PDA

View Full Version : www.spitfireperformance.com combat report, wings did not come off?



Sergio_101
07-29-2006, 01:01 PM
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/mustang/combat-repor...-hinchey-14nov44.jpg

A must read.
Why did the wings stay on and the engine did NOT burn up?

Sergio

Sergio_101
07-29-2006, 01:01 PM
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/mustang/combat-repor...-hinchey-14nov44.jpg

A must read.
Why did the wings stay on and the engine did NOT burn up?

Sergio

Viper2005_
07-29-2006, 02:23 PM
Dead link.

*edit* Let's see if it truncates mine too...

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/mustang/combat-repor...-hinchey-14nov44.jpg (http://www.spitfireperformance.com/mustang/combat-reports/353-hinchey-14nov44.jpg)

Seems to work at my end. Anyway, in answer to your questions,

i) You need to look up the definition of IAS for a start. IAS does not include a compressibility correction. As such, there is a tendency to over read at high speed. This is one of the many reasons for switching to Mach number for speed measurement when flying fast. Were you to sit down and do the sums, you'd probably find that you could knock a good 50 mph off his "600".

AFAIK Oleg doesn't include these errors, and so you can't directly compare the 600 mph IAS from the combat report with in-game figures.

In addition, the fact that he maintained speed suggests that he didn't pull an awful lot of "g".

Remember that VNE is there to protect pilots and aeroplanes. It is defined by test pilots, who usually fly quite a bit faster as part of the test programme. However, at VNE you may only safely apply 1/3 control deflection, and then only in one direction at once, and in still air.

Fly faster and you'll need to be even more gentle.

Most pilots tend to do this instinctively since when you approach VNE the wind noise is loud, the controls are stiff and the "g" forces high. The aeroplane will often groan and creak, and if you throw it about a bit you may see the wings bend a little more than usual...

Oleg doesn't provide many of these cues, though the aeroplane will shake if you fly too fast. As such, it is too easy to fly too fast with a false sense of security.

ii) Oleg's overheat model is rather "interesting". However, with the exception of the P-47 and Spitfire, which don't suffer in quite the same way, it at least appears to be even-handed in its destruction of aircraft performance.

WOLFMondo
07-30-2006, 03:31 AM
And how many pilot reports are there reporting there wings came off in a 550mph dive when they pulled up? None at a guess cause its fatal.

Sergio_101
07-31-2006, 11:41 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
And how many pilot reports are there reporting there wings came off in a 550mph dive when they pulled up? None at a guess cause its fatal. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Note many of those reports describe Bf-109s and Fw-190s
losing their wings, yet the P-51s survive.

Just Allied propaganda I'd guess.... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

Sergio

WOLFMondo
07-31-2006, 04:16 PM
Logic doesn't sit well with you does it sergio.

HuninMunin
07-31-2006, 04:22 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Sergio_101:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
And how many pilot reports are there reporting there wings came off in a 550mph dive when they pulled up? None at a guess cause its fatal. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Note many of those reports describe Bf-109s and Fw-190s
losing their wings, yet the P-51s survive.

Just Allied propaganda I'd guess.... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

Sergio </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It won the war. It can't suffer any kind of structural failure, be shure!

lrrp22
07-31-2006, 05:03 PM
The fact is that USAAF and RAF pilots regularly dove their Mustangs to extremely high speeds with confidence. These combat reports are further confirmation of that fact. The P-51's wing-shedding problem is greatly overstated, as is its 'glass jaw'.

LRRP

Crash_Moses
07-31-2006, 05:58 PM
From an interview with Dennis Young quoted in Impact! The Dive Bomber Pilots Speak by Peter C. Smith

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">When 324 Wing returned to Italy in October 1943, it was spared the fate of its two companions, disbandment, and was, instead, retrained for specialised ground-attack, and in particular, dive bombing missions. No 43 Squadron was part of this Wing and it is through the eyes of Flight Sergeant Dennis Young, a Spitfire pilot in that squadron, that we here examine the methods, techniques and typical combat round of that period. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I asked Dennis Young about the speed that built up in the final dive, and the inevitable blackout.

"I estimate we were getting up to 600 mph but of course it was off the clock. We had several cases in No 43 Squadron of buckling at the wing roots of the Mk VIII's after a dive bombing attack. Of course Spits were not built for this kind of work at all and had no special bracing. There was a big 'g' force at the end of the dive. One went into a full bank to port and dropped the nose. At 80 degrees the plane seemed more than vertical and one hung in the straps. One felt very heavy, you were forced down, you felt your face, eyes, and mouth, drawn down. You saw red, then grey, then flickered right out to nothing. Within a split-second you found yourself flying on untoward. After a long series of such missions the strain could build up."

There was, of course, no automatic pull-out in the Spitfires.

"I don't think they were necessary although I saw one or two chaps go straight in and never appear to attempt a pull out. Until you are down to 200 feet or so it is very hard to judge distance on the ground precisely at that kind of speed. But you had to force a Spitfire down into that steep a dive, it took an effort, and so they usually came up all right. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Xiolablu3
07-31-2006, 06:07 PM
http://home.st.net.au/~dunn/9aug45.htm (http://home.st.net.au/%7Edunn/9aug45.htm)

During a routine training exercise, "Speed" Opray took A68-501 on a battle climb to 35,000 feet over Magnetic Island and probably rolled it into a vertical dive and did not survive. The Aircraft fell in pieces into the sea between Magnetic Island and the mainland. Quite a few people witnessed his fatal flight. Very little wreckage of the aircraft was found.


http://yarchive.net/mil/p51.html

'In one instance in April, 1945, a P-51D got into a dogfight with
a Mitsubishi Raiden. During the violent maneuvering, the Mustang first
shed its tail control surfaces and then its wings were torn off. The
pilot, 2Lt. James Beattie, did not get out. The Raiden apparently suffered
no damage from the severe loads placed on it during the dogfight.'

Flight Lieutenant D.G. Southwell of 86 Squadron had a near miss in a Mustang eight days earlier on 1 August 1945. He took off in Mustang A68-567 and at 38,000 feet he put his Mustang into a right-hand steep turn to test the "compressibility thing" they had heard about. His steep dive was enough to provide sufficient stress to break into the compressed block of air rendering his aircraft totally out of control. His stick was sloppy and the aircraft did not respond when he moved it. This was due to the fact that there was no air rushing over the rudder, ailerons and elevators due to the "compressibility thing". His aircraft went into a flat spiral dive. When it got to 6,000 feet he decided it was time to bail out. He opened the canopy and was bending down to disengage his oxygen supply, when his arm bumped the control stick and he found the aircraft actually responded. He immediately resumed his seat and regained control of the aircraft and landed safely.

It sounds like Mustangs breaking up/losing wings/losing control at very fast speeds is not at all uncommon.

berg417448
07-31-2006, 06:35 PM
It sounds like Mustangs breaking up/losing wings/losing control at very fast speeds is not at all uncommon.[/QUOTE]

You can find similar comments about many other types of aircraft if you look. Pilots who push their aircraft to extremes are going to break them from time to time.

For example (and I'm not picking on the Me-109 here...just happen to have these available):

1. Major Arthur F. Jeffrey, 25 December 1944, 479th FG

"On the way down I observed the other Me 109 break to pieces after he had dived almost straight down for 10,000 feet. I had not fired on him, nor did I see any other Allied A/C attacking, so the E/A must have exceeded the stress limits in the dive."



2. While flying a Me-109F Wilhelm Balthasar lost his life when he was attacked by a Spitfire during a test flight. Making an evasive maneuver, his wings broke away and Balthasar was killed when his plane hit the ground. No bullet holes were found in the wreckage of his plane.



3. Gustav Sprick was killed when he performed a split-S maneuver. The right wing of his Bf 109 collapsed and he crashed.



4. USAF pilot W. Konantz chased after a Me-109G :

€œ€¦At 10,000 feet I initiated a 4 G pullout and the Me-109 started to pull out at about the same time. But before he had raised his nose more than thirty degrees, his right wing ripped off through the wheel well and he spun into the ground in a matter of seconds. He had no time to get out and was still aboard when the 109 impacted and exploded in a wooded area. Just before I started my pullout I glanced at the airspeed indicator and saw the needle on 600 miles per hour, ninety five per hour over the redline speed of 505.€

Viper2005_
07-31-2006, 07:58 PM
Any aeroplane will break up if you exceed its limits.

lrrp22
07-31-2006, 08:40 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
It sounds like Mustangs breaking up/losing wings/losing control at very fast speeds is not at all uncommon. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's quite an assumption based on a couple of accounts. Now go back to spitfireperformance.com and read combat report after combat report as well as the hundreds of combat accounts to be found in the various unit histories. You'll find that that the P-51's dive performance was a great asset that was used as a matter of course by its pilots. Like Viper_2005 said, all aircraft will break up if pushed beyond reasonable limits.

Also, read here:

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/mustang/mustangIV-divetest.html


If you look hard enough, all fighters had multiple instances of structural failure during operations. "Spitfire- the History" lists line after line of Spitfire structural failures but now one would claim that the Spit was structurally unsound.

Kocur_
08-01-2006, 12:15 AM
I would also guess, that some of those Bf-109s that broke up before P-51s pilots' eyes did that due to quality problems. Anything wrong with bolts (3 per wing) holding Bf-109s wings to the fuselage would result in lowering ability to hold overloading by combination of high speed and high gs.

IIJG69_Kartofe
08-01-2006, 02:25 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by berg417448:
4. USAF pilot W. Konantz chased after a Me-109G :

€œ€¦At 10,000 feet I initiated a 4 G pullout and the Me-109 started to pull out at about the same time. But before he had raised his nose more than thirty degrees, his right wing ripped off through the wheel well and he spun into the ground in a matter of seconds. He had no time to get out and was still aboard when the 109 impacted and exploded in a wooded area. Just before I started my pullout I glanced at the airspeed indicator and saw the needle on 600 miles per hour, ninety five per hour over the redline speed of 505.€ </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

600 Mph !!!

Any 109 G moddeled in the game loose bits before reaching this speed!

Nothing wrong here.

lrrp22
08-01-2006, 09:02 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by IIJG69_Kartofe:

600 Mph !!!

Any 109 G moddeled in the game loose bits before reaching this speed!

Nothing wrong here. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


So do the Mustangs.

LRRP

Brain32
08-01-2006, 10:03 AM
In game P51 can endure higher speeds than any 109 so...

faustnik
08-01-2006, 11:06 AM
I understand, per Oleg's instruction, that I need a different set of stick settings for the P-51, but, this isn't always practical. In fact, unless I have a specific squad night session where I know I will be in a P-51, I never switch. The reason is that limiting the inputs for high speed maneuver in the P-51 makes the P-38 and P-47 feel lousy through maneuvers, and I frequently switch to those planes too. Also, at lower speeds I feel like I get less out of the P-51.

Anyway, what I'm saying is that I understand the problem, I just wish a more functional solution could be reached, such as limiting the high speed elevator of the P-51 slightly and tweaking up the wing strength. Just wishful thinking...

Brain32
08-01-2006, 11:34 AM
Strong nose down trim pretty much solves the problem, I use 100 across the board but with P51,Tempest I also trim nose down, 9-12 clicks for P51, 6-11 clicks for Tempest.

faustnik
08-01-2006, 11:40 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Brain32:
Strong nose down trim pretty much solves the problem, I use 100 across the board but with P51,Tempest I also trim nose down, 9-12 clicks for P51, 6-11 clicks for Tempest. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I will try that Brain. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Slickun
08-01-2006, 11:59 AM
As chronicled in "America's 100,000" by Dean, a P-51 was taken up and put through a series of high speed dives.

Mach .83 (605 mph TAS) was reached, the plane still controllable, and pulled out.

The P-51, for discriminating WW2 a/c afficionados, was an outstanding plane in a dive, both in acceleration and top end. The low drag design delayed the onset of compression until very high speeds were reached.

The scenario of bomber attack, split S, screaming dive, then hair-on-fire high speed dogfight at low levels was repeated thousands of times over Europe.

Top speed, good dive, and high speed maneuverability were very important attributes over Europe, and the P-51 excelled at all three.

Viper2005_
08-01-2006, 12:19 PM
This is what a genuine 600 mph dive looks like:

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/sd2011.jpg

<span class="ev_code_red">Note that recovery from a 46º dive took over 30 seconds, during which time over 10,000 feet of height was lost!</span>

This only represented a slight excursion beyond MMO/VNE since the Spitfire was cleared to Mach 0.85...

(Also note the last column, which measures the total energy of the aircraft. There is a nett energy gain as the aircraft dives, all the way up to Mach 0.89. When recovery action is taken, the aircraft rapidly loses energy.

Although the aircraft used for this test was a Spitfire PR.XI, it's almost identical to the HF.IX in most leading particulars, and might serve as the basis for an investigation of Spitfire energy retention)

lrrp22
08-01-2006, 12:57 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Slickun:
As chronicled in "America's 100,000" by Dean, a P-51 was taken up and put through a series of high speed dives.

Mach .83 (605 mph TAS) was reached, the plane still controllable, and pulled out.

The P-51, for discriminating WW2 a/c afficionados, was an outstanding plane in a dive, both in acceleration and top end. The low drag design delayed the onset of compression until very high speeds were reached.

The scenario of bomber attack, split S, screaming dive, then hair-on-fire high speed dogfight at low levels was repeated thousands of times over Europe.

Top speed, good dive, and high speed maneuverability were very important attributes over Europe, and the P-51 excelled at all three. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Slickun,

Here's the original test:

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/mustang/p-51d-dive-27-feb-45.pdf

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/mustang/mustangIV-divetest.html

LRRP

Slickun
08-01-2006, 02:58 PM
Nice read, thanks. i hadn't seen that yet.

mach .85 reached, with damage.

mach .80 reached routinely, mach .83 as a max emergency safe speed.

Xiolablu3
08-01-2006, 03:42 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Brain32:
In game P51 can endure higher speeds than any 109 so... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That was the point I was trying to make with the quotes.

It DID happen, just like with any other plane.

Its trhe Russian flyers who really have casue for complaint in this are, not the US pilots.
Their planes break up at REALLY low speeds.

WOLFMondo
08-01-2006, 03:49 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by faustnik:
I understand, per Oleg's instruction, that I need a different set of stick settings for the P-51, but, this isn't always practical. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I tried very low deflection settings on the elevator for the P51 and they work very nicely, but also work for the FW190's and not that bad for the P47, Tempest and oddly enough the Spities also. Means turn fighting is almost out the window but it means you stay at high speed. I agree its a pain to alter. I hope in BoB you can have a customised stick set up for all aircraft, rather than 1 for all. Would make allot of sense to me to do that.

faustnik
08-01-2006, 04:04 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
I hope in BoB you can have a customised stick set up for all aircraft, rather than 1 for all. Would make allot of sense to me to do that. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

A setup tied to each plane would be great. If we only have a few planes in the initial BoB release, it shouldn't be that big a deal. I doub't my favorite setings for the Spitfire will be the same as my favorites for the 109.

Xiolablu3
08-01-2006, 04:59 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by faustnik:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
I hope in BoB you can have a customised stick set up for all aircraft, rather than 1 for all. Would make allot of sense to me to do that. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

A setup tied to each plane would be great. If we only have a few planes in the initial BoB release, it shouldn't be that big a deal. I doub't my favorite setings for the Spitfire will be the same as my favorites for the 109. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thats an absolutely fantastic idea.

I would love to be able to have my own FW190 settings and energy fightere settings which were different to turn fighter settings.

Not being able to reach full 100% authority is a real probelm in a turn fighter, but in an enerrgy fighter its not such a hindrance. In fact it may even allow you to keep faster.

I remember Dnajama saying that Eric Browns very gentle settings work great for the P47, and they dont allow you to reach anywhere near full 100% elevator authority.

triggerhappyfin
08-01-2006, 05:06 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
And how many pilot reports are there reporting there wings came off in a 550mph dive when they pulled up? None at a guess cause its fatal. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

True....The Spit had it´s shortcomings as all aircraft of the day. Reading "They gave me a Seafire" ISBN 0905 778 68 5 by Commander R "MIKE" Crosley C, RN, gives a quite other view of the Spitfire and the Seafire in special. In some appendixies in his book the author describes some very leathal(to the pilot) peculiriaties of the Seafire and the Spitfire.

He writes about the light stickforces to be as leathal as enjoyable. Too much on the stick and the pilot could leave his wings behind in a take up. About the Seafire he says it was a ruined Spitfire in means of balance. In order to counter balance the extra weight of the tailhook arrangement there were counterbalance weights added to the control column. This caused many pilots to meet their creator primaturely. In particular in bail out situations they were supposed to roll the aircraft on its back before bailing out ( to avoid hitting the tail). In surtain circumstancies this caused the counter balance arrangement to apply forces on the controls as if the pilot were pulling hard on the stick. No need to say the G-forces trapped the pilot in the cockpit. Tests after war showed if the pilot tried to push the stick(if he were able to) it only worsened the situation. He was trapped! He also mention quality problems causing stability errors in Spit 1 series. Surfaces meant to be flushriveted, wasnt allways so. This caused disturbed airflows and in an aircraft with controlls as light as in the Spit those kind of flaws made the aircraft less agile.

He also mention manufacturing flaws on the wings which made the aircraft dangerous to roll in high speeds as the wings would tear off. This was caused by too thin skinning on upper surface of the wing and this caused a wobble in the wing. Repairmen from the factory arrived and changed the skinning close to wingfairings with alloy sheets of thicker gauge. But the fault had already costed some pilot lives. This is only some examples and if one diggs deeper more surely could be found.
It was a fine aircraft but it surely werent perfect in many ways.

Xiolablu3
08-01-2006, 05:38 PM
Yeah, the Spitfire made a poor carrier aircraft, it wasnt suited at all.

The Navy simply wanted the RAFs top aircraft for the performance and skimped on whether it was suitable for carrier ops or not - they paid the price.

There wasnt really any alternative at the time tho.

What else could they have used?

The Hurricane - not really any better suited than the Spitfire
Typhoon - totally unsuitable
Any number of outdated old fighter - All had poor performance

I cant think of any alternative to the Spitfire in 1941-43

Corsair was the ideal Naval plane for the Royal Navy after it arrived in 1943 (thanks to the experimenting the RN did with it).

horseback
08-01-2006, 09:29 PM
From 41-43, the best available Allied carrier fighter was the Martlet/Wildcat, but it was badly needed by the USN/USMC in the Pacific as well as the FAA, and it lacked the tremendous accelleration the Seafire LF III had.

On the other hand, it was far more likely to survive a carrier landing.

Comparing Seafires to Spitfires is simply to impugn Spitfires; the wartime Seafire designs were a desperate attempt by the FAA to make up for some serious prewar mistakes in tactical philosophy. They went the wrong way in carrier fighter designs, and simply weren't prepared for the possibility that carriers might be expected to operate within range of land-based aircraft.

The Lords of the Admiralty then tried to cash in on the Spitfire's mystique, but while the Seafire was an improvement over the prewar Fairey designs, it was not a Spitfire at sea, it was a Spitfire weighed down with a lot of cr@p and then hotrodded up.

To use an American example, it was as much like the Spitfire as a 'funnycar' drag racer is like the NASCAR version of the same model.

Taking an admittedly delicate land based fighter and weighing it down with carrier gear doesn't make the original land-based fighter bad, it makes the carrier based derivative bad.

cheers

horseback

Viper2005_
08-02-2006, 05:49 AM
The seafire wasn't ideal, but it wasn't bad either.

Getting back to topic, the simplest solution to high speed wing failures is to obtain a stick with stiffer springs...

WOLFMondo
08-02-2006, 06:23 AM
Or reduce your deflection. A real pilot couldn't suddenly go from 0g's to 9g's in a split second, they were not physcially strong enough to do so but in this sim you can easily with rapid movement in the stick. Its not the plane but the pilot...

WOLFMondo
08-02-2006, 06:29 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:

The Hurricane - not really any better suited than the Spitfire </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I really disagree there.

The Hurricane pros:
Dope fabric skin is easier to repair than a monocoque, which has to be repaired with specific parts or go back to the factory or repair unit
Tough wide track undercarrage
Heavier firepower
Tougher contruction
Lower stall speed

Cons:
Slow.

The Spitty on the other hand was more difficult to repair and had very fragile undercarrage but was allot faster and better accelerating and better at climbing, which is what you need in a defensive fighter.

The hurricane was selected for North Africa because of its contruction and ease of repair, two traits not associated with the Spitfire.

HellToupee
08-02-2006, 07:08 AM
Spitty did quite alright as a carrier plane with good performance as a cap fighter aside from the narrow landing gear, it also had quite a long life in the rn, seafires i think were still in service in the korean war.

There were also sea hurricanes

triggerhappyfin
08-02-2006, 11:23 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by horseback:
From 41-43, the best available Allied carrier fighter was the Martlet/Wildcat, but it was badly needed by the USN/USMC in the Pacific as well as the FAA, and it lacked the tremendous accelleration the Seafire LF III had.

On the other hand, it was far more likely to survive a carrier landing.

<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">Comparing Seafires to Spitfires is simply to impugn Spitfires; the wartime Seafire designs were a desperate attempt by the FAA to make up for some serious prewar mistakes in tactical philosophy.</span> They went the wrong way in carrier fighter designs, and simply weren't prepared for the possibility that carriers might be expected to operate within range of land-based aircraft.

The Lords of the Admiralty then tried to cash in on the Spitfire's mystique, but while the Seafire was an improvement over the prewar Fairey designs, it was not a Spitfire at sea, it was a Spitfire weighed down with a lot of cr@p and then hotrodded up.

To use an American example, it was as much like the Spitfire as a 'funnycar' drag racer is like the NASCAR version of the same model.

Taking an admittedly delicate land based fighter and weighing it down with carrier gear doesn't make the original land-based fighter bad, it makes the carrier based derivative bad.

cheers

horseback </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">Not quite true. As the Seafires was taken from the precent production patch and only fitted with tailhooks and counterweights, which in their turn ruined the balance of the aircraft, the planes were essential the same.

..so the thin skinning of the wings, causing them to snap off, affected the RAF pilots as well.
</span>

Viper2005_
08-02-2006, 11:40 AM
Actually, bob weights were fitted to the elevator control circuits of a variety of Spitfires, from the Mk.V onwards, in order to artificially increase pitch stability. This was dones because the alternative approaches (tail modification, CoG movement) would have interrupted production.

Most structural failures were the result of pulling too much "g". This was usually only possible when the CoG had migrated beyond the aft limit as a result of careless equipment additions. Bob weights served to increase the safe CoG range and mitigated this problem. Different weights were used depending upon the mark of aircraft and the degree of stability augmentation required.

Kocur_
08-02-2006, 12:14 PM
A weight was added to P-51D pitch control system too, to make it safer for green pilots, when fuselage tank was filled.
But wasn't Spitfire elevator very sensitive in normal configuration too?

Bearcat99
08-02-2006, 12:40 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by faustnik:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
I hope in BoB you can have a customised stick set up for all aircraft, rather than 1 for all. Would make allot of sense to me to do that. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

A setup tied to each plane would be great. If we only have a few planes in the initial BoB release, it shouldn't be that big a deal. I doub't my favorite setings for the Spitfire will be the same as my favorites for the 109. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thats an absolutely fantastic idea.

I would love to be able to have my own FW190 settings and energy fightere settings which were different to turn fighter settings.

Not being able to reach full 100% authority is a real probelm in a turn fighter, but in an enerrgy fighter its not such a hindrance. In fact it may even allow you to keep faster.

I remember Dnajama saying that Eric Browns very gentle settings work great for the P47, and they dont allow you to reach anywhere near full 100% elevator authority. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

IL2 Manger has a built in stick profiler.. I launch HL & TS from there. IL2 sticks is also a good tool to set up stick profiles. You can find them at AW.C or look in the Essentials thread.. I believe I put them both in there. as well.

horseback
08-02-2006, 06:19 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by triggerhappyfin:
<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">Not quite true. As the Seafires was taken from the precent production patch and only fitted with tailhooks and counterweights, which in their turn ruined the balance of the aircraft, the planes were essential the same.

..so the thin skinning of the wings, causing them to snap off, affected the RAF pilots as well.
</span> </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Wrong. The skinning of the wing/wingroot fairing was more than adequate for the lighter (and better balanced) land-based version, which was far less subject to the stresses of carrier landings, much less the corrosion and weather damage inherent to aircraft carried aboard ship; in the case of the Seafire I/II, the aircraft rarely made it inside the skin of the ship, and were subject to salt water corrosion to a degree never envisaged for the Spitfires that these aircraft were originally designed and built to be.

Anyone with a working familiarity with commercial ocean fishing or naval experience could tell you that things made of metal just don't last as long as you expect when you put them on a boat or ship, never mind put them through greater stresses than they were designed for and have hostile strangers shoot at them.

cheers

horseback

Sergio_101
08-03-2006, 04:42 PM
75" MAP in a Pakard V-1650-7 should produce
over 2,000HP.
If the engines were tweeked for 115/145 grade fuel late
in WWII that should have resulted in 480mph
speeds at 10,000' I would think.

sergio

luftluuver
08-03-2006, 05:07 PM
80" Hg with ADI gave 1930hp @ 10,100' in low blower for the V-1650-9. In high blower it was 1630hp @ 23,500'. I can't see the -7 giving more hp with less boost.

Sergio_101
08-03-2006, 05:26 PM
Got a PDF file here showing 2,280hp @3,000 rpm for
the V-1650-9.

Also saying 80in Hg with ADI. 115/145 only.

Used only in the P-51H

Sergio

luftluuver
08-03-2006, 05:36 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Sergio_101:
Got a PDF file here showing 2,280hp @3,000 rpm for
the V-1650-9.

Also saying 80in Hg with ADI. 115/145 only.

Used only in the P-51H

Sergio </div></BLOCKQUOTE>And if you look that is for 90" Hg.

Sergio_101
08-05-2006, 11:22 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by luftluuver:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Sergio_101:
Got a PDF file here showing 2,280hp @3,000 rpm for
the V-1650-9.

Also saying 80in Hg with ADI. 115/145 only.

Used only in the P-51H

Sergio </div></BLOCKQUOTE>And if you look that is for 90" Hg. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Some web sites say 80 in Hg.
Some say 90 in hg.

Sergio