv them)
3. LW pilots commenting on it
4. My models up to scale
5. LW geeks triumphing over the lower frontal area of the 109, - i.e. the 109 being much narrower.
6. Looking at a Spit and 109 cockpit from VERY close up.
7 Looking at pilot pics of both planes while in the cocpit, knowing the size of some of the pilots really helps.
8.Realizing that there are 3 dimensions regading cockpits, height, depth and width.
This can of course be measured, if one is ever allowed to get into a cockpit of those old birds. I've been all around both planes, just not in one (Except my camera in a Spitty). But quite honestly, both cockpits are a tight fit, and IMHO the 109 cockpit is a bit tighter. The P51's cockpit is definately roomier.
BTW, I know of several cases where 2 persons rode in the Spitfires seat!
(The seat being so roomy must have lead to poorer view over the nose, right?)
I am sorry about the engine quality, got mixed up a bit, but I am not misunderstanding my own quotes.
That one was from Rall as well, just not the same source. If you want more about that, please let me know.
Notice that allied test pilots usually refer to the 190 cockpit as extremely comfortable, while it's not that much bigger than the one of the 109. However the 190 cockpit is quite cleverly designed for pilot comfort in mind.
-
Oh, about the 400 mph rolling.
Wasn't it about 400 mph where the 190 control forces started getting much heavier?
I am pretty sure that at, say, 350 Mph the 190 rules them all in the roll region.
What would it do at 500 mph.
-
E. Bob, a LW 109 ace, commented that he preferred the Spitfire's cockpit over that of the 109. Much roomier and better overall vision.
-
Angie, I don`t see anything supporting your view than your own subjective belief. Things like "Spitfire pilot too big to fit into one" - hmm, if Tobak could fit into his G-10 being 190+cm tall, I guess anyone would. Save particularly fat assed Spit pilots of course.I guess Churchill wouldn`t fit into either, and Goring would have problems with a P-47. :D If you want to prove things with "2 guys fitting into the Spits seat" - well, I have similiar stories of pilots rescuing their mates on the eastern front in the same way.
Stigler was quite clear about the Spit not having any bigger cocpit than the 109 - how would it, the early Merlin was just as narrow as the DB 60x engines, which gave the width for the fuselage. Just look at cross section - oh but why, you have the anecdotes, and your own rock solid belief.
Oh BTW, I find it funny you still can`t get over the better nose over view in the 109. :) Why so hard to put up with that? The 109 was a smart design, Willy was and is considered one of the best aircraft designers. And after all, there must be some reason why the 109 was so utterly successfull, unless you believe in aryan superiority. I hope you don`t.But for some, the prejudice is that the Spit must be automatically better in everything without even needing to prove it... perhaps that`s why the Spitdweeb instincts are to argue about every small detail. Ah, I think I can`t understand the need for that, but that`s what makes you happy..
-
The 109 view was markedly better above the wing forward, the nose view would be similar untill later mark spits.
A degree or two won't make much difference anyway.
The Spit has a better view down backwards down (comes with the disadvantage front.)
Yes, I am still pissed off about your nose view HYPE, for although you claimed it was a pixel error. it was easily visible to the naked eye, - in that case, mine.
Those same eyes actually found the 109 cockpit being a bit smaller than the one of the Spitfire :D
And this:
" The 109 was a smart design, Willy was and is considered one of the best aircraft designers. "
Agree. The 109 was a superb design. Many of the best design items however have nothing to do with sheer performance (in which although, the 109 was always a good candidate)
2 things about the 109 that absolutely stick out as superb in WW2 are manufacture and ease of maintenance.
Yet another one:
"And after all, there must be some reason why the 109 was so utterly successfull, unless you believe in aryan superiority. I hope you don`t.But for some, the prejudice is that the Spit must be automatically better in everything without even needing to prove it."
Am I stepping on your nerve when I make an conclusion of some performance parameters, or say alone, DIMENSION parameters?
The 109 was no stellar UBERPLANE. It was good, however got outperformed in many categories by several allied planes.
The German fighter pilot was no UBERMENCH either. Early LW pilots were the finest in the world, while later ones suffered from severe lack of training and combat experience.
LW tactics however were normally very very good. As well as the German army, the LW was quite successful at inflicting severe-to-crippling losses to their adversaries.
Just don't mix this all up bud.
Now, on to the cockpit again.
I know of 190's stuffing 2 people in it for emergency. Wasn't that how Rudel escaped BTW?
I read a lot of 109 Pilots tales and biographies, but I can't recall an incident of that yet.
I however know from first hand that this occured in the Spitfire. Some pilots actually got court martialled because of ferrying of that type. Is that still anecdotal-fatty-pilot-blah-blah, or is that enough as an evidence.??
Read up and post some quotes ;)
-
Originally posted by Angus
The 109 view was markedly better above the wing forward, the nose view would be similar untill later mark spits.
A degree or two won't make much difference anyway.
The Spit has a better view down backwards down (comes with the disadvantage front.)
[/B]
Yeah, believe that if you want. I can remember that basically everyone there agreed with it, even Milo said the graph is about fair, so one could guess it wasn`t wrong.
And that drawing clearly showed the 109 pilot had a lot more angle down over the nose for deflection, which came from two simple facts : the nose is shorter, and downward sloping towards the front, the Spit`s nose isn`t.
Better view on the Spit "down backwards down"? Go on and prove, it`s wishful thinking, especially in the case of rear vision, in the which the Spit was extremely poor. And I 109s were even poorer with the rear armor fitted, luckily that was replaced quite early in 1943 with a transparent armor glass.
Yes, I am still pissed off about your nose view HYPE, for although you claimed it was a pixel error. it was easily visible to the naked eye, - in that case, mine.
[/B]
I didn`t claim any pixel error, that`s your own make up. You starting yelling about the sightline of the 109 was higher, despite that that was the way in 109`s cocpit, which somehow you failed to notice with your brilliant eyes.
I read a lot of 109 Pilots tales and biographies, but I can't recall an incident of that yet.
I however know from first hand that this occured in the Spitfire. Some pilots actually got court martialled because of ferrying of that type. Is that still anecdotal-fatty-pilot-blah-blah, or is that enough as an evidence.??
Read up and post some quotes ;) [/B]
A hungarian pilot belly landed, I think, his wingman landed his 109 on clearing in the winter (hmm - where`s that so called landing problem), got the guy into the cocpit and headed for home. Wasn`t exactly coutr martialed for it... Head for the library.I guess Punka`s "Messer" book probably mentions the case, available in English.
-
I don't remember any graph. I do remeber a drawing that had the wrong Spitfire model named.
Issy, look up the word 'overall' in a dictionary.
It should be noted that Issy claims the 109 had better visibilty for the pilot to the rear than did any of the Allied bubble canopy a/c (P-51, P-47, Tempest, Typhoon, Spitfire, ....).:rofl
-
Isegrim, still waiting for the source for your claimed rollrate figures for the 109.
-
Barbi,
Out of curiosity, name some features of the Spitfire that was markedly superior to the Bf109.
Angus, Nashwan, MiloMorai,
Name some features of the Bf109 that were markedly superior to the Spitfire.
-
Oh, about the 400 mph rolling.
I sent you the report!! You can check it out.
Figure 4 shows 1 roll that was over 40 lbs of stick force. It got about 7 degrees of alerion movement for just over 40 lbs.
You can check out the chart. The RAF test pilot clearly states that of the three 190's he has flown, this one had the stiffest ailerons.
:)
Izzy please give me you email addy and I will send you a copy of the test.
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Karnak
Angus, Nashwan, MiloMorai,
Name some features of the Bf109 that were markedly superior to the Spitfire.
Was there any?
-
Originally posted by Karnak
Barbi,
Out of curiosity, name some features of the Spitfire that was markedly superior to the Bf109.
Hmm.. hard to pick. I guess most Spits until 1943 had better view form the cocpit to the rear, the mirror also helped somewhat.. were better turners of course. Simplier procedure to land and takeoff, though again Spits had their own type of faults in that field. Certainly they were aerodynamically much better than early versions of the 109. Lighter elevators, so better turn capabilites at high speeds and pullouts.. some of the specialized two staged ones usually had better climb at altitude. Really can`t think of much else. Maybe gyrogunsights in 1944, but in that time, those weren`t much better than normal ones either, if more practical at all. Factually, 109s usually introduced advanced technologies sooner and in greater numbers than with Spits, which were either copied by the brits or were greatly influental to them. 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.
-
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
-
got it you can edit it out if you want.
Crumpp
-
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.
-
"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?
-
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.
:D
No need to with Kurt Tank's a/c.:)
The only one partisan, is Issy.
-
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
:D
-
Originally posted by MiloMorai
The only one partisan, is Issy. [/B]
If that's what you really think then I feel sorry for you.
-
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
-
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?
-
Angus is this the thread?
Spitfire NACA reports
02-26-2004
-
Hehe, yes it is.
The famous flathead izzue, *chuckle*
Saved that pic for analysis :D
-
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.
-
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.
(http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/FvsF/S14vsK4_nosecomp.jpg)
Let`s see if Angie can make a clown himself for the third time. I admit he`s awfully good at that. :rofl
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. :rofl .
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/715_1094754865_erlahaube.jpg)
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. :lol
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.
-
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
-
who was it who said:-
"between the wars, we forgot how to make aeroplanes we could see out of"
Was it Hartmann?
-
No Barbi, you're a Nazi appologist for claiming that the Nazi's came to power fairly and legally, for claiming that A.Hitler had the support of the people whereas Churchill did not (massive historical revision there), and for claiming that what the Nazis were doing was no different than what the colonial powers had done.
You are a Nazi appologist for trying to excuse the Nazis by saying "They did it too!!"
That doesn't mean the colonial powers were nice or good or right. It most certainly was not and most countries have things in their pasts that they're not proud of. Few come close to the Nazis, Soviets or Imperial Japanese.
-
Yes Dan, true they were, but if Barbi would stop his 'German is superior, all else is crap', there would be no 'pissing contests' which are only there because Barbi's crap has to be debunked.
Barbi, you are a laugh a minute. Proof of the accusations you stated are required. But then we all know, if your life depended on it you could not tell the truth, being a habitual liar and twister of facts. In fact, you did not show up on that site for a long time, being warned, because you could not control yourself, as you are doing now.
Barbi tell us about how you think British camps in the Boer War were worse (not worser :)) than the German concentration/extermination camps.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
No Barbi, you're a Nazi appologist for claiming that the Nazi's came to power fairly and legally,
[/B]
Hmm. They won the elections in 1933. I guess that`s a commonly accepted historical fact. Of course that doesn`t make them nice people.
for claiming that A.Hitler had the support of the people
[/B]
You say he didn`t? :rofl
Another best for today.
whereas Churchill did not (massive historical revision there),
[/B]
Yeah just because you say so. OK - how many votes WSC got in 1940?
[/QUOTE][/B]and for claiming that what the Nazis were doing was no different than what the colonial powers had done.[/QUOTE]
[/B]
Like, killing masses of people to gain their land, calling them inferior races, planning to put your own colonist in their place - wasn`t that what the BE was doing for centuries?
Oh, wait, I forgot you only post this ***** because you don`t like hearing about British crimes.
You are a Nazi appologist for trying to excuse the Nazis by saying "They did it too!!"
[/B]
No, I am not a nazi apologist just because a sorry prettythanghat on a BB says so.
That doesn't mean the colonial powers were nice or good or right. It most certainly was not and most countries have things in their pasts that they're not proud of. Few come close to the Nazis, Soviets or Imperial Japanese.
And you are calling others apologists? ROFLOL. Just read your own crap: "but look at them, they were so much worser than us, let`s forget about our past, and only talk about theirs."
You are an apologist, and a hypocrite.
-
Barbi,
Where did I say forget that stuff? I do not think that it should be forgotten. It needs to be taught in our history classes so that it never happens again.
You, on the other hand, are claiming that the Nazis came to power legaly. The did not. The used lies and violence to set up an environment where they could subvert the law.
As to Churchill, votes and support are not synonomous. That is an elementry mistake, so much so that I must believe that you are intentionally lying. Splitting my contrast remark about Hitler and Churchill is another intelectually dishonest method of arguing. You use it to imply that I claimed Hitler did not have the popular support of the Germans which I did not claim.
Now I will though. Hitler was elected by a minority of Germans in 1933. At that time he did not have the general support of the German people. Later, through effective use of propaganda as well as the poor situation of the German populace, Hitler did have popular support, but like Churchill it could not be counted in votes.
Claiming that the Nazis were no different than the colonial empires is highly misleading and rather Stalinistic. About the only colonial power that I can think of that can be directly compared would be the Spanish Conquistadores. The more modern colonial powers did not have the habit of rounding entire people's up and systematically and industrially killing them after using them for slave labor. They did perpatrate massacres and the diseases they brought in killed millions. They opressed and enslaved populations. They setup pupet governments to act as their proxies. However I cannot think of a single British, as the British seem to be your pet hate, attempt to exterminate a race of people from the earth or a British goal to eliminate whole peoples that did not yet have power over.
Me a hypocrite? On some things certainly, but not this.
-
Yeah just because you say so. OK - how many votes WSC got in 1940?
Isegrim, you don't seem to understand the British parliamentary system.
Prime Ministers are not elected by the people.
Members of parliament are elected by the people, they chose a prime minister, and the prime minister serves as long as he has the support of the elected representitives.
Churchill had more support amongst those elected representitives than Chamberllain, or indeed than any British PM.
Karnak, Isegrim holds some rather "strange" views on Germany and the Nazis, for eample the culpability of the Nazis in regards to the millions of Russians pows who died in their care, the legality of murdering hostages in reprisals, the legality of murdering captured British soldiers, the responsibility for starting the war, etc. see for example http://www.1jma.dk/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=1337
(page 8 makes interesting reading)
-
Churchill's first job as a PM was to form a cross-political government. That means, the labour party had it's hand in the war business from Churchill's entry.
That means that Britain was absolutely ready to fight Hitler, regarding politics. The back-up was much more than the back-up Hitler had from the German nation. He got to power technically legally, and then sealed the possibility for a change. The Germans got screwed by the Nazi's, so to say.
Political opponents of Hitler as far down as to the 30's were being executed throughout WW2
Churchill was a very clever man, and foresaw quite clearly what Hitler WAS.
Britain keeping out of the Polish business, or even submitting to Hitler in 1940 would not have stopped a catastrophy. Already in June 1940, Hitler wanted to have a go at the Russians. He did have some admiration for the British, and secondly he considered the Britis with their colonies to be a necessary world power for the worlds equilibrum. Also, he confessed that Germany did not have the Naval power to take care of the British colonies.
(in a positive meaning of the term)
Germany would have waged war against the USSR, and in my opinion might have succeeded there, had their total powers not so largely been tied up in other affairs. With the Brits at war, an incredible amount of the German war effort was tied up. Naval, Air and from the opening of the N-African theater, on land. Later on, on the defensive at multiple fronts.
The Nazi policy, which Churchill seems to have realized amaisingly well already in 1939/40 (The truth all came out in the end) went on none the less. Never has the world seen so good planned wickedness at work, and it continued untill the last days of the war. Germany, the effective nation, was a slave of an inhumane master, the NAZI. Well, they stepped into it, but they never knew what it would become, otherwise they wouldn't have.
That was my WW2 in a teacup. Isengrim/Barbi - feel free to debate it, and I would recommend you start a thread about it.
Now, here comes my fullhearted opinion of waht you were writing in the linked thread, as well as for your input on this thread:
You should be ashamed for your imbecilic crap, and for bringing it into this forum. Go read very much more books reflecting something than just the Nazi side of WW2.
What Karnak said, i.e. that you are a Nazi apologist, I think it is an understatement.
You seem not to agree with his stab anyway:
"No, I am not a nazi apologist just because a sorry prettythanghat on a BB says so. "
Call me sorry if you like, but I'd consider you a Nazi, rather than a Nazi apologist.
Or a Nazi revisionist.
Take that and I hope you shut up.
-
Izzy,
There is no excuse in the world for what the NAZI's did. They were an evil blight on the world that needed to be stamped out. Too bad the World did not recognize the threat the in early 30's. Hopefully we have learned and will act accordingly.
ALL the colonial powers have blood on their hands they are not proud of spilling.
There is a HUGE moral leap between adopting harsh measures to protect your citizens in a foreign colony and the systematic murder of an entire race of people who did nothing but contribute to your society as responsible citizens.
Could the colonial powers have handled things much better, OF COURSE.
Too compare the Holocaust with Colonialism though is both intellectually and morally bankrupt.
Now lets get back on topic and save this crap for the O Club.
Crumpp
-
Bloody well agree.
Izzy, do it :mad:
GRRRRR
-
I fully agree with Guppy and Crumpp. Well said.
-C+
-
Originally posted by Nashwan
Karnak, Isegrim holds some rather "strange" views on Germany and the Nazis, for eample the culpability of the Nazis in regards to the millions of Russians pows who died in their care,
[/b]
What exactly "strange" on that ? I said it wasn`t a war crime, unless it was done on purpose, not that they weren`t responsible for it ! Of course with a bit of lying you can try to turn it upside down. Millions of Soviet POWs died in German prison camps, particularly in 1941, being badly supported with food. The same happened in 1945`s allied prison camps, just do some reading on it. I take an equal footing on both, and say neither was a war crime unless it was intended.
As for responsibilty for mass death is concentration camps, let`s see what Nashwan/Hop says about Boer concentration camps (he calls them "detention centers") where apprx. 40 000 people, mostly women and children died of hunger and bad threatment, taken there against their will by the British. Oh, happy colonial times!
Plenty of apoligist, and revisionist crap there:
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=56481&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=15
"When was the "decision" taken to kill Boer women and children?
AFAIK, camps were set up to remove Boer women and children from the combat zone to prevent them supporting the guerillas. The camps suffered high mortality due to disease and malnutrition initially, but this death rate was brought down, before the Boers capitulated.
Indeed, the British reached a decision to stop bringing Boer women and children into camps before the Boer's capitulated, and this was described as worse than taking them into the camps.
Botha complained at Vereeniging that he had tried to send Boer women and children to the camps, and the British had refused to take them."
(http://www.anglo-boer.co.za/images/photos/concentration/005.jpg)
Nashwan/Hop is also in strong denial of all British war crimes, and regularly plays the role of an apologist for them.
Here he denies British war crimes commited in the Falklands War :
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=58193&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=30
Here he denies that the terror bombings in WW2 were war crimes :
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=54871&highlight=
"For the same reason no German was tried for bombing London. Bombing wasn't a crime. "
Here he denies any British responsibility for the terror bombings, blaming it on all the Germans (heavy revisionism included, ie. London wasn`t accidently bombed, trying to make Coventry as an "indiscriminate bombing" etc.)
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=52211&highlight=
He also claims terror bombings, with apprx. 500 000 civillian dead amongst city population, was legal :
"It was perfectly legal to attack any defended town, military objective or not."
He denies the RAF ever did terror bombings :
The death of civilians was never a deliberate RAF policy, either.
Interestingly enough he is in conflict with himself :
A better analogy would be to say a man who firebombed a house didn't intend to kill the occupants, merely to destroy the building. Good luck trying to argue your way out of a murder conviction with that one.
He tries to push the blame over the Americans, denying the British would have done anything wrong :
"The British did bomb military objectives, and the US did firebomb cities. It's worth noting that the US defined military objectives as any city containing, amongst other things, a bridge over a river. As every sizeable city in Europe is built on a river, that included every city in Germany.
Another notorious part of Nashwan/Hop`s post is his Dresden denial. Nashwan/Hop denies and tries to lessen the number of casulties in Dresden (he claims it was less than 40 000), yet at the same time, he claims Dresden firebombing wasn`t a crime at all :
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=52211&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=15
"There were more dead in the Blitz than in Dresden....
And Dresden was an operation in support of Russian ground operations, which according to your interpretation of the laws precludes it from being a war crime. "
And that`s only tip of the iceberg. Wanna see more? Just do a post search for Nashwan / Hop.
It`s certainly worths to read Reichskriegsgericht`s last post to Hop.
Now, and you expect that I will take seriously any critics,claims and lies from this hypocrite, immoral pile of ***** liar apologist, trying to make it look like that his own rotten morals are mine ?
I`d sooner accept that from a sewer rat.
Originally posted by Nashwan
the legality of murdering hostages in reprisals,
[/b]
I guess I already explained that in the other thread. It was considered legally acceptable, if rules were followed and the measures weren`t excessive. Even the post-war British army manual know and accepted these repraisal "murders".
the legality of murdering captured British soldiers,
[/B]
Nashwan is a liar. I didn`t say regular British soldiers. I referred to irregular British commandoes/saboteurs, who are not protected by the laws of war, as a result of the way of operations in disguise and undercover. Certainly British commandoes didn`t follow the rules of war at any time of the war, using enemy uniforms as disguise, and they neither took prisoners : surrendered enemy soldiers were shot on spot, as they would make the commando`s movement slower. Fact. As a result they were not considered regular soldiers, and were threated just like partisans. The US Army followed the same way in the Ardennes with captured members of Skorzeny`s german commandoes. There are pictures of their execution by firing squad.
Nashwan also tried to show me an anti-semite in this board already, with a forged quote.
It`s usually for Nashwan to point to others to draw the attention from himself, and his own views.
He has very interesting views on the Israeli - Palestinian conflict, I think it wouldn`t be a far off conclusion to see he was very strong, nbt so well hidden anti-semitic feelings. You only have to do a small search for his posts in these boards :
Ie. look at his postings in these matters :
"Like Nahum Korman's?
Korman was the security officer for a settlement near Bethlem. In the morning, some Palestinian children had thrown stones at settler's cars.
Korman drove to a nearby village, grabbed an 11 year old child he thought had been involved, knocked him to the ground, stood on his neck, and hit him on the head with the but of his pistol. The boy suffered a fractured skull and his spinal cord was broken. He died the next day in hospital. Korman got 6 months community service. "
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=115833
and
"Do you condemn your opponents use of ambulances, whilst using them to transport your own soldiers on offensive missions against those opponents?
Do you drop a 2000lb bomb on an inhabited apartment block because it contains a man you want to kill? Do you fire a tank shell at a crowd in a market who are breaking curfew? Do you settle 300 of your citizens in amongst people you deny citizenship to, and set up a free fire zone around the settlement? Do you shoot children dead from a kilometre away when they cross an undefined line 200 yards from the settlement? Do you keep on establishing new settlements, knowing it will deprive the people you deny citizenship to of their freedom of movement, their livelihood, an adequate water supply, and will inevitably lead to the odd "accidental" death?
To focus on Palestinian crimes whilst not even mentioning some of the issues behind them is disengenuous. "
etc.
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=1265900#post1265900
If you look at his post history, Nashwan is VERY fond of posting negative things on Israel. I asked him several times on how he relates to jews, does he really hates them so much, but I never got an answer to that. He usually moves away at that time.
A little insight into the people who pulled out the "you are a nazi" card in desperation. People like Angie or Milo always do that in the last attempt. First they start to incite flames, provoke argument; they loose those, and in desperation they start fingerpointing and blackmailing. But frankly none of these peabrained crapheads succeeded to find anything on me for which I would need to feel ashamed. Certainly they try to bend it - Angie goes claiming I brought it into the board, and not him and his creting little friend who already got busted from two boards for his racist remarks; which is obvious to see. Nashwan, a strong anti semite and hypocrite apoligist tries to put his own crap on me. Well we have THEIR post history and we have MINE; intelligent men can make their own conclusions on those alone, and the the crap put forward by others.
Oh, and Crumpp,
Originally posted by Nashwan
Too compare the Holocaust with Colonialism though is both intellectually and morally bankrupt.
[/B]
That`s why I never do that. The Holocaust was one of the greatest evils done by mankind, ever, I will fully stand by that. But I don`t want to forget about the other evils done either, whatever the side was. Some on this board do that.
-
Hello Izzy...er Nazi?
"Plenty of apoligist, and revisionist crap there: "
Suits your stuff above.
No matter how loud you bark, there is nothing you bring up, that can justify the Nazi policy as well as their "achivements" during WW2.
Bad things happened all around in world's history, and it's typical for Nazi apologists actually to bring up Britain's darkests moments. 50 years or so before WW2 as a diversion.
Well, it doesn't work for you bud in this case, in this forum.
Too many readers here are simply too well informed.
A typical thing from you here that I really must put some spotlight on:
"Millions of Soviet POWs died in German prison camps, particularly in 1941, being badly supported with food. The same happened in 1945`s allied prison camps, just do some reading on it. I take an equal footing on both, and say neither was a war crime unless it was intended. "
I have yet to see proof of "MILLIONS OF GERMAN POW'S DYING IN ALLIED CAMPS IN 1945"
Equal footing? Non-intended deaths of russian POW's perhaps?
Units of the SS actually started massacring military POW's as well as others of their opposing nations in 1939 (Poland). High command German officers, up to general rank even, opposed to this. Those characters were usually "drawn" away by various methods. But of course, a lot of POW's also died of starvation etc.
The same multiplied by the hundreds applied to civilians.
World's history has no paralell to the systematic massmurder of the Nazi regime. That of course, got increased with the extreme losses due to famine and disease in many camps.
The Boer camps and deaths, although horrible, only rate as far as perhaps 1% of the Nazi systematic murder number, that allowing still another equal number (or more) of death due to other causes.
You are just smelling like a Nazi apologists untill you prove othervise. Your stuff mostly reminds me of the presentations of the Holocaust denialists actually. (Of which I read quite a bit.)
I challenge you to come forth with this branch of this thread into another forum, O'club for instance. I will debate you untill you bow. :D
I'll rest the bombing case for now. But I'm itching in my skin :D
-
Folks... I don't think anyone here is saying concentration camps were "good" or "OK". Leave it at that.
Leave the politics out. Focus on the planes.
-
Leave the politics out. Focus on the planes.
Amen!
I enjoy history. I enjoy the History of the Luftwaffe as well. Nothing to do with politics.
In fact the politics keeps many of the Luftwaffe veterans from recording that history. Read Gunther Ralls autobiography. He never fully comes to grips with the horror's of the NAZI's and his role in defending it. He gets mad when people mention it because by his own addmission, knows their is no excuse and no way to reconcile his comrades bravery and sacrifice with their cause. In short, he is proud of his comrades but ashamed of his service. During the war his wife was instrumental in smuggling jews out of Germany. That is a source of pride for him today.
Crumpp
-
Crumpp: I'll mail you something about your above stuff :)
-
Angus, maybe Izzy wasn't trying to say there was something that would justify anything. Maybe he's apalled by the hypochrisy of certain nations and trying to say that "nazism" is not a nation specific property but a dark "feature" in a human mind regardless of nationality.
An O-club topic.
-C+
-
Considering all the major nations of the world before WW2 had dangerous fascistic elements manifesting as a specific political force, it definately doesn't come down to just about one nation.
United States, France, England.. Austria, Belgium, Russia, etc etc etc.. they all had their own small but often very influential Fascistic political parties. Why Fascism manifested as a major political power in Germany had many different factors working into it.
But then again, ofcourse, the "dark human nature" bit is also total bullshi*.
-
Cool Angus. Thanks!
Crumpp
-
How many people here can even define longitudinal stability, stick-fixed or stick-free? Of those who can do that, how many actually know how to measure it? The mind boggles.
-
The Spitfire Mk V, allthough longitudionally unstable, could be trimmed to fly hands off.
But as C of G can change with G's, that does not tell too much, - the C of G was just too delicate for a super effective as well as light elevators.
The problem with the Spit V was apparantly that the C of G under G could shift from forward to backwards, causing the plane to pitch violently and take G's enough to kill the pilot or break the plane.
Hope that helps.
BTW, didn't some aircraft with the C of G more forward have the tendency to nose-down under high speed (in dive?), i.e. the 109?
Most WW2 aircraft, as far as I know, had the C of G more aft than the Spitty. Or am I confusing it with center of lift? Maybe both?
Would you refer to C of G as point of pivot by the way?