Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Kurfürst on June 17, 2005, 06:31:14 AM
-
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/715_1119007854_rolltestonspit5-9-12_conclusions.jpg)
-
:lol
"How to m/fake a realistic document 101"
or
do you have a source?
-
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/715_1119007693_dsir23125621.jpg)
-
Ok, looks better now.
Anybody have that National Advisory Committee For Aeronautics report no. 868, page 166 chart picture, where clipped wing Spit V had much better Roll Rate than normal wing?
-
And while we are that graph, anyone can confirm if that curve of an unspecified mark of Spitfire was coming from flight test, calculation etc.
The shape of the curve - sudden break at the top - clearly shows something is wrong. Apart from it does not match any other wartime roll data for the Spit..
-
Kurfurst/Isegrim knows very well where the Spitfire figures for the Naca chart come from, because we have been over this before on another board.
http://www.1jma.dk/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=3624&whichpage=2
On that board, I'm Hop, Kurfurst is Barabarossa Isegrim.
To summarise the thread, I posted the figures for the Spitfire from NACA 868, Isegrim said they were from:
"later postwar Marks of Spitfires, ie. the NACA chart you are using as a basis is based on the Mk 21 Spitfire series which had reinforced and redesigned wings to cope with one of the two major flaws in the Spit`s design that attributed to it`s poor rate of roll at high speeds : severe wing twisting under force."
Note this is entirely made up, NACA 868 is based on tests of Spitfire Vs by the RAE.
I told Isegrim that, he responded with:
" Can you point towards this allegadly existing Spitfire V roll tests?
I have seen half a dozen Spitfire I, V, IX, VIII, XII roll tests, both clipped and unclipped, and none of them show similiar values.
Knowing your bias towards Spitfires, and your habit of claiming them to be the best in every area all the time, I think it`s quite clear that you made it up as a whole, and will be unable to support the claim with anything."
I then responded with the RAE chart for the Spitfire V, which is clearly the same data as NACA 868.
http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/282_1094123825_roll11.jpg
Isegrim, as is his way, didn't apologise for accusing me of making it up (the only made up bit was his claim the data was for the Spit 21). Instead he responded by trying to claim the RAE test was wrong:
" Interesting stuff, Hop, but it doesn`t agree with anything, let it be US or UK tests on Spitfire roll rate."
He then posted lots of other things, like tests done at 30 lbs stick force, roll acceleration test, instead of roll rate tests, etc.
Page 2 and 3 of the thread make good reading.
The shape of the curve - sudden break at the top - clearly shows something is wrong.
You made that claim in the thread as well, despite posting some NACA charts yourself which also featured the same peaks.
eg http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/715_1094126808_rollratespithurrip40p36.jpg
and
http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/715_1094128180_rolldataweb.jpg
In short, Isegrim wants to discount Naca 868 and the RAE charts on which it's based. To do so he claims that the peaks show the NACA/RAE chart are wrong, and yet the peaks on the other charts aren't evidence they are wrong.
As is typical with Isegrim, he ignores the direct test evidence when it suits him, and instead relies on secondary sources (eg he claims the chart at 30 lbs stick force gives better idea of roll rate at 50 lbs stick force than the actual 50 lbs stick force chart)
-
Agreed with Nashwan on this one. You can always find a graph to show you what you want to see.
Regarding the clipped wings again and hopefully to put to rest this BS about loss of performance. From the RAF trials of a clipped Spit vs a Standard wing Spit.
"At all heights to 25,000 feet the rate of roll is considerably improved by the removal of the wingtips. The response to aileron movements is very quick and very crisp. Four dog-fights were carried out starting with the standard Spitfire on the tail of the clipped wing Spitfire. On two occasions the clipped wing Spitfire evaded so rapidly in the rolling plane that it was able to lose the standard Spitfire and reverse the positions in about 20 seconds. On the third occasion the clipped wing Spitfire was able to lose the standard Spitfire. The fourth occasion was at 25,000 feet and the standard Spitfire was able to keep the clipped wing Spitfire in sight.
The minimum turning circle of the clipped wing Spitfire at 20,000 feet has been increased by 55 feet . This slight increase does not detract in any way from the fighting qualities of the aeroplane..."
Quoting Jeffrey Quill, Supermarine Chief Test pilot on the clipped wing and Merlin 66 LFIX.
"Then at some in definate time in 1942, there seemed to be a change in the tactical philosophy on both sides. It was rather as if, by some sort of mutual tacit consent between enemies, it was realized that the band between 30,000 an 40,000 feet was a silly place in which to have an air battle, and the fighting tended to drop down into the more practical regions roughly between 15,000 and 25,000 feet. I remember how, at the time, this trend interested me very much indeed. It WAS CLEARLY REFLECTED in the LF MK IX(Merlin 66) with engine performance adjusted to the reduced height band.
IT WAS ALSO REFLECTED in the fact that, by removing the wingtips of the Spitfire, an improvement in lateral control could be achieved, but because it increased the wing loading and the span loading of the wing, an aerodynamic penalty was incurred at HIGH ALTITUDE. Such a proposition was unthinkable in 40/41 but in 1942/3 the idea was ENTHUSIASTICALLY adopted by squadrons in 11 group and the "clipped wing" Spitfire became a common sight in the sky."
Considering all SpitXII and XVI were delivered with clipped wings, as well as many Spit IXs, they must have found some benefit don't ya think? They sure clipped a lot of LFVs and even some VIIIs and XIVs.
Dan/CorkyJr
-
Help me out here. In the early days of aviation, a lot of shade tree aeronautical engineers clipped various lengths of wing off of "standard" aircraft wings.
All those guys must have had an idea that something would get better, right? I mean they wouldn't clip the wing to achieve some aspect performance less than the orginal, would they?
Generally speaking, in my experience reading and talking to folks, clipping the wings is generally a techique for increasing roll rate (#1 reason) or increasing top speed or both.
I think it's very reasonable to expect a clipped wing Spit to have an increased roll rate. Most other airplanes that had wings clipped exhibited that performance gain. Further, you have documentation showing that is exactly what happened with the Spit.
What's the problem here?
-
Originally posted by Toad
Help me out here. In the early days of aviation, a lot of shade tree aeronautical engineers clipped various lengths of wing off of "standard" aircraft wings.
All those guys must have had an idea that something would get better, right? I mean they wouldn't clip the wing to achieve some aspect performance less than the orginal, would they?
Generally speaking, in my experience reading and talking to folks, clipping the wings is generally a techique for increasing roll rate (#1 reason) or increasing top speed or both.
I think it's very reasonable to expect a clipped wing Spit to have an increased roll rate. Most other airplanes that had wings clipped exhibited that performance gain. Further, you have documentation showing that is exactly what happened with the Spit.
What's the problem here?
Izzy/Kurfurst hates Spits with a passion :)
Dan/CorkyJr
-
my question is i can see roll rate increase...
but a decline in lift from less wing area, hence less climb, and wider turning radius because of an earlier stall.
how else can it physically be explained?
-
Yep, and if you read the docs, the clipped Spit had less wing area and a wider turning circle. However, the change was not a significant combat factor. Clipping didn't increase the turn radius much below 20k.
Basically, they optimised the wing for fighting below 20k. EVERYTHING in aviation is a trade-off. It's a rare airplane that doesn't get modified as the true nature of the mission becomes more specific and/or as the mission changes, or as technology advances.
Let me put it this way:
NA-73, Mustang I, P-51, P-51B, P-51C, P-51D, P-51K.
Changes in armament, engine, wing planform, canopies, drag reduction.... it's just normal evolution as the mission changed/evolved.
Clipping the Spit wing really wasn't any different.
-
Originally posted by Guppy35
Izzy/Kurfurst hates Spits with a passion :)
Dan/CorkyJr
No, no. It is we who are biased by our incredible loathing for the Bf109 and all things German. :p
-
Originally posted by Toad
Yep, and if you read the docs, the clipped Spit had less wing area and a wider turning circle. However, the change was not a significant combat factor. Clipping didn't increase the turn radius much below 20k.
Basically, they optimised the wing for fighting below 20k. EVERYTHING in aviation is a trade-off. It's a rare airplane that doesn't get modified as the true nature of the mission becomes more specific and/or as the mission changes, or as technology advances.
Let me put it this way:
NA-73, Mustang I, P-51, P-51B, P-51C, P-51D, P-51K.
Changes in armament, engine, wing planform, canopies, drag reduction.... it's just normal evolution as the mission changed/evolved.
Clipping the Spit wing really wasn't any different.
That's the key. When the fights dropped to lower alts, the wing tips were not as much of a factor and the turning circle didn't change enough for it to be penalty enough to outweightthe increased roll rate, in particular with the 190 roll rate being so great.
Dan/CorkyJr
-
You know where they really DO have an argument?
In the modeling of the German 20mm rounds.
HT uses some pretty suspect data. Remember when Pyro posted the pic of all the ammo and the German 20mm is that little dinky round with fair velocity?
Well I found an ACTUAL photo of the REAL German 20mm Mauser 151/20 ammo.
(http://www.williammaloney.com/Dad/WWII/BattleshipNewJersey/16InchShell.jpg)
I'm STILL waiting for it to be modeled correctly.
-
Lol nice Toad, bet the recoil was a beeatch.
Anyway back to clipped wings -
At the alts the combat was taking place at, clipped wings were more of an advantage, than disadvantage. OK they lost a little in turn, but gained in roll rate, exactly what they were designed to do.
Dan/Guppy35 has had a lot of contact with pilots who flew clipped wing Spits, so I'd go with him for impressions of how they flew.
In fact I remember reading somewhere that pilots absolutely loved the clipped wing Spit XVI.
-
This here from Dan:
"At all heights to 25,000 feet the rate of roll is considerably improved by the removal of the wingtips. The response to aileron movements is very quick and very crisp. Four dog-fights were carried out starting with the standard Spitfire on the tail of the clipped wing Spitfire. On two occasions the clipped wing Spitfire evaded so rapidly in the rolling plane that it was able to lose the standard Spitfire and reverse the positions in about 20 seconds. On the third occasion the clipped wing Spitfire was able to lose the standard Spitfire. The fourth occasion was at 25,000 feet and the standard Spitfire was able to keep the clipped wing Spitfire in sight. "
This is exactly why the 190 was a dreaded opponent, and this was exactly the response for it.
On the first encounters with the 190 the RAF pilots found out that the 190 was faster, had a better firepower, and rolled like crazy.
It however turned much worse, - that was discovered quite quickly.
So, while the Spitfire could still turn with the 109 there was this tradeoff. Sell a little turning plus a little climb and high-alt performace and buy lots of roll rate instead. To counter the 190.
The LW also rather avoided turnfights anyway.
Or did the silly Brits just clip the Spitty and imagine that it rolled better.......
-
Nashwan is propagating a sinlge 'MkV' test which has a strange spike on it (it was repeated in NACA report 868).
He claims it to be a flight test, however every time I ask him to post the ENTIRE document, he refuses it... strange!
Moreso, None of the other Spitfire roll rate tests show similiar 'spike', which is rather abnormal. It seems to indicate the uniquely high roll curve Hop is showing is a result of calculations, or, simple extrapolation of aileron effectiveness and stickforce, and was not actually measured.
Interestinly enough, Dave Southwood who flew the clipped Spitfire, claims 3 seconds (=120 deg/sec) for the plane as peak roll rate.
He was a liar, like rest of the British pilots, as Guppy said.
I wonder if Nashwan will deny again to provide to complete document and cherry-pick from it while dismissing half a dozen contradictionary test results, or just skip the whole and leave us with his claims unsupported, as usual.
To me the paper he presented looks like a calculated/extrapolated performance probably from a experimatal plane used to evaluate new types of ailerons on the Spit, and these facts are pointed out in the rest of the report Nashwan denies us to see.
Here are more of Guppy`s 'liar' british pilots :
NACA roll curves for Spitfire. No 'spike'.
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/715_1094126808_rollratespithurrip40p36.jpg)
'LIARS!'
Aussia RAAF roll curves for Spitfire. No 'spike'.
[IMGhttp://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/715_1094128180_rolldataweb.jpg[/IMG]
'LIARS!'
Here`s another one from AVIA 6 10126/2. Comparison of Mustang and Spitfire roll rates, Aug 1942:
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/715_1094127235_avia6101262spit400mphaug42.jpg)
Here are British interviews with RAF pilots who flew both clipped and normal winged Spits
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/715_1094128619_pilopinions.jpg)
As per Guppy, these pilots including a WING COMMANDER, were liars, too.
Note that while Nashwan`s chart cliams the clipped wing Spitfire would roll with and even the FW 190.
Five pilots have to say on that in regards of rolls :
"Clipped wing Spitfire is unable to hold FW 190 in rolling manouveribility"
"No, the Spit does not stand a chance"
"No"
"Hardly"
"Definietely not".
Liars, all they are, according to Nashwan and Guppy.
Of course, Nashwan for some reason won`t post the details of the test... probably because it for some odd experimental machine or calculation, as the spikes indicate.
-
Why do YOU think they clipped the wings? To make it roll slower?
-
Originally posted by Kurfürst
To me the paper he presented looks like a calculated/extrapolated performance probably from a experimatal plane used to evaluate new types of ailerons on the Spit, and these facts are pointed out in the rest of the report Nashwan denies us to see.
Just get the report. The scan from the RAE report gives the reference number, anyone can order it from the PRO.
gripen
-
Originally posted by Toad
Why do YOU think they clipped the wings? To make it roll slower?
To increase roll rate .
It turned out the increase is small and did not worth the performance loss in other areas. That`s why it was not widespread.
-
Thanks Dan, especially for the stuff from Quill.
Toad, the problem is Isegrim's continual quest to prove the Spitfire performed worse than it actually did.
To that end he ignores tests he doesn't like, and instead introduces tests of different things, and extrapolates from there.
For example, there is an RAE test of Spitfire rolling performance at 50 lbs stick force. Rather than acept that, Isegrim calculates Spitfire rolling performance at 50 lbs stickforce from an Australian test of an unspecified Spitfire at 30 lbs, and an American test of a Spitfire Robert Stanford Tuck described as "very tired, very sloppy, had the guts caned out of her", also at 30 lbs stick force (The US test is of the only Spit in America at the time, many months after it had arrived and been flown by practically every pilot who passed through Wright Field)
Nashwan is propagating a sinlge 'MkV' test which has a strange spike on it (it was repeated in NACA report 868).
He claims it to be a flight test, however every time I ask him to post the ENTIRE document, he refuses it... strange!
I didn't have the entire document when you last asked me. I've got better things to do than post it all anyway, and I don't like posting entire documents other people have spent time and money getting from the archives.
Here's the page that describes the Spitfire tests though:
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/282_1119048787_roll2m.jpg)
If it gives you eye strain, it's just the last section that describes the tests.
To me the paper he presented looks like a calculated/extrapolated performance probably from a experimatal plane used to evaluate new types of ailerons on the Spit, and these facts are pointed out in the rest of the report Nashwan denies us to see.
As you can see, you're wrong.
Interestinly enough, Dave Southwood who flew the clipped Spitfire, claims 3 seconds (=120 deg/sec) for the plane as peak roll rate.
He was a liar, like rest of the British pilots, as Guppy said.
Did he have the instrumentation the RAE judged essential for accurate measurements? Or was he flying a restored plane and making rough guestimates with a stop watch?
NACA roll curves for Spitfire. No 'spike'.
Would this be the "very tired, very sloppy, guts caned out of her" Spit that Tuck described? Yes, of course it would.
What do you think happens to roll rate in a plane that's "sloppy"?
LIARS!'
Aussia RAAF roll curves for Spitfire. No 'spike'.
[IMGhttp://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/715_1094128180_rolldataweb.jpg[/IMG]
'LIARS!'
I wonder if I'm reading too much in to the fact that the graph that contradicts what Isegrim is claiming gets posted with an error so that it doesn't show up?
Here it is:
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/715_1094128180_rolldataweb.jpg)
there quite clearly is a spike in Spitfire roll rate at about 160 mph (this is at 30 lbs force, not the 50 of the RAE/NACA 868)
-
Originally posted by gripen
Just get the report. The scan from the RAE report gives the reference number, anyone can order it from the PRO.
gripen
I don`t need to : the fact that Nashwan hides the rest away tells the whole story.
Cherry picking and manipulating, that`s his speciality.
-
Isegrim, I think Crumpp actually sent you the report some time ago. It's the one on Fw 190 roll rates.
As such, most parts of the report deal exclusively with the 190, and don't mention Spitfires, so aren't worth posting here. The brief description of the tests, and the results, I have posted.
-
Ok lets clear a few things up -
1) Spit wings remained the same - False
Different wings (a,b,c,e) had different internal structures and strengthening.
2) Change from fabric to metal ailerons.
3) Some Spit Mks had 'short span' aelerons. No they weren't some kind of special secret fit.
None of the charts mention whether the ailerons were fabric or metal.
In fact the 1st and 2nd charts just mentions "Spitfire" nothing else, not even a Mk, metal/fabric ailerons, clipped/std/extended wings etc.
So all in all the 1st and 2nd charts proves nothing.
The third one just says Spitfire V, well I guess that really narrows it down then.
-
Originally posted by Kurfürst
He was a liar, like rest of the British pilots,
Why isn't this **** banned yet??
Pyro??
-
Originally posted by Nashwan
To that end he ignores tests he doesn't like, and instead introduces tests of different things, and extrapolates from there.
[/B]
Hmm, it`s seems you dismiss the opinion of the NACA, RAAF, Boscombe down and RAF pilots.
Me extrapolating?
For example, there is an RAE test of Spitfire rolling performance at 50 lbs stick force.
[/B]
Which Nashwan refuses to post in it`s complete form. Why?
Rather than acept that, Isegrim calculates Spitfire rolling performance at 50 lbs stickforce from an Australian test of an unspecified Spitfire at 30 lbs,
[/B]
Calculating, where?
and an American test of a Spitfire Robert Stanford Tuck described as "very tired, very sloppy, had the guts caned out of her", also at 30 lbs stick force (The US test is of the only Spit in Amer
[/B]
I don`t see posts from Stanford Tuck from here, only Guppy who claims it and who calls Boscombe down results 'BS'.
I didn't have the entire document when you last asked me.
[/B]
Of course you didn`t, you only had a part of it back then. Fascinating story.
I've got better things to do than post it all anyway,
[/B]
Oh you are such a busy man. It`s said British women have the most vibrators at home per capita in EU; if you know how much of an importance proving the Spitfire was best in everything for Nashwan is(c)Master Yoda, you know why. :lol He hasn`t got time for such nonsense as providing proof and such.
Like I told, the fact that Nashwan hides the relevant parts away is typical for his cherry picking nature.
Here's the page that describes the Spitfire tests though:
http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/282_1119048787_roll2m.jpg
If it gives you eye strain, it's just the last section that describes the tests.
[/B]
Funny, the most relevant part, the conditions of the aircraft and the intention of tests is not shown.... why, if it`s not an experimental machine?
Did he have the instrumentation the RAE judged essential for accurate measurements? Or was he flying a restored plane and making rough guestimates with a stop watch?
[/B]
He says you are wrong.
Like NACA.
Like Boscombe Down.
Like RAF pilots.
Like the RAAF.
Liars, all they are.
Would this be the "very tired, very sloppy, guts caned out of her" Spit that Tuck described? Yes, of course it would.
[/B]
Would this be a detailed and professional NACA evaluation two spitdweebs dismiss like many others with a claim they don`t even have source for?
What do you think happens to roll rate in a plane that's "sloppy"
[/B]
You mean, being sloppy also increased stick forces to, let me qoute "excessive".
Tell us how this happens, Nashwan.
And don`t forget the source for the qoute and the rest of the document you are hiding.
I wonder if I'm reading too much in to the fact that the graph that contradicts what Isegrim is claiming gets posted with an error so that it doesn't show up?
[/B]
I wonder about your woman`s sexual life while you are busy with such theories - or the lack of it. :D
-
Originally posted by Seeker
Why isn't this **** banned yet??
Pyro??
I don`t think Guppy should be banned for calling Boscombe Down results Bull"hit and British pilots liars because they don`t agree with him.
-
This is an interesting document Kurfurst, thanks for posting it:
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/715_1094128619_pilopinions.jpg)
But, it does not show at all what you contend it does. Your contention in the OP was that the clipped wing Spit was hardly an improvement on the full winged Spit. Nobody in this thread has been claiming that the clipped wing Spit could stay with a 190 in the roll. Therefor, when you claim Dan is saying RAF pilots are liars based on his posts here and this document you are creating a strawman argument because Dan never made any claims in regards to the clipped Spit vs the 190, only to the clipped Spit vs full Spit.
That document does contain information relevant to the discussion though. I'll give an example or two:
Clipped wing much better for holding 'Fw.190' in rolling plane, but still leaves a lot to be desired.
Evasive action of '190' in sharply changing direction is not so effective against clipped wing
There you hve two quotes from the document that you posted in which the RAF pilots clearly indicate that the clipped Spit rolls significantly better than the full Spit, but still not as well as the Fw190. In other words, exactly what is being claimed by Dan, Nashwan, Angus and others in this thread.
I would also point out that thousands of Spitfires had clipped wings. It was not nearly so rare as you make it out to be. If it had an overall negative effect, why were thousands of them clipped?
-
Well OK, Nashwan, here`s a simple question then :
Who to believe, RAE`s single, suspicious shaped curve which claims very high roll rates for a Spitfire (aircraft details unknown) and which is in disagreement with many other tests,
or
dozens of actual Spitfire pilots and Southwood who say it`s just nonsense?
You appear to choose to belive a single source which details you say to don`t even know and dismiss every other.
-
What an insulting little troll.
I see your point Nashwan.
-
Few more in there also Karnak
"Clipping wings definately improve "Spitfire" in rolling"
"Definately an improvement"
Ditto comments on Dan etc and the clipped vs full wing Spits.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
Nobody in this thread has been claiming that the clipped wing Spit could stay with a 190 in the roll.
[/B]
Nobody except Nashwan perhaps.
Nashwan dismissed every document save one that shows the clipped wing Spit actually outrolls the FW 190. Nashwan claims it the sole representative data, everything else was to be dismissed.
So Nashwan has been claiming that the clipped wing Spit could stay with a 190 in the roll.
Real life Spitfire pilots disagree with him.
There you hve two quotes from the document that you posted in which the RAF pilots clearly indicate that the clipped Spit rolls significantly better than the full Spit, but still not as well as the Fw190. In other words, exactly what is being claimed by Dan, Nashwan, Angus and others in this thread.[/B]
One of your qoutes say it`s much better when clipped.
The other say it`s better.
A third one says it`s slightly better.
They all agree it`s better, but not in how much.
The first document I posted clarifies that only planes with poor set of ailerons benefited a lot, thus easying up the contradiction.
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/715_1119007854_rolltestonspit5-9-12_conclusions.jpg)
It also says that all things weighted, clipping the wings does not worth to big some sub-standard planes to equal footing at the loss of turn rate and climb.
I would also point out that thousands of Spitfires had clipped wings. It was not nearly so rare as you make it out to be. If it had an overall negative effect, why were thousands of them clipped? [/B]
that`s funny... snake bites it`s own tail, prime example of circular logic.
Claim : Clipped wing Spit rolls significantly better
Proof/Claim : Thousends of Spits had clipped wings
Proof : Clipped wing Spit rolls significantly better
GOTO LINE 1
Makes no sense.
-
What the hell are 'good' ailerons?
Sorry, but your first document clarifies NOTHING.
Mk, metal/fabric ailerons, short or normal span ailerons, etc ,etc?
At low alts (were they were designed for) the turning circle of a clipped wing Spit was almost the same as a full wing Spit (55ft difference I believe).
-
I see the RAF guys run out of breath.
How typical.
-
Kurfurst,
It isn't worth posting to you. You see nothing but what you want to see and ignore all else.
It isn't a debate when all we are is a hostile audience for you to rant at.
-
Originally posted by Kev367th
What the hell are 'good' ailerons?
Sorry, but your first document clarifies NOTHING.
Mk, metal/fabric ailerons, short or normal span ailerons, etc ,etc?
Perhaps read the first page of the doc in my 2nd post.
As for 'good' Spitfire ailerons :
"...........4.21 Controls and general flying. The type of fin and rudder incorporated in this aircraft caused a decrease in the change of directional trim with speed compared with JF.319. Rudder forces were of a similar magnitude. The ailerons, despite an absence of reflexing, were noticeably heavier. Variations in the weight of ailerons on Spitfire aircraft are common and are due to manufacturing differences between individual sets. This aircraft presumably had an inferior pair of ailerons; it is desirable that such ailerons should be rejected during production testing. "
Bull***** -(tm)Guppy- from Boscombe Down, Nov 1943
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/rb141handling.html
-
Originally posted by Karnak
Kurfurst,
It isn't worth posting to you. You see nothing but what you want to see and ignore all else. It isn't a debate when all we are is a hostile audience for you to rant at.
Realizes he isn`t up to it, tongue-in-cheek, exit left.
-
Kurfurst why are your posts always so hyper-aggressive?
-
Why is that you never even remotely consider that I could be right in it and instead you get things personal rather of thinking it over ?
-
Fair enough it mentions the Mk...
Wheres the rest?
-
I wanted to post the whole thing but my onpoi is full.
Can post you the whole thing, if you are interested.
-
Interesting discussion.
Maybe I can shed some light on what maybe going on between these reports.
On one hand we have "measured" roll rates. The only allied report to actually measure an FW-190's roll rate is RAE 1231. The NACA copied this curve when they did their report quoted earlier in this thread.
The discrepancy between pilots comments fighting in the air with clipped wing spitfires vs. the measured results is not due too the Spitfires measured roll rate being off but rather the FW-190's the RAE tested.
The ailerons were out of adjustment. Not surprising as the Luftwaffe had a hard time keeping them adjusted in the Geschwaders. It is unrealistic to expect the allies to know it's importance or how to do it.
This chart comes from RAE 1231:
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1119051365_rollrates1231.jpg)
Here is the measured rate of roll vs rigid wing:
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1119051416_wingtorsion.jpg)
The measured results should be closer to the ridgid wing. How much is debatable. However I encourage those interested to exam the wing construction of both the FW-190 and the Spitfire.
The FW-190's ailerons were difficult to keep adjusted. It is a constant and reoccurring theme in FW-190 maintenance and the adjustment regulation is 13 pages long.
One of the pilot checks for aileron adjustment is stick forces. The FW-190 had very light stick forces when properly adjusted.
The stick forces as measured in RAE 1231:
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1119051453_stickforces1231.jpg)
The stick force tolerances for a properly adjusted FW-190:
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1119051712_lwstickforces.jpg)
Focke Wulf factors frise aileron force variations into these tolerances.
This was even noticed by the RAE test pilot who flew the FW-190:
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1119051559_pilotscomments.jpg)
Who simply chalk it up to natural Frise variation. Not surprising, as they did not know the importance of proper aileron adjustment to FW-190 performance much less have a copy of the aileron adjustment regulations nor a maintenance crew trained on the type.
Here is the ADM 45 standard as measured in RAE 1231. The FW-190 should be much closer to its calculated rate:
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1119051518_admstandard45.jpg)
Now this issue is further complicated by the fact the FW-190 could mount three different ailerons. The hinging and internal structure was changed. According to Oscar Boesch, each type gave slightly different performance based on altitude and speed.
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1119051605_alierontype1.jpg)
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1119051646_ailerontype2and3.jpg)
Hope this helps to gain some insight!
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Don't need the whole thing, just the aircraft configuration.
An example -
The test lists a Mk IX with a Merlin 61, so OK this makes it an F IX.
F IX introduced hurriedly in 1942 to try and counter the 190, we already know early ones were a MK V airframe with a Merlin 61.
Document is dated Mar 1943 so can we draw any conclusions -
a) We know already that during 1943 produciton switched to the L.F IX with a Merlin 66.
b) Is it possible that the Mk IX aircraft in the test therefore is nothing but an old Spit V airframe with a Merlin 61?
c) "Old" = tired airframes etc, poor control response etc.
d) Clipped wings were primarily for low alts, something the F IX wasn't designed for.
e) The purpose of clipping the wings was to improve roll, and it did. (as shown in Crumps graphs, Tks Crump)
In fact in Crumps graph the Spit V with normal wings can't roll with a 190 at any speed. A clipped wing Spit V outrolls a 190 up to approx 215mph.
At 325mph and over with a clipped wing its close, but again the Spit V with a normal wing can't get anywhere near.
Which PROVES what we're saying, a clipped wing Spit rolled better than a standard wing Spit.
-
Isegrim, I'll keep it brief, because you are simply repeating most of the stuff.
Hmm, it`s seems you dismiss the opinion of the NACA, RAAF, Boscombe down and RAF pilots.
Me extrapolating?
No, I have posted the only test I know of that shows the Spitfire roll at 50 lbs stick force.
Which Nashwan refuses to post in it`s complete form. Why?
Why? Because it is a 12 page report on the Fw 190, which has a comparison with some other fighters. Posting a page showing a drawing of the 190 wing layout would be a waste of everyone's time and bandwidth.
Of course you didn`t, you only had a part of it back then. Fascinating story.
OK. I deliberately held back the part that says it's tested rather than calculated, because, why exactly? Because I didn't want you to know it was tested? Don't be silly, that's what I've been arguing all along.
In fact, if you do a search on the forum, I have said before that it was tested, because I had notes, just not the scans.
Would this be a detailed and professional NACA evaluation two spitdweebs dismiss like many others with a claim they don`t even have source for?
I think Dan provided a source. It was, iirc, from Tuck's (auto?)biography.
Well OK, Nashwan, here`s a simple question then :
Who to believe, RAE`s single, suspicious shaped curve which claims very high roll rates for a Spitfire (aircraft details unknown) and which is in disagreement with many other tests,
Why is it "suspicious"? Because it shows a peak, like the vast majority of aircraft did, and the Aussie report shows the Spitfire did?
And what other tests is it in disagreement with? Please, lists the tests that disagree with it. All the other tests of Spitfires at 50 lbs stick force you know.
When you've done that, we can have a basis of comparison as to whch tests are most representitive, if they are different.
Nobody in this thread has been claiming that the clipped wing Spit could stay with a 190 in the roll.
Nobody except Nashwan perhaps.
I'm not. The 190 is clearly better across the vast majority of the roll range.
-
In fact in Crumps graph the Spit V with normal wings can't roll with a 190 at any speed. A clipped wing Spit V outrolls a 190 up to approx 215mph.
Hello Kev,
I don't know if your read my post throughly.
It is a fact that the FW-190 the RAE tested is clearly on the lower end of the roll rate capability of a FW-190A fighter. It represents one that is out of adjustment.
That curve should be higher for the FW-190 which would correspond then with the clipped wing spit pilots comments on air combat experience. The clipped wing spit most likely came close at speeds below 220mph but I highly doubt it outrolled a properly serviced FW-190A.
Several things would combine to make this an improbability.
1. Construction of the Spitfire wing: Multipiece wingspar vs solid.
2. Aileron size/effectiveness.
3. Control cables vs Solid control rods.
With that said. Even the Luftwaffe had a hard time keeping the ailerons on the FW-190A properly adjusted.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
CC Crump,
I think the whole point born out by your graphs is that a standard wing Spit rolling wasn't even close to 190, the clipped wing Spit was a lot closer.
Plus the slight loss in turn radius made little difference at the alts the clipped wings were designed for.
Something we've been trying to point out to Kurfurst.
-
I think the whole point born out by your graphs is that a standard wing Spit rolling wasn't even close to 190, the clipped wing Spit was a lot closer.
I agree with that. While I don't think the clipped wing Spitfire was the full answer for the RAF to the FW-190 at low altitudes, it certainly went a long way to closing the gap.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
I think you should right your book on the Spitfire Izzy, exposing it as the hunk of junk it really was. You seem to have found all the answers and what would anyone who'd flown it in combat or in production testing know about it. After all they didn't have graphs.
LOL you crack me up some times :)
The quote I posted was from an AFDU test done with two Spit Vs towards the end of 1942.
I wonder why the Spit III was built in 1940? That had clipped wings from the beginning. Something about low alt performance again.
Why did they clip the wings of all those Spit Vs if it was such a waste of time?
Here are a few Vs from North Africa 42 and England 42-43. What gives?
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/810_1119068708_clippedspitvs.jpg)
Why were they clipping the wings of Spit VIIIs in the MTO?
Why clipped Spit IXs? Here are some VIIIs in the Med and some 74 Squadron LFIXes on the Continent in 45. I don't get it.
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/810_1119068784_clippedspit89.jpg)
Why did the XII go into combat with clipped wings? Strange don't you think?
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/810_1119068864_clippedspit12s.jpg)
Why did the LFXVI, all 1000 + of them get delivered with clipped wings? Why did all those Spit XIVs arrive with clipped wings in the PTO and ETO? Some XVIs and XIVs in 45 both ETO and Pac. There they are again! Clipped Spits!
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/810_1119068820_clippedspit1416.jpg)
How could so many Spitfires have had their wings clipped for low level work and improved roll rate knowing that it was a complete waste of time according to you?
Why did the Spit XII drivers I got to know over the years comment favorably on the clipped XII?
Where did all those folks go wrong?
How could Jeffrey Quill be so off the mark and you be so on the money?
I keep thinking if I'm reasonable enough, that maybe you'll start getting it, but it just never happens.
Of course you'll probably think I doctored the photos, or that they are the only clipped Spits to ever exist.
Dan/CorkyJr
-
Hah! Zere is ze PROOF! Right in ze PHOTOGRAFS!
Due to zee unrelenting attacks of der zuperior machines of za Luftwaffe, zere was a near total shortage of Spitfire vingtips due to zee bombed-out English vingtip factories!
Ya! And za photos PROOVE zis!
-
Originally posted by Kurfürst
Nashwan is propagating a sinlge 'MkV' test which has a strange spike on it (it was repeated in NACA report 868).
He claims it to be a flight test, however every time I ask him to post the ENTIRE document, he refuses it... strange!
Moreso, None of the other Spitfire roll rate tests show similiar 'spike', which is rather abnormal. It seems to indicate the uniquely high roll curve Hop is showing is a result of calculations, or, simple extrapolation of aileron effectiveness and stickforce, and was not actually measured.
Interestinly enough, Dave Southwood who flew the clipped Spitfire, claims 3 seconds (=120 deg/sec) for the plane as peak roll rate.
He was a liar, like rest of the British pilots, as Guppy said.
I wonder if Nashwan will deny again to provide to complete document and cherry-pick from it while dismissing half a dozen contradictionary test results, or just skip the whole and leave us with his claims unsupported, as usual.
To me the paper he presented looks like a calculated/extrapolated performance probably from a experimatal plane used to evaluate new types of ailerons on the Spit, and these facts are pointed out in the rest of the report Nashwan denies us to see.
Here are more of Guppy`s 'liar' british pilots :
NACA roll curves for Spitfire. No 'spike'.
'LIARS!'
Aussia RAAF roll curves for Spitfire. No 'spike'.
[IMGhttp://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/715_1094128180_rolldataweb.jpg[/IMG]
'LIARS!'
Here`s another one from AVIA 6 10126/2. Comparison of Mustang and Spitfire roll rates, Aug 1942:
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/715_1094127235_avia6101262spit400mphaug42.jpg)
Here are British interviews with RAF pilots who flew both clipped and normal winged Spits
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/715_1094128619_pilopinions.jpg)
As per Guppy, these pilots including a WING COMMANDER, were liars, too.
Note that while Nashwan`s chart cliams the clipped wing Spitfire would roll with and even the FW 190.
Five pilots have to say on that in regards of rolls :
"Clipped wing Spitfire is unable to hold FW 190 in rolling manouveribility"
"No, the Spit does not stand a chance"
"No"
"Hardly"
"Definietely not".
Liars, all they are, according to Nashwan and Guppy.
Of course, Nashwan for some reason won`t post the details of the test... probably because it for some odd experimental machine or calculation, as the spikes indicate.
Show me where I said the Spit roll rate was better then a 190s? LOL your quotes by British pilots flying a Clipped V no less still support the position that the clipped wing improved the roll rate and didn't affect the turning circle to any great degree.
Quote the W/C you mention that somehow I say was a liar.
"Clipping wings definately improves Spitfire in the rolling plane. on FW 190s usual evasive action of a flick half roll at high speeds it is practically impossible to stay with him in a 'clipped" Spit. It is still very easy to turn inside a FW 190 with a clipped wing Spit. Under 6500 feet a clipped Spit with cropped blower can cope with 190 for speed in dive or climb"
DING! DING! DING! we have a winner.
He's saying a clipped wing LFV can stay with a 190 at low level.
THIS is what we're talking about. Hence the LFV, LFIX, LFVIII, LFXVIe and of course my own personal favorite the CLIPPED WING Spit XII. Low alt, deal with the 190s on equal or better basis Spits!
Again, show me where I've claimed a Spit can roll with a FW190? And show me how I said those RAF pilots were lying. They appear to be saying exactly what we've been pointing out all along.
Some more images for ya. Look at all those Spit LFXVIes in the factory with clipped wings!
And of course a new production clipped wing Spit LFIXe with smaller rudder before it went to 129 squadron. and last but not least my baby, DP845 the Spit XII prototype. Love those clipped wings!
Dan/CorkyJr
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/810_1119072929_spitxvis.jpg)
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/810_1119072892_pt961.jpg)
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/810_1119072954_dp845.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Kurfürst
Why is that you never even remotely consider that I could be right in it and instead you get things personal rather of thinking it over ?
Well Barbarossa Isegrim (Ádám Ilyés) the problem is to pick out that one little tid-bit of truth in among the reams, and reams, and reams, and reams, and reams of bigoted, biased, manipulated and the selective, out of context info you post.
Like the boy that cried wolf too many times, no one believes what you have to say as they see it as furthering your well known 'uber Nazi Germany and anti British' agenda. Don't forget that old phrase about the guilty screaming the loudest about their innocence. Those beserker rants of your's were rather loud.:)
You should take your own advice and think, if that is possible with all your bigotry. It is to bad many can't see your post on the AAW board that got very personal which resulted in the 'boost' tread getting locked.
-
Ahhh... so he's also refighting WW2 and this time the superior German machines win it?
Why am I not surprised?
-
What was the wingarea of a clipped wing spitfire ? Investigation a Spit XII in the war museum of Johannesburg, i had the impression that it was plenty outside of the ailerons. The ailerons of a normal wing are really placed far on the inside ( well a disadvantage of a elliptical shape), so no wonder that roll rate improved a lot.
Btw, that spit did not have aileron trim.
When turn radius did not change much then it can be a hint that actually few lift is produced in this outer section on a normal wing, what in turn confirms the low lift coefficient measured by the naca.
found a nice little fly-by movie of a clipped spitfire:
http://www.google.de/url?sa=U&start=2&q=http://met.open.ac.uk/group/jwl/movies/spitclipped.html&e=9833
niklas
-
Originally posted by niklas
What was the wing area of a clipped wing spitfire ?
231 sqft clipped
242 sqft normal
-
So, Adam choked on the apple?
Anyway, this one:
"Hah! Zere is ze PROOF! Right in ze PHOTOGRAFS!
Due to zee unrelenting attacks of der zuperior machines of za Luftwaffe, zere was a near total shortage of Spitfire vingtips due to zee bombed-out English vingtip factories!
Ya! And za photos PROOVE zis!"
ROFL :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl
Nice ;) Good man ;)
Now, untill now, Izzy has tried to show some comparisons, and while blaming others for manipulating data, I recall this.
Oui, J'accuse toi, Izzy le-quelque-chose:
(well, my French sucks, just couldn't help it, hehe)
Anyway, the commandments of Izzy regarding the evil Spitfire being compared to LW stuff.
1. Spit vs messer turning ability (109F, - source Clostermann), using a clipped Spit vs the finest turning 109 ever.
2. Spit rolling, picking a VII or VIII with extended wingtips as an example of rolling quality at preferrably low altitude.
Or better still, never pick any data from later than 1942, 1939 models of Spit I is the best to compare with a 109F or newer.
3. Spit IX Speed, - Picking JL 165 which was almost the most tired one I could find from the fourthfightergroup site. Compare it with a 109 which is some year newer.
The 190 was also an underdog to the 109F, so while the 190 is already as fast as the Spit IX, the Spit IX is truly an underdog.
4. High alt speed and low alt speed, - pick Merlin 61 for low alt (Turbine#2 kicks in at 20K), and a cropped Spit for the high alt comparison (max performance at low alt)
5. Climb. Pick preferrably only the 109K and compare it with a 1942 Spit. Or, rather not mention climb. Never go to Newtons when calculating lift efficiency.
6. Time and Service. Compare old Spits with New 109's.
7. Availability:
a. There were few Spits
b .They were too few and too late
c. They were not available in clipped mode in any numbers.
d. Uhm, clipping was futile and useless, but done in some numbers.
e. Due to short range, Spits were scarcely seen over LW territory anyway
8. Undercarriage:
a. Spit could not carry too much armament due to UC weakness.
b. It could also not carry too much ordnance for the same reason
c. Therefore it was a hopeless carrier aircraft. Please forget that very short decked escort carriers were the norm.
9. Engines:
RR sucks and is so thirsty that Spitfires hardly make it over the English channel,,,,errr,,,German Channel. They are also draggy and heavy and unreliable engines. Please omit that overhauls had some different hours compared to the DB
9. Ultimate performance:
a. Draw into the daylight the only drawback of the Spit 21, - Yaw.
Forget about double range and 4 Hizookas along with the high speed.
b. Do not mention any Griffon Spits that had better boost than minimal.
c. Do not mention the Seafire 47 which was the ultimate Spitfire to see combat.
d. Griffon Spits hardly saw sevice anyway.
Oh, I still have to bring in the 10th commandment....
:D
-
Spitdweebs - pathethic as always. Whenever you present them the hard facts, they react like a bunch of scared animals, running all over the place, some screaming, some just howling at you. You have to know how to threat them.
I think we can safely ignore the usual rants of krazymilo and angus, they just their usual childish self.. and what was that third clown, toad ? :lol
Let`s see the rest.
Nashwan as usual keeps to his habit of selective qouting and changes the subject when it`s hot. He still not presents the test (was it a test at all?) conditions of the MkV, which is unsurprising given the information Blutarski has posted on another board : there was a, what a coincidence, Spitfire MkV being tested with new type of ailerons in 1943. How similiar, it fits Nashwan`s papers totally - appearantly, he sells us just another Spit prototype as representative in a form it never see service.
Now let`s see the other major spitdweeb, Dan, who altough failed to qoute any serious work on the Spitfire that would underline his claim that it was built in 'thousends' (very precise figure, almost like it`s been made up on the spot), but posts a handful of pictures of several types of Spits from the whole mark range of 20 000 built. Very convincing, dear Dan, I know thinking isn`t your strong point, but I think everyone of us knows there were clipped spits.
Of course they were tested by Boscombe Down, one of the most respected testing stations, who`s results your called "this BS about loss of performance", as a NOT recommended modification, ie. :
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/715_1119007854_rolltestonspit5-9-12_conclusions.jpg)
But of course you may be right, and there were thousends of Spitfires flying with clipped wings, to qoute resulting 'in little effect' in terms of roll performance and 'slight increase' of speed below 20k, at the expense of 'increased take off run', loss of climb 'by 160-200 fpm at any height', and 'decrease in speed above 20000 ft'.
So appearantly according to Dan, literally thousends of Spits had much of their performance sacrificed for little gain.
Appearantly the only intelligent spit-fan here is Kev367, who seems to be more interested in the reality rather how to make a show for the 'perfffffect', 'flawless' Spitfire fighter that Nashwan and Dan blindly worships.
So Nashwan, produce the plane conditions of this 'Spit V' or admit you were manipulating with the data for YEARS.
Of course you won`t. YOU NEVER DO.
-
There is most certainly clownish entertainment to be found in this thread.
In a remarkable coincidence, it's always in one of your posts.
3,923 MkVBs were produced and 2,447 MkVCs were produced
Bring the MkVC to Aces High!
-
Umm good looking spits anyway you cut it ;)
-
Hey diddle diddle...
The cat and the fiddle....
Kuffie jumped over the moon...
Hey Izzy....Read my post and examine at least some of my points before going paranoid about it. And please don't freak out in a rant of personal attacks while at it. Seeing you spitting at people like Guppy in your text is most inappropriate.
Anyway...
The points have some bite in them, and I've just started sawing.
:D
-
It is still very easy to turn inside a FW 190 with a clipped wing Spit.
Certainly the clipped wing Spitfire maintained a measure of turning superiority over the FW-190.
How much would depend on the type of FW-190 encountered.
FW-190A fighter variants were only deployed to North Africa and the MTO for a very short period of time where they amassed an impressive record.
During this time the FW-190G/F or their early Umrustsatz's made up the majority of FW-190's in theater.
After this few months, ground attack variants were the only FW-190's in theater.
Only on the Channel Front did the FW-190 fighter variant comprise the both the largest percentage of Focke Wulfs and Luftwaffe fighters.
Without knowing the variant of FW-190 encountered it is hard to draw specific conclusions about the level of turning superiority.
Additionally the Spitfire has a sustained turning superiority not an instantaneous turning superiority. Examining the CLmax and Lift Polars of the FW-190 revels it's turning ability at speed was very good.
It would be interesting to compare the level turning ability of the Clipped Wing to a clean configuration 109.
Any flight tested performance curves of a Clipped Wing Spitfire?
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Kurfurst -
Prob with clipped wing numbers is the fact that they were removed and refitted as needed. It wasn't as though a standard wing Spit off the production line had to stay like that, or vice versa.
Same goes for extended wing spits.
Thats why I mentioned about the Spit F IX in the tests. I have a sneaky suspicion it's prob an original 1942 or earlier Mk V with a Merlin 61. Hardly the best candidate for any flight test IMO.
I doubt you'll ever get a definate - number of Spits had clipped wings.
It's hard enough getting ball park figures for the numbers of L.F. Spits. Mostly that has to done by extrapolation.
Thats the one problem with AH - All the planes are PERFECT, 100% examples. Something you'd never find, even in one that just rolled off the production line.
The drawbacks -
Slight increased take off run - Not a problem, in fact they even trialed Seafire III with clipped wings, still had no probs getting off a carrier.
Slight decrease in speed over 20k - Not a problem, clipped wings designed for low alts.
Lowering of service ceiling - See point above.
Loss in climbrate - Yup a prob, but hardly a BIG drawback.
Loss of turn compared to std Spit - Well DUH, the whole point was to increase roll.
The more I read the Boscombe Down writeup the more I realise they completely missed the point of having clipped wings.
Two of the points only valid for high alts, one doesnt matter, the only downside is the loss in climb.
Of course the big question, why the hell were they flying clipped wing Spits 20k and above?
It's known that clipped wing Spits suffered at high alts, so why run tests at 20k+.
Ahhhh ping (lightbulb)-
Merlin 45 fitted to F Vb and F Vc
Merlin 46 fitted to F Vb
Merlin 61 fitted to F IX
Griffon II fitted to XII - can find nothing on this, only Griffon III's, IV's
I'll bet the tests were done at the usual operating alts, all those Merlins are desined for higher alt flying than what would have been normal for L.F. models, which explains test data and comments for 20k and above.
Correct ones would have been (all more powerfull than those above)
45M for the LF Vb LF Vc
50M for the LF Vc
66 for the LF IX
Yes I know clipped wings were fitted to non LF models, but they were PRIMARLIY for use by LF models
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
Additionally the Spitfire has a sustained turning superiority not an instantaneous turning superiority. Examining the CLmax and Lift Polars of the FW-190 revels it's turning ability at speed was very good.
Crumpp
But how well could this theoretical high speed turning ability be exploited in practice due to FW´s harsh accelerated stalling characteristics?
-
But how well could this theoretical high speed turning ability be exploited in practice due to FW´s harsh accelerated stalling characteristics?
The "harsh" high-speed stall of the FW-190 existed but is rather exaggerated in Post War literature. This stems from two allied reports. Both reports used the same FW-190.
Both Oscar Boesch and Heinz Orlowski have told me you the FW-190 stick burbled before any stall. If you were paying attention it was easy not to stall it out.
A properly configured FW-190 had two stalls:
It's "normal" stall was gentle and recovered immediately. At one G in level flight the nose would dip and the wing droop slightly.
Only when flying at high speed and under extreme G's wing warpage would cause the washout to flatten. If the aircraft were stalled under this condition it would lose lift along the entire lifting surface of the wing. The aircraft would then almost invert and left unchecked enters a spin. Recovery was instantaneous for both the stall and the spin. Many FW-190 pilots to escape an attacker on their tail used this characteristic. Talking to the pilots it was not something that surprised you when flying the plane. In other words, it was not a combat limiting characteristic.
It was not any different from the P51's.
In fact it was better than the P 51's, as the recovery from any spin that was allowed to develop was instantaneous. The P51 is almost unrecoverable from a spin.
http://www.google.com/custom?q=stall+&sa=Google+Search&cof=LW%3A450%3BL%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.mustangsmustangs.net%2Fp-51%2Favi.images%2F2002-MMlogo450x70.jpg%3BLH%3A70%3BAH%3Acenter%3BS%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.mustangsmustangs.com%3BAWFID%3A2c0172bfb87aabde%3B&domains=mustangsmustangs.net&sitesearch=mustangsmustangs.com
For a complete description of the P51's stall behavior pick up copy of AHT.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Your statements here on the 190 seems about right to me Crump, but this thread really didn't have anything to do with the 190 until Kurfurst decided to rewrite whar Dan said so as to be able to say Dan was contradicting himself.
This thread is really only about full winged Spitfires vs clipped wing Spitfires. Kurfurt's contention, based on one, very brief document from 1941 or 1942, if that the roll rate was not usefully improved, the climb rate was significantly reduced and the turning ability was significantly reduced.
The rest of us contend that the roll rate was significantly improved, though still falling significantly short of the Fw190's, with a small increase in turning radius and reduction of climbrate below 20,000ft. About that it gets more significant.
You know what it is like to "debate" Kurfurst. I recall a 109 vs 190 thread in which you went in circles with him contending that the 109 was just outright better than the 190.
-
He still not presents the test (was it a test at all?) conditions of the MkV
Isegrim, read what the image I posted says.
To repeat it:
"The best method of comparison of the rolling performance of different aircraft is based on the steady rate of roll a pilot can generate using a definite stick force, say 50 lb, or full aileron if this requires less than 50 lb. on the stick. This course has been adopted in Fig.6 which shows the results obtained for the F.W.190, Mustang, Typhoon, and Spitfire V (metal covered ailerons) with both standard and clipped wings. On all these aircraft instrumental records of rolling performance have been obtained at the R.A.E, similar to those under discussion for the F.W.190. In this connection it is worth noting that "instrumentation" is essential when obtaining the curves of Fig.6. Stop-watch measurements of time to bank on fighters are rarely of sufficient accuracy, since the times to be measured are so small."
Crumpp, can you confirm to our suspicious little friend that RAE 1231 is primarily a test of the Fw190, not the Spitfire, that whilst it contains Spitfire, Mustang and Typhoon data in the chart it doesn't go into details of their tests, and that they were tested seperately?
Isegrim thinks it contains some details that contradict the Spitfire roll performance shown in the chart you posted. (Not the Fw190 data, just the Spit data)
-
RAE 1231 is a test of the FW-190's roll rate.
The report is titled:
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1119140473_rae2131title.jpg)
The graph is a calculation based on inflight measurements of aileron deflection, stick forces, airspeed, and roll rate. Glauert corrections for compressibility are factored in and the formula used is included in the report.
It was backed up by gun camera observations which estimated the FW-190 could roll at 120 degrees a second at speeds from 170mph to 300mph IAS at 10,000 feet. The report admits this method is very much a ballpark figure as there is no way to know the stick forces.
With the exception of the FW-190 aileron adjustment it is my opinion that RAE 1231 represents the most accurate roll rate report on the FW-190 I have seen. I have yet to discover a Focke Wulf or RLM roll rate test. Evidence suggest's the FW-190 in service could roll better.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
The "harsh" high-speed stall of the FW-190 existed but is rather exaggerated in Post War literature. This stems from two allied reports. Both reports used the same FW-190.
Both Oscar Boesch and Heinz Orlowski have told me you the FW-190 stick burbled before any stall. If you were paying attention it was easy not to stall it out.
A properly configured FW-190 had two stalls:
It's "normal" stall was gentle and recovered immediately. At one G in level flight the nose would dip and the wing droop slightly.
Only when flying at high speed and under extreme G's wing warpage would cause the washout to flatten. If the aircraft were stalled under this condition it would lose lift along the entire lifting surface of the wing. The aircraft would then almost invert and left unchecked enters a spin. Recovery was instantaneous for both the stall and the spin. Many FW-190 pilots to escape an attacker on their tail used this characteristic. Talking to the pilots it was not something that surprised you when flying the plane. In other words, it was not a combat limiting characteristic.
It was not any different from the P51's.
In fact it was better than the P 51's, as the recovery from any spin that was allowed to develop was instantaneous. The P51 is almost unrecoverable from a spin.
http://www.google.com/custom?q=stall+&sa=Google+Search&cof=LW%3A450%3BL%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.mustangsmustangs.net%2Fp-51%2Favi.images%2F2002-MMlogo450x70.jpg%3BLH%3A70%3BAH%3Acenter%3BS%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.mustangsmustangs.com%3BAWFID%3A2c0172bfb87aabde%3B&domains=mustangsmustangs.net&sitesearch=mustangsmustangs.com
For a complete description of the P51's stall behavior pick up copy of AHT.
All the best,
Crumpp
Well, I have the AHT. As for the P-51, I just watched a wartime P-51B training film. The pilot giving the commentary was Bob Chilton. He spun the aircraft and described the spin as easy to recover. He also commented on its accelarted stall by saying that elevator buffeting sets in 3-4 mph before the stall and that though the plane flicks out there is no tendency to spin.
As for the 190 stall, at least the accounts given in Herrman&Leverenz´s "FW 190A" book agree with Eric Brown´s account, i.e. the accelerated stall is without warning.
-
As for the 190 stall, at least the accounts given in Herrman&Leverenz´s "FW 190A" book agree with Eric Brown´s account, i.e. the accelerated stall is without warning.
Well when Herrman and Leverenz fly one, let me know and get their opinion. They wrote an excellent book however it is mostly pictures. When I examined it looking for your claim the only reference to aggravated stalling in a clean configuration is:
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1119149053_stall.jpg)
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1119149095_stall2.jpg)
Please point out the page.
I am sure Eric Brown's experience is spot on with the FW-190 he flew. As I said, the Luftwaffe had a hard time keeping the ailerons adjusted how can one expect the RAE to adjust them properly?
The aileron adjustment blocks are IMHO poorly designed on the FW-190. They are simply flat smooth blocks of duralumin that fit together. The aileron attachment screws slide in slots on the adjusting block which mates to the flat smooth duralumin mounting blocks in the wing.
Adding some teeth would have gone along way toward preventing them from loosening and sliding out of adjustment.
Let's look at what Dean says about the P51 in AHT, an extremely detailed fact filled book:
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1119149175_p51stall.jpg)
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1119149244_p51stall2.jpg)
All the best
Crumpp
-
I've met a lot of guys that flew the P-51 in actual military service.
I've yet to meet one that has anything good to say about spinning it with fuel in the fuselage tank. Mostly their face goes pale at the thought.
However, with the fuselage tank empty, most of them say it would recover from a developed spin IF you had enough altitude. "Enough" comments ranged from "5-6 thousand" to "10-12 thousand" feet. ;)
-
Your absolutely correct Toad.
All high performance aircraft are capable of inducing an aggravated stall provided they can change the AoA faster than the wing can produce lift at a given speed.
Many aircraft, especially in the early war during WWII where not capable of doing this due to excessive stick forces at high speed. In later war designs this phenomenon becomes more commonplace and is not quite as surprising as it was when it first appeared in the FW-190A.
It is interesting to note that no test pilots in Germany had ever seen the wings of an aircraft turn white with condensation in a high speed turn or seen it on the propeller tips until the FW-190 appeared.
The light stick forces of the FW-190 could actually be detrimental to its performance if flown by a heavy-handed pilot.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Guys, listen up.
Barbarossa Isegrim is absolutely correct in that the Spitfire is the worst piece of garbage ever produced claiming to be a fighter. It is such a crappy piece of machinery that even a Eindecker would have no problem disposing of it in combat. I would even go so far and say the Spitfire would even have trouble besting the Taube.
On the other hand, the 109 was such a superb machine, even the Bf109B would make mincemeat out of the F-23 very quickly.
-
So answer the question then Izzy.
Why did they clip the wings of so many Spit Vs? Just a quick look through the books shows photos of clipped Spit Vs being operated by the following squadrons. 41, 91, 601, 602, 131, 401, 402, 315, 225, 501.
Even if only those 10 squadrons flew them, that still begs to question why they did it if what you are saying is the final conclusion reached by the RAF.
Why did they clip the wings on the Spit XII if there was no benefit?
Why did they deliver all 1054 Spit LFXVIe's with clipped wings?
Why did they deliver all the Spitfire FRXIVs with clipped wings?
You are saying that based on the one report you found using an FIX in testing that the RAF decided against the benefits of a clipped wing.
Why were they delivering them in 1943-45 from the factory with clipped wings?
Why did the RAF and other countries that operated the Spit postwar, such as Belgium, operated them with clipped wings if there was no reason?
Is it possible your 1943 report was not the final word?
Quoting the AFDU tactical trial of the Spit XII EN223 in December 1942.
"In the air, the handling of both EN223 and another production Spitfire XII which was made available by Supermarine for one day, were felt to be far superior to the normal Spitfire IX or Vb, being exceptionally good in the lateral control which was crisper and lighter due to the clipped wings.."
Later in the same report: "It is considered that when used below 20,000 feet it will be able to out pace and out turn the FW190 and roll as well.."
Thier words, not mine.
Someone in the RAF found something good about clipped wings apparently.
The trial with EN223 is found in Alfred Price's "The Spitfire Story" btw in case you think I'm fabricating it. Of course I suppose Dr. Price could have too being a Spit dweeb like he is.
The question still remains. WHY did the RAF operate clipped wing Spits and for such a long period from 42 until well into the postwar period, if what you say is correct?
Dan/CorkyJr
-
Originally posted by Kev367th
Kurfurst -
Prob with clipped wing numbers is the fact that they were removed and refitted as needed. It wasn't as though a standard wing Spit off the production line had to stay like that, or vice versa.
Same goes for extended wing spits.
Thats why I mentioned about the Spit F IX in the tests. I have a sneaky suspicion it's prob an original 1942 or earlier Mk V with a Merlin 61. Hardly the best candidate for any flight test IMO.
I doubt you'll ever get a definate - number of Spits had clipped wings.
It's hard enough getting ball park figures for the numbers of L.F. Spits. Mostly that has to done by extrapolation.
Thats the one problem with AH - All the planes are PERFECT, 100% examples. Something you'd never find, even in one that just rolled off the production line.
The drawbacks -
Slight increased take off run - Not a problem, in fact they even trialed Seafire III with clipped wings, still had no probs getting off a carrier.
Slight decrease in speed over 20k - Not a problem, clipped wings designed for low alts.
Lowering of service ceiling - See point above.
Loss in climbrate - Yup a prob, but hardly a BIG drawback.
Loss of turn compared to std Spit - Well DUH, the whole point was to increase roll.
The more I read the Boscombe Down writeup the more I realise they completely missed the point of having clipped wings.
Two of the points only valid for high alts, one doesnt matter, the only downside is the loss in climb.
Of course the big question, why the hell were they flying clipped wing Spits 20k and above?
It's known that clipped wing Spits suffered at high alts, so why run tests at 20k+.
Ahhhh ping (lightbulb)-
Merlin 45 fitted to F Vb and F Vc
Merlin 46 fitted to F Vb
Merlin 61 fitted to F IX
Griffon II fitted to XII - can find nothing on this, only Griffon III's, IV's
I'll bet the tests were done at the usual operating alts, all those Merlins are desined for higher alt flying than what would have been normal for L.F. models, which explains test data and comments for 20k and above.
Correct ones would have been (all more powerfull than those above)
45M for the LF Vb LF Vc
50M for the LF Vc
66 for the LF IX
Yes I know clipped wings were fitted to non LF models, but they were PRIMARLIY for use by LF models
Quite making sense Kev :)
Griffon IIb was what was used in the Spit XII prototype DP845. The production engine was the Griffon III and IV. Seafire XV, the first Griffon Seafire was the navalized Spit XII and had the Griffon VI. All were single stage Griffons at that point. 2 stage Griffon 60 series went into the XIV and those following.
Dan/CorkyJr
-
So to sum it up -
The flight test used -
A prototype Spit XII - Although their #s are BN221 and BN222, a mystery?
Mk F V's and an F IX ALL with engines designed for higher alts, flying at their usual alts with a clipped wing.
Add to that the F IX may have been one of the early Spit V airframes with a Merlin 61.
Sorry, I suddenly don't put a lot of credence in that test.
Bit like tuning a cars engine and downforce for sea level, taking it to the top of Kilamanjaro and then saying, 'well it doesn't hold the road as well, or go as fast'.
As I said the more I read it, the more I thought they'd lost the plot.
-
Well, that Beauvois quote was the primary quote I meant. Shouldn´t comments from a test pilot of Beauvois´s calibre carry more weight than statements from 2 next-to-unkown pilots.
If you check what I wrote, I never mentioned POWER ON spins, and the refernce I gave spoke specifically of the P-51B, not D. And Dean doesn´t say anywhere that P-51D´s power off spin is unrecoverable.
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
Your absolutely correct Toad.
All high performance aircraft are capable of inducing an aggravated stall provided they can change the AoA faster than the wing can produce lift at a given speed.
Many aircraft, especially in the early war during WWII where not capable of doing this due to excessive stick forces at high speed. In later war designs this phenomenon becomes more commonplace and is not quite as surprising as it was when it first appeared in the FW-190A.
It is interesting to note that no test pilots in Germany had ever seen the wings of an aircraft turn white with condensation in a high speed turn or seen it on the propeller tips until the FW-190 appeared.
The light stick forces of the FW-190 could actually be detrimental to its performance if flown by a heavy-handed pilot.
All the best,
Crumpp
Which early war aircraft might you mean? If we e.g. examined those older monoplane fighters in Finnish AF service (i.e. Brewster Buffalo, Curtiss Hawk, Fiat G.50, Fokker D.XXI, MS 406), they all have quite light stick forces.
-
Originally posted by Kev367th
So to sum it up -
The flight test used -
A prototype Spit XII - Although their #s are BN221 and BN222, a mystery?
Mk F V's and an F IX ALL with engines designed for higher alts, flying at their usual alts with a clipped wing.
Kev, the numbers should begin EN. These were the first 2 Mk XIIs off the production line.
EN221 and EN222 were both at Boscombe Down Nov 6 1942 for intensive flying trials EN221 came off the production line Oct 13 1942.
-
Both Oscar Boesch and Heinz Orlowski have told me you the FW-190 stick burbled before any stall.
I remember to have seen a LW report were both the stall characteristics of the FW190 and Bf109 were investigated.
It says excatly the same, that for a pilot used to the FW190 the stall would not come surprisingly as he would feel it in the control column. But properly ajusted ailerons were neccessary otherwise the warning was not so pronouced.
-
Well, that Beauvois quote was the primary quote I meant. Shouldn´t comments from a test pilot of Beauvois´s calibre carry more weight than statements from 2 next-to-unkown pilots.
Problem is Beauvais does not saying anything other than he could stall it at 400 mph. It gives no insight to the amount or lack of warning.
I think you will find too that most of those early war aircraft do not have light stick forces at 400mph IAS. Fabric Control surfaces and cable controls are a bad combination for high-speed maneuverability.
Now the FW-190 did have fabric control surface. It also had a unique construction that eliminated ballooning.
Each riblet had a grooved trough where the attaching wires fit to keep everything flush. 3 layers of individually doped fabric then go over the surface. The whole thing comes out completely flush. I have seen visitors to the Museum argue that they are metal covered while standing a few feet away from the completed ailerons.
http://www.white1foundation.org/parts/elevators.jpg
Thank you Naudet for reminding me! Here it is:
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1119185099_fw190_and_me109quirks1.jpg)
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1119189149_fw190_and_me109quirks2.jpg)
As for the "unknown pilots", I am willing to bet you did not have a clue who Heinrich Beauvais was until you picked up Hermann's book. It's ok, I did not either until I started studying the FW-190.
Oscar Boesch:
http://chesterfieldarmament.com/bailey/warwolf/warwolf.htm
Heinz Orlowski:
A single Mustang (HB836) tried to help out, and attacked the German fighter. A long aerial duel developed. The Mustang finally caught fire, and made a wide turn out the fjord. Perhaps he will try to get away and make a crashlanding. But then the British pilot turned back. According to eyewitnesses the pilot must have been badly wounded, but instead of bailing out he continued the fight. But to no avail. The Mustang crashed in the green pine forrest being the only Mustang loss of this battle. W/O Cecil Claude Caesar was dead.
The German fighter was in trouble also. The engine had been damaged and this forced the pilot to bail out. A small charge dispensed with the canopy and a small figure detatched itself from the plane. But he was to close to the ground for the chute to open. Fortunately, the snowy hillside enabled the pilot to survive, a small avalanche carried him to the bottom of the valley. During the journey down, the flare gun accidentally went off, causing severe burns on one leg. Still, he can walk, and he found his way into a small barn. After a little while some Norwegians contacted him and made sure he got to hospital. This pilot was Heinz Orlowski. He spent the rest of the war in hospital and reconvalence at Herdla, and did not see further combat. In 1994 he and his newly-restored "Weisse 1" was actually reunited in Texas, survivors of a fierce battle some 49 years before.
http://www.white1foundation.org/history_blackfriday.htm
http://www.white1foundation.org/history_orlowski.htm
I think the polite thing is too start another thread if you feel there is anything further to discuss on this issue.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Paseolati:
The Curtiss hawk as well as the P40 were good on the rolling.
They however had very good leverage and the space for it, as well as not too high top speeds.
Same goes to some early WW2 fighters.
Do you have some figures or graphs for the others you mentioned?
THX in advance :)
-
Originally posted by MiloMorai
Kev, the numbers should begin EN. These were the first 2 Mk XIIs off the production line.
EN221 and EN222 were both at Boscombe Down Nov 6 1942 for intensive flying trials EN221 came off the production line Oct 13 1942.
Ahhh, thanks.
So the question now becomes why have they got Griffon II's?Production Spit 12's had Griffon III or IV.
Dan-
What does your book(s) say about Spit BS139?
-
Originally posted by Angus
Paseolati:
The Curtiss hawk as well as the P40 were good on the rolling.
They however had very good leverage and the space for it, as well as not too high top speeds.
Same goes to some early WW2 fighters.
Do you have some figures or graphs for the others you mentioned?
THX in advance :)
Not graphs as such. My commets were based on the analysis of handling characteristics of those aircraft in Jukka Raunio´s Lentäjän Näkökulma vol. 2 (Pilot´s View vol. 2). Raunio´s text is based on various reports (incl. some British reports) and pilot manuals.
-
The British Vought F4U-1B Corsair with clipped wings (8 ins) seem to be improving on roll rate what British Navy pilots said, but Clipped wings Corsair actually for stored aboard British aircraft carriers which had lower hangar ceilings.
Rafe
-
Hey Paseolati, thx for the reply.
Analysis or just anything would be a nice post.
As for the Spitfire, already in 1939 it was an aircraft crabbing into unexplored speeds. Same goes to the LW, and probably the USA.
Aircraft were being made for combat service, that could so easily reach very high speeds, - like 300-400 mph.
As a sidenote, - was it the Hurricane that was the first squadron strength aircraft in military service to be able to sustain 300 mph at some given alt, - or the 109D?....or the P36????
Anyway, all sides had problems wth roll rates at some speeds. And there is a catch. At VERY low speeds, - near stall, - things like wing loading and span loading will affect it. Eventually a wing will stall at a given speed. Fly a tad above it's stall, - you will stall by banking. You will roll and fall without entering a turn, for controls are lost.
Stalls can be done at high speeds as well, so this is never too simple. Same goes with quick pulls under G.
The 190 was famous for being able to enter maneuvers very quickly. It basically went "ROOFFF" and it had 180 degrees on you. Nice design basically.
The Spitfire did not have that rolling quality. Well, the ultimate ones perhaps. But in 1941-1942 the only thing the designers could do was clipping it. They did it for a purpose, it did more or less not match the rolls of the 190, but helped closing the gap.
That was the effect of clipping.
A little more speed, quite better roll, less high alt performance, worse turn rate.
A tradeoff, - as always.
-
Angus, mail me at paso.leati@pp.inet.fi
-
Originally posted by Kev367th
Ahhh, thanks.
So the question now becomes why have they got Griffon II's?Production Spit 12's had Griffon III or IV.
Dan-
What does your book(s) say about Spit BS139?
Looks like it was the 45th production Spitfire FIX and was used extensively for testing at Boscombe Down. In August 42, 145 hours of test flying were done with BS139. Original engine failed after 117 hours. 258 landings made. 9 tire changes.
later used for fuel tank testing, exhaust stack testing, spinning trials and dive recovery trials.
As for EN221 and 222, they had Griffon IIIs to start, if their individial record cards are to be believed. I'm guessing it was a mistake in the report as DP845 had the Griffon IIB. I have copies of all the record cards for the Spit XII and 221 and 222 both specify the Griffon III installed. Other later MB serialed aircraft designate the Griffon IV.
Dan/CorkyJr
-
You know, I certainly wouldn't want Kurfürst to be removed from this board. But, I would like him to actually participate in honest discourse instead of whatever the hell it is he is doing.
-
AH2 doesnt have a clipped wing Spitfire anyways...
In any case clipping the wing provided a small roll rate increase at lower alts and it would have had a small effect on turn performance, as it would with any fighter.
Vs, LF Vs, LF IXs, LF XVIs, VIIIs, XIIs and XIVs all used the clipped wing at certain times of the war: in the ETO, SE Asia and the Med, mainly when they were deployed in the low level role. There was a benefit to doing it otherwise they would not have bothered?
...Btw the conversion could be done or undone at the squadron level, clipped wing Spitfires could be fitted with "regular" wingtips and vice-versa. Same with the "extended" tips of the VII, they could also be fitted with regular wingtips, as they often were in 1944-45, as the high alt missions were less needed.
-
Small roll rate increase?
Quite a bit of a roll rate increase, yes?
Anyway, if the clipped ones were incorporated in AHII, it would be cool if it was a Hangar option ;)
-
Improved roll rate of some quantity sure...suffice to say, it was of enough of a benefit to warrant the usage. Thats plain from reading any of the accounts of the type.
It also had better low level acceleration, and diving ability, and a 5 mph speed increase (in the Mk V series) from what my source has.
As for the conclusions of the RAF I beleive they decided that "clipping" the Spits wings were not reccomended *as standard*, in other words, to be used "as needed", which seems to be exactly what they did.
Also, the Royal Navy used the clipped wings on the Seafire LIIC and the Seafire LIII series from 44-45, in some squadrons, so they also saw a benefit. They did not need to follow the RAFs doctrines if they didnt want to.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
You know, I certainly wouldn't want Kurfürst to be removed from this board. But, I would like him to actually participate in honest discourse instead of whatever the hell it is he is doing.
Indeed.
Wait, I DO want him removed from this board. He is so single minded in his 'Deutschland, Deutschland ueber alles' that it's frightening. I live 30km from the German border and my country was overrun in 4 days in 1940 you know. Nothing against Germans, I work for a German company in fact, but 'meeting' a guy with such an obsessive need to drive the point home that Germany and Germans are better at everything makes me nervous
People discussed the mental illness of that 500hr supposed P-51 pilot here, what's his name again, but has anyone ever questioned Kurfürst's mental health? But maybe he is just trolling and gets off on us getting so worked up about him.
He seems to have a lot of data though, no matter to what he chooses to compare it with. I'm not in a position to deny his statements nor to confirm them. I just like the discussions here, until he comes along in a thread. He gives a whole new meaning to the word 'biased'. I forward the term 'Isegrimmed'.
But whatever the hell he is doing? Trying to convince us all that Germany won the war after all I guess... all the history is just propaganda. I've never see him come up with a reason why Germany finally lost despite being so much better at everything, Maybe he can argue that it took the whole free world to get the Third Reich to its knees or something :rolleyes:
I remember a thread where he claimed that the educational system of Germany was so much better than anywhere else and that a lot of the people who worked on the A-bomb for the USA had in fact been trained at German universities :rolleyes: Might be some truth in that but I guess many of them were Jewish refugees.
-
"Small roll rate increase?
Quite a bit of a roll rate increase, yes?"
I'm pretty sure even without those test figures that Spitfire would certainly gain much more by having clipped wings than what it loses in wing area. The normal wing tip takes the effective vortex quite far from the aileron as eg. in 190 the aileron makes part of the wing tip thus making it very effective.
Also in 190 the AoA of the wing tip with its washout is probably good for roll rate too as there is not much turbulent flow disturbing the aileron effect.
Those NACA reports quite clearly state that rigidness of wing and ailerons are also very important in having decent roll rate. I find it hard to believe that to be a characteristic in Spit wing. So it would never be as good as 190 but it would get close. I think that in that NACA868 diagram the erduciton in effectiveness is probabaly caused more by wing warpage than loss of leverage on control column.
IIRC the FW aileron has more movement down than up so that the aileron is always in more effective flow as it is below the wing.
Some aircraft have more up deflection of aileron which I think is not a very good idea especially if the wing profile and AoA make the top flow of the wing turbulent as then the aileron loses its effectiveness quite rapidly.
About 190 and P51 stall behavior: The P51 laminar flow profile is more effective in reducing drag than that of 190. However, in high AoA the pressure tends to shift forward of the wing and it has been stated that the pressure peak moves forward more readily in laminar flow design that in eg. NACA 2315(-09) series, for example, meaning that the laminar design reaches it s max AoA more quicker and thus stalls earlier (and probably without much warning...). So a tight turning contest is not a good idea in actual P51 but its wing area and low drag do give it certain advantages, of course.
-C+
PS. "Maybe he can argue that it took the whole free world to get the Third Reich to its knees or something "
Hmm, how much did it take actually?
PPS. "I just like the discussions here, until he comes along in a thread. He gives a whole new meaning to the word 'biased'. I forward the term 'Isegrimmed'.
I could say that for a lot of people in this board. Maybe he is more visible to you because he does not share your common view of history etc.?
It is ridiculous to notice that many people participate threads only to attack him and not participating in actual topic.
tsk tsk (pot to kettle stuff...)
-
Results of flight trials with two MkXIIs with and without clipping the wings.
EN 221 was noted as having an inferior pair of ailerons, EN 222 having a good set. The minimal gain is noticable on the aircraft that had good ailerons to start with.
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/715_1119443335_dsir23125625.jpg)
As for those people who suffer from reading comprehension and grammar defects (see Guppy`s 'rightings' :lol), have deep htred against Germans and born without a thinking organ (Milo and hogenbor), I suggest to read Squire`s or Kev`s post.
It pretty much summerizes the things.
And dear guppy, if you still instist to hold to your claims that every and all XVIs and FrXIV were delivered with clipped wings, I suggest :
a, realize clipped wings could be reverted to normal or extended wings in all combination rather simply
b, realize that you need to provide source for claims that look like the reaction of six-year old child who`s facing imminent heart attack when someone said his favourite toy is not the 'uncompromised and best in everything', which is the watermark of your posts.
Cheers and happy dismissing action to just another primary souce I just posted. :aok
-
Also in 190 the AoA of the wing tip with its washout is probably good for roll rate too as there is not much turbulent flow disturbing the aileron effect.
Hey Charge!
Just to clarify on this point some, the FW-190 had no washout at the tip as I am sure you know. This was done not only to increase aileron effectiveness but also to gain the benefits of elliptical distribution at its most important point for induced drag production.
It had 2 degrees of washout from span .81.5 to the root which almost splits the aileron in half.
It is interesting to note that unlike my previous assumption, the Clipped Wing Spitfire gains efficiency at the wingtip over its normal "elliptical" wingtip variant.
That is according to Woods formula from his 1966 work on improving predictions of Oswald's efficiency factor in correlation to flight test's.
Makes sense as modern research shows that elliptical distribution does not require elliptical physical shape to be just as efficient.
Surprisingly, data indicates that a square-tipped rectangular wing is very nearly as efficient as the elliptic wing, so that the gains in reduced induced drag may be insignificant. This result may be traced to the fact that, for a real wing, the lift distribution falls off to zero at the wing tips and approximates an elliptical distribution.
The wing-tip shape, being at the point where the tip vortices are produced, appears to be of more importance in minimizing tip vortex formation and thus minimizing induced drag. Taper and twist are perhaps of greater importance in dealing with the problem of stalling.
http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay/Theories_of_Flight/Reducing_Induced_Drag/TH16.htm
http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay/Theories_of_Flight/Reducing_Induced_Drag/TH16G6.htm
Now granted the initial calculations my have some error due to not having exact data on speed for a clipped wing spitfire. However the results were surprising and a speed change of up to 25 mph has no effect.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
PS. "Maybe he can argue that it took the whole free world to get the Third Reich to its knees or something "
Hmm, how much did it take actually?
PPS. "I just like the discussions here, until he comes along in a thread. He gives a whole new meaning to the word 'biased'. I forward the term 'Isegrimmed'.
I could say that for a lot of people in this board. Maybe he is more visible to you because he does not share your common view of history etc.?
It is ridiculous to notice that many people participate threads only to attack him and not participating in actual topic.
tsk tsk (pot to kettle stuff...) [/B]
That's what I meant, it TOOK the whole free world (if you consider the USSR under Stalin 'free')
Biased some people may be, but there is a difference between biased and frothing at the mouth. It may be a fine line, but there is one. Even the most biased people might find something of value in other people's opinions, in a healthy discussion that is.
But you are right, I have contributed nothing to this thread :rolleyes: I simply do not have the knowledge. But come on, the only thing this guy lives for is to prove the superiority of Germany in general and the 109 in particular!
I'll let you in on a secret, the 109 IS my favourite WWII fighter, because it is sleek, menacing, has a hugely interesting career spanning 30 odds years, and a bewildering amount of variants. Reading about it here is great. But so is reading about the Spit or P-51. Comparing their strengths and weaknesses too. Coming across someone who is so biased as Kurfurst is not.
-
Originally posted by Kurfürst
Results of flight trials with two MkXIIs with and without clipping the wings.
EN 221 was noted as having an inferior pair of ailerons, EN 222 having a good set. The minimal gain is noticable on the aircraft that had good ailerons to start with.
As for those people who suffer from reading comprehension and grammar defects (see Guppy`s 'rightings' :lol), have deep htred against Germans and born without a thinking organ (Milo and hogenbor), I suggest to read Squire`s or Kev`s post.
It pretty much summerizes the things.
And dear guppy, if you still instist to hold to your claims that every and all XVIs and FrXIV were delivered with clipped wings, I suggest :
a, realize clipped wings could be reverted to normal or extended wings in all combination rather simply
b, realize that you need to provide source for claims that look like the reaction of six-year old child who`s facing imminent heart attack when someone said his favourite toy is not the 'uncompromised and best in everything', which is the watermark of your posts.
Cheers and happy dismissing action to just another primary souce I just posted. :aok
Still haven't answered the question.
You are claiming that the RAF decided that clipping the wings on the Spit wasn't worth it as the gain was minimal.
This based on a 1943 report.
Why did they continue to do it then? Why were they delivering Spits with clipped wings in 1945 and beyond?
I didn't say they never put regular wing tips on a clipped wing Spit in the field.
You jumped on me about numbers so I used some examples of those that were delivered with clipped wings, the XVIs and FRXIVs in 44-45 as you were suggesting my use of "thousands' was not accurate.
Still doesn't matter.
Tell me why the RAF continued to do it ?
And speaking of dismissing. No comment on the AFDU report that I mentioned? Seems like they liked the performance of the XII with clipped wings. And of course those pilots I've talked to sure didn't mind it.
Dan/CorkyJr
-
It occurs to me to ask Izzy one more question.
Why do you care about whether the Spit had clipped wings or not?
The only discussion around it here has been in talking about what some of us RAF fans would like to see someday in a future AH Spitfire line up.
Most seem to agree that a Spit LF IX would be more representative of the majority of the Spit IXs that saw service vs the Spit FIX that AH has now.
In talking about what would be nice as a line up, suggesting a Spit LFVIII as a 43-44 bird and an LFIXe/XVIe for 44-45 with the clipped wing they were using for low level work was another suggestion. So we get both a decent regular span wing and one clipped. More options for skinning, scenarios etc.
Are you fearful that HT and company will produce some super Spit based on that discussion? You don't even play the game do you?
You've consistantly found reasons to be critical of the Spitfire design, performance etc.
That's cool. You don't have to like it. But what's the point?
All this came about cause Kev has been looking for info to hopefully help convince HT and company to do a better representative RAF line up of Spits.
Again why do you care?
Dan/CorkyJr
-
pls check the clipped wing spit movie.
see post : "spitfans"
for u gupppy u love it
;)
-
Originally posted by Kurfürst As for those people who suffer from reading comprehension and grammar defects (see Guppy`s 'rightings' :lol), have deep htred against Germans and born without a thinking organ (Milo and hogenbor), I suggest to read Squire`s or Kev`s post.
A typical Barbi post.:( It is so sad your bigotry and bias against the Brits clouds your thought process.
I am not going to cry to the mods as you can't help yourself. I just sluff it off as a typical reaction when you can't face your own shortcomings.
Now take a good look at yourself, for you are even worse than those you accuse of being Spitdweebs when it comes to your beloved 109. Need I have to mention the 'penny pocket' 109s using 1.98ata?
Oh yes, if I have such a deep hated for Germans, why is the Fw190/Ta152 my favourite a/c, besides the F4U and Tempest?
...........
Once the Allies were on the continent, most missions by the Spit were low level to low medium level. Now ask yourself which Spit would be more suited, the full span Spit or the clipped wing Spit?
Dan, it is really a lost cause. All we can try to do is put a check on Barbi's spreading of falsehoods and manipulations. Remember the thread on the Spit's bombload and weak landing gear. He will pick and choose what ever data suits his anti Spitfire/anti British agenda, disregarding all else that does not.
-
Interesting graphs for the Griffon powered Mk XII.
At 350 mph (a good fast combat speed):
The graph shows 2.5 seconds to roll clockwise 30 degrees for the standard wing and 1.8 seconds for the clipped wing.
Or, to roll 180 degrees, 7.5 seconds for a standard wing and 5.4 seconds for a clipped wing (EN 222).
Its roll rate is increased by 1.33 X with clipped wings. 1/3 faster in a clockwise roll.
The major clipped wing versions used in WW2 were the Spitfire L.F. V (1943-44) and Spitfire L.F. IXE, L.F. VIII and Spitfire L.F. XVI (1944-45). I have seen no data on any of these.
It makes as much sense to show a graph on the XII and use it as a blanket statement about "clipped wing Spitfires" as it would for me to show a graph on a Spit XII with standard wing tips (as above) and use that as a blanket statement for the roll rate of all Spits from the MkI of 1940 to the Mk21 of 1945.
You want to talk about the Spit XII in particular, its a good peice of data.
-
Thought all XII's were clipped as standard?
-
Originally posted by Kev367th
Thought all XII's were clipped as standard?
All the production Spit XIIs delivered to either 41 or 91 Squadrons had clipped wings.
EN221 and EN222 were used for some testing early on before the XII went operational and at that time they tested them with and without clipped wings.
DP845 the prototype Spit XII had standard wings to start as well. They were clipped later on.
But just to be clear, the combat used Spit XIIs were all clipped wing birds, and were produced and delivered as such.
Image is of EN221 with full span wings. They were chaged to clipped before she joined 41 Squadron.
Also info from my notes on EN221
* First flight 10/13/42 F/L Clive Gosling
* First of initial seven aircraft to have oil tank behind the pilot. This was found unsuitable for operations and the position was changed in production starting with EN228. Other seven A/C modifed to same standards.
* Damaged 6/21/44 when it collided with EN224 while landing while being flown by F/S Robertson
* Final flight from Tangmere to Colerne(39 MU) on 10/29/44 flown by ATA pilot Peter Garrod. He described the flight as "Fast but Ropey"
Dan/CorkyJr
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/810_1119584711_en221a.gif)
-
All I know is that in 1945 after the war ended, the Czechoslovak fighter squadrons (310, 312, 313) flew home with their Spitfire LF Mk.IXEs. All these planes had clipped wings.
They flew these until the end of war, and the Czech government bought for them from the British. They also flew a lot of clipped LF Mk.Vs for a long time during the war.
Some were later sent to Israel and flew against the arabs.
Kind of strange considering the RAF found out in 1942 that it pretty much hurt to clip the Spitfire wings :D But whatever suits you.
-
Originally posted by Czech
Some were later sent to Israel and flew against the arabs.
Kind of strange considering the RAF found out in 1942 that it pretty much hurt to clip the Spitfire wings :D But whatever suits you.
What's even worse, the Israeli's also had Avias with Jumo engines... :D
-
There were no Spitfire Vs flying front-line in either ADGB (Fighter Command) or 2nd Tac in 1944.
There were a small # of squadrons equipped with Spit L.F. Vbs which are not the same thing. Merlin 50M engines, clipped wings and +18 lbs boost and they did 338 mph at 2000 ft. and 350mph at 6000 ft. which was max throttle alt.
The following units used them over Normandy in June 1944 with ADGB 11 Group: 234, 345, 350 and 501 Sqns.
*************************************************
Spitfire Vb from spring 1941
Spitfire Vc from fall 1941
Spitfire L.F. Vb from spring 1943
All with clipped or standard wings. "Spitfire V" is not generic, any more than "Bf 109G" is. Their service in NW Europe, Med, Malta, Australia and SE Asia were at different times with different varients.
-
Originally posted by Squire
There were no Spitfire Vs flying front-line in either ADGB (Fighter Command) or 2nd Tac in 1944.
There were a small # of squadrons equipped with Spit L.F. Vbs which are not the same thing. Merlin 50M engines, clipped wings and +18 lbs boost and they did 338 mph at 2000 ft. and 350mph at 6000 ft. which was max throttle alt.
The following units used them over Normandy in June 1944 with ADGB 11 Group: 234, 345, 350 and 501 Sqns.
*************************************************
Spitfire Vb from spring 1941
Spitfire Vc from fall 1941
Spitfire L.F. Vb from spring 1943
All with clipped or standard wings. "Spitfire V" is not generic, any more than "Bf 109G" is. Their service in NW Europe, Med, Malta, Australia and SE Asia were at different times with different varients.
Spitfire historian Peter Arnold posted some photos he got from a 501 pilot who was flying Spit Vs on D-Day. Here's one of them. Note the full span wing, multiple ejector exhausts, external windscreen and B wing.
An interesting mix in an LF V
Dan/CorkyJr
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/169_1120112041_5-dday02-001.jpg)