The effect of 'clipping' Spitfire wings

[Angus]

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.......

[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:



Here are British interviews with RAF pilots who flew both clipped and normal winged Spits



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.

[Toad]

Why do YOU think they clipped the wings? To make it roll slower?

[gripen]

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

[Kurfürst]

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.

[Nashwan]

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:


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:


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)

[Kurfürst]

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.

[Nashwan]

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.

[Kev367th]

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.

[Seeker]

Originally posted by Kurfürst




He was a liar, like rest of the British pilots,

Why isn't this **** banned yet??

Pyro??

[Kurfürst]

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. 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.

[Kurfürst]

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.

[Karnak]

This is an interesting document Kurfurst, thanks for posting it:


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?

[Kurfürst]

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.

[Toad]

What an insulting little troll.

I see your point Nashwan.