Aces High Bulletin Board

Help and Support Forums => Help and Training => Topic started by: caldera on October 01, 2012, 07:16:47 PM

Title: Spitfire I question
Post by: caldera on October 01, 2012, 07:16:47 PM
How do you get out of an inverted flat spin?  Besides crashing, I mean.

Had this happen with plenty of altitude but could not get it to turn over. 

In fact, it wasn't even spinning really.  More like a total SNAFU.
Title: Re: Spitfire I question
Post by: Ack-Ack on October 01, 2012, 07:41:57 PM
In most planes the basic spin recovery method will work.

1.   Cut the throttle.
2.   Take your hand off the stick.
3.   Kick full opposite rudder until the spin stops.
4.   Neutralize rudder and pull out of dive.

However, there are some planes in which the above method doesn't work well for inverted spin recovery.  In addition to Steps 1 and 2, a positive lowering of the nose to affect a recovery.

Next time you find yourself in that position in a Spitfire I, try the additional step of positive lowering of the nose.

ack-ack
Title: Re: Spitfire I question
Post by: morfiend on October 01, 2012, 08:05:16 PM
 The spit1 has a nasty flat spin,I know what you mean when you say it wasnt spinning,seems to just fall inverted.

  One thing I've noticed is if you use combat trim it makes the situation much worse,CT will dial in full up elevator trim and this reduces the effectiveness of the elevator. 

  You can try trimming the elevator to full down to help get the nose pointed down and as a last resort try dropping gear,this can help getting the nose to point down also.
 
  Best to practice recoveries,try it with both CT on and off and see for yourself if you find a difference.


    :salute
Title: Re: Spitfire I question
Post by: ink on October 01, 2012, 10:21:49 PM
I saw it happen.... :D


the KI has a bad falling backward stall that can be hard to get out of....except all you gotta do is kill engine.....not sure if that would work in the Spit1 :headscratch:
Title: Re: Spitfire I question
Post by: caldera on October 01, 2012, 10:25:08 PM
It went inverted then stalled.  The plane spun a little bit but then just kind of hung there.  The engine conks out quickly when inverted, which is the big problem.  I did try hamfisting it every which way but didn't think of the landing gear.  I have elevator trim mapped to my stick and will give that a try next time.  Thanks guys.  :salute


PS - If you are upside down and trim elevator full down, won't that force the nose up?


I saw it happen.... :D


the KI has a bad falling backward stall that can be hard to get out of....except all you gotta do is kill engine.....not sure if that would work in the Spit1 :headscratch:


The engine shut off all by itself.  :( 
Title: Re: Spitfire I question
Post by: Oldman731 on October 01, 2012, 10:27:44 PM
I have tried for years to figure a repeatable way to recover from the dreaded Spit I spin. I have not found one yet. Focus on avoiding it. Usually it gets you at the top of a loop when you let your airspeed fall below stall. Just...don't let that happen!

- oldman
Title: Re: Spitfire I question
Post by: ink on October 01, 2012, 10:34:33 PM
It went inverted then stalled.  The plane spun a little bit but then just kind of hung there.  The engine conks out quickly when inverted, which is the big problem.  I did try hamfisting it every which way but didn't think of the landing gear.  I have elevator trim mapped to my stick and will give that a try next time.  Thanks guys.  :salute


PS - If you are upside down and trim elevator full down, won't that force the nose up?


The engine shut off all by itself.  :( 

durrrr..forgot about the inverted engine shut off in the -1 :o
Title: Re: Spitfire I question
Post by: caldera on October 01, 2012, 10:37:45 PM
I have tried for years to figure a repeatable way to recover from the dreaded Spit I spin. I have not found one yet. Focus on avoiding it. Usually it gets you at the top of a loop when you let your airspeed fall below stall. Just...don't let that happen!

- oldman

Now you tell me.  :lol
That was pretty much the way it happened.  Think I'll just stay on the deck from now on.  Anyone that actually gets cornered by the Spit I will just dive out anyway.


durrrr..forgot about the inverted engine shut off in the -1 :o

Yeah, it's a special feature for masochists.  :D
Title: Re: Spitfire I question
Post by: BaldEagl on October 01, 2012, 11:05:33 PM
The Spit V will do the same thing although it's more difficult to get into.  I think I've also had it happen to me in the IX.  Once in the dreaded inverted stall there's no way out.
Title: Re: Spitfire I question
Post by: morfiend on October 02, 2012, 12:48:07 AM



PS - If you are upside down and trim elevator full down, won't that force the nose up?


The engine shut off all by itself.  :( 


   Yes as a rule I think you're correct,but you usually apply forward stick and opposite rudder to get out of a flat spin. It was just something I noticed that CT does,maybe just dialing a neutral trim would be the best.

   I have found that lowering the gear often saves the day,provided you have enough alt to work with. Widewing showed me that trick years ago.



    :salute
Title: Re: Spitfire I question
Post by: Bruv119 on October 02, 2012, 07:10:18 AM
I've gotten out of it a few times but had several thousand feet excess to play with,

I don't think there is an exact answer that far from the usual methods of stall recovery.   You have to try and get the nose down, rudder and push against the spin. 
Title: Re: Spitfire I question
Post by: caldera on October 03, 2012, 05:15:47 AM
Got into a tail down stall here at @ 1:45 and can't figure out why:

http://www.mediafire.com/?xal67isdwko8hoz

Had plenty of airspeed and it just got away from me.  The gear trick didn't work here (probably operator error) but I did end up flipping upside down.  :D
Title: Re: Spitfire I question
Post by: Traveler on October 10, 2012, 08:42:54 AM
There are a few aircraft within AH that appear to present differently when inverted and stalled.
An interesting exercise is to take a spit I, climb to 5 K and do a straight forward simple power off stall, I say power off stall,  to avoid large nose up angles and torque issues.  Do a simple wings level power off stall and at the moment of stall let go of your controls,  you will notice  that the nose of the aircraft drops  down, why is that?  Well, it’s because the nose is revolving around the center of gravity, as it should.   Now do the same thing, except Roll the aircraft inverted noise high and reduce power,  at stall, hands off the controls and you will notice at the moment of stall there appears to be no rotation around the center of gravity.  Why is that?  What’s changed?   
Title: Re: Spitfire I question
Post by: Babalonian on October 10, 2012, 01:55:33 PM
There are a few aircraft within AH that appear to present differently when inverted and stalled.
An interesting exercise is to take a spit I, climb to 5 K and do a straight forward simple power off stall, I say power off stall,  to avoid large nose up angles and torque issues.  Do a simple wings level power off stall and at the moment of stall let go of your controls,  you will notice  that the nose of the aircraft drops  down, why is that?  Well, it’s because the nose is revolving around the center of gravity, as it should.   Now do the same thing, except Roll the aircraft inverted noise high and reduce power,  at stall, hands off the controls and you will notice at the moment of stall there appears to be no rotation around the center of gravity.  Why is that?  What’s changed?   


Underwing to overwing maybe add something to it?  Also take note what tanks are full or empty at the time with your inverted spit stalls.
Title: Re: Spitfire I question
Post by: Traveler on October 10, 2012, 03:04:08 PM
Underwing to overwing maybe add something to it?  Also take note what tanks are full or empty at the time with your inverted spit stalls.

Lamenit airflow is lamenit airflow, and tans full or empty will change gross weight but most aircraft remain within the CG limits .  No it always struck me as if the CG had no effect.  It does when upright, but not inverted.
Title: Re: Spitfire I question
Post by: Hazard69 on October 11, 2012, 09:57:21 AM
I would say the biggest diference in a Spit-1 when inverted would be the engine dieing out and eliminating all propwash.

Then again maybe its the aerofoil shape issue? The usual nose down pitch moment is to a degree a byproduct of the lift being developed over the wing. Hence aircraft arent designed around the CG, but around something called the aerodynamic center (about which this moment remains contant at all angles of attack).

If its not a symmetrical aerofoil, then when inverted the pitch moment generated by the aerofoil would differ. Im just not sure if AH actually emulates aerodynamics at such a level tbh tho.
Title: Re: Spitfire I question
Post by: Traveler on October 11, 2012, 12:01:44 PM
I would say the biggest diference in a Spit-1 when inverted would be the engine dieing out and eliminating all propwash.

Then again maybe its the aerofoil shape issue? The usual nose down pitch moment is to a degree a byproduct of the lift being developed over the wing. Hence aircraft arent designed around the CG, but around something called the aerodynamic center (about which this moment remains contant at all angles of attack).

If its not a symmetrical aerofoil, then when inverted the pitch moment generated by the aerofoil would differ. Im just not sure if AH actually emulates aerodynamics at such a level tbh tho.

I have to disagree with you “The usual nose down pitch moment is to a degree a byproduct of the lift being developed over the wing. “  this is just not true.  At the moment of a power off stall, the Gravity and  to some degree drag are the dominant forces acting on the airframe.  Remember lift Vs. Gravity/weight and thrust Vs. drag.    The downward force acting on the tail are greatly reduced so the tail moves up while the nose moves down, the weighted mass(the airframe), moves around the center of gravity.   If inverted , as the AOA reaches the point of stall the same laws should apply.  The downward forces on the tail are reduced , the wing no long can offset Gravity /Weight , the mass should rotate around the center of gravity, the tail moving up and the nose moving down.   It happens to the Spit I except when inverted.
Title: Re: Spitfire I question
Post by: RicOShay on October 12, 2012, 06:35:29 PM
Now you tell me.  :lol
That was pretty much the way it happened.  Think I'll just stay on the deck from now on.  Anyone that actually gets cornered by the Spit I will just dive out anyway.


Yeah, it's a special feature for masochists.  :D

Actually Spitfire 1 pilots got around this by rolling inverted before lowering the nose. Instead of pulling negative G's your now pulling positive G's and the gas stays in the carbruetor. Once inverted simply pull the stick back. How the Spit 1 ever got into service with this carb fault is beyond me as the problem must have become apparent in flight testing. Fuel injection was available as it was used on all the Me109 models.
Title: Re: Spitfire I question
Post by: RicOShay on October 12, 2012, 06:42:58 PM
Actually Spitfire 1 pilots got around this by rolling inverted before lowering the nose. Instead of pulling negative G's your now pulling positive G's and the gas stays in the carbruetor. How the Spit 1 ever got into service with this carb fault is beyond me as fuel injection was available. Once inverted just remember to pull back on the stick to get the nose in a dive.
Title: Re: Spitfire I question
Post by: Ack-Ack on October 12, 2012, 07:58:46 PM
Actually Spitfire 1 pilots got around this by rolling inverted before lowering the nose. Instead of pulling negative G's your now pulling positive G's and the gas stays in the carbruetor. Once inverted simply pull the stick back. How the Spit 1 ever got into service with this carb fault is beyond me as the problem must have become apparent in flight testing. Fuel injection was available as it was used on all the Me109 models.

The use of a carburators was calculated to give a higher specific power output due to the lower temperature, hence greater density, of the fuel/air mixture compared to injected systems.

ack-ack
Title: Re: Spitfire I question
Post by: pervert on October 12, 2012, 10:55:15 PM
Actually Spitfire 1 pilots got around this by rolling inverted before lowering the nose. Instead of pulling negative G's your now pulling positive G's and the gas stays in the carbruetor. Once inverted simply pull the stick back. How the Spit 1 ever got into service with this carb fault is beyond me as the problem must have become apparent in flight testing. Fuel injection was available as it was used on all the Me109 models.

Fuel injection systems were mainly used on diesel engines and were quite primitive back then, I'd say as akak pointed out carbs probably yielded more power, even with cars it has only been in the last 20 years or so with the advent of more advanced ECU based engine managment systems in cars that these

(http://www.kz1300.com/techarticles/weber-45-dcoe-carburetor7.jpg)

Have been surpassed by these in terms of performance

(http://www.borla.com/products/induction/ThrottleBody/ThrottleBody.imgs/2000series-Z432.jpg)