BF 109 Dive Rate

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Hello Drgondog
thanks for the clarification. IIRC when just before WWII British planned to try to get the speed record from Germany they modified one Spit for the try and one of the modification was much shallower angled windscreen.

Juha
 
Hello Drgondog
thanks for the clarification. IIRC when just before WWII British planned to try to get the speed record from Germany they modified one Spit for the try and one of the modification was much shallower angled windscreen.

Juha

Juha - I would point out that drag is freqently reduced to 'flat plate' drag for comparison purposes and the 'normal' area of the spit windscreen is not insignificant - just not as important as the wing
 

In his book "Spitfire: a Test Pilot's Story" Jeffrey Quill wrote a chapter on the Spitfire's "Longitudinal stability and Increased Range" ; Amazon.com: Spitfire - A Test Pilot's Story (Crecy Soft Cover Range) (9780947554729): Jeffrey Quill, Jeffrey Quill: Books In this chapter he explains that Supermarine went to great lengths to ensure that the Spitfire was longitudinally stable; he defined instability as potentially dangerous and a trait to be avoided. I doubt whether he would have allowed the Spitfire to go into service with such a problem.

He went on to describe how several Spitfire Vs broke up during a dive. Tests showed that some squadrons were not complying with cg requirements when fitting new equipment - in many cases the Spitfires were dangerously unstable, with the cg too far back in the fuselage (pages 248-256). Once bob-weights had been installed on the elevator controls and proper loading procedures put into practice the problem disappeared.

The dates on the extract of the report presented by Kurfurst indicate that this report was one of those enacted by the RAF in response to the break-up of Spitfires, in which case it is not representative of all Spitfires.
 
Last edited:
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

Interesting that the actual mach no quoted in the last sentence "At mach numbers above about ?? the aircraft developed..." The difference between mach .83 and mach .85? As everyone knows mach numbers differed according to altitude - no altitudes are specified in this extract.
 
Last edited:

Users who are viewing this thread