Spitfire I question

[Hazard69]

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.

[Traveler]

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.

[RicOShay]

Now you tell me.  
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.  

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.

[RicOShay]

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.

[Ack-Ack]

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

[pervert]

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



Have been surpassed by these in terms of performance