DH Mosquito

[nuuumannn]

I have found something interesting regarding Spitfires suffering accidents because of aileron instability, which was investigated by he RAE, and during investigation it was found that accidents were caused by the ailerons suddenly deflecting upwards because they were not being rigged properly or were caused by mishandling.

One interesting statistic was that out of 36 accidents because of this, in 24 of them the entire tail unit came off in the air at Frame 19, which is the aftermost fuselage frame where the tail section bolts on. This was found to be because of weakness in the outer skin rather than the bolts that held the tail section on. Nevertheless, the tail coming off was as a result of the airframe being overstressed during the action as a result of faulty ailerons rather than occurring under normal flight conditions.

 

[MiTasol]

The failure would have been pilot induced as he was trying to keep up with a turning Zero.

How often did it happen? Who knows but after that case I would expect it is possible a warning went out to all units to be aware it could happen - probably word of mouth rather than anything official tho. If the aircraft was lost in combat it was probably put down to being shot down and I have seen no records that show reasons for repairs - just assigned to nnn Repair depot. The repair depot records I have do not record the reason an aircraft was repaired though rear fuselage changes do appear occasionally. Most often it just lists type and or serial, date received and date completed so it could be anything from a belly landing to combat damage to structural problems.

 

[nuuumannn]

The failure would have been pilot induced as he was trying to keep up with a turning zero.

So, pilot induced overstressing of the airframe doesn't represent structural failure affecting Spitfires as a whole. A Spitfire V was overstressed during a dive in trials with the aircraft reaching 520 mph. The Spitfire broke up in mid air around the pilot but he survived, albeit wounded and never flew again.

 

[MiTasol]

So, pilot induced overstressing of the airframe doesn't represent structural failure affecting Spitfires as a whole.

But is indicative that it could/would happen in combat against the zero.

Given the pilot of the Spitfire in that trial had bucket loads of experience on type and the RAAF Zero pilot had only a handful of hours I think that an experienced Japanese pilot would be able to turn tighter and therefore the chances of a Spitfire pilot being caught out in the heat of battle would be quite high. Given the Spit pilot almost certainly failed to return to base there would be no record of how the aircraft was lost, and unlike in Britain there would be no wreckage to analyse on allied land.

If the aircraft went down in jungle in the SWPA and was actually found the rear fuselage/tail damage would be dismissed as impact damage.

 

[pbehn]

Agree - and they are not alone - Germans, Russians, Italians etc all believe their products were superior. In some things in specific time frames all are correct.

And I personally prefer to fly US aircraft because they at least thought of what is now called ergonomics and put controls in logical locations.
Example - during takeoff/landing (and combat) you do not want to be swapping hands on the control column every few seconds so the US put the engine, landing gear and flap controls on the left allowing you to keep your right hand on the control column at all times. Less important controls like radios were usually on the right but that is fine as you are not changing radio channel during initial takeoff or short final.

On the Spitfire and Hurricane the engine controls are still on the left but the undercarriage control is on the right as is the Hurricanes flap control. The Spit only had two positions for the flaps - full up or full down. In some Supermarine documents they are call air brakes which is a more accurate description and describes their limited abilities better. Flaps are primarily a high lift device and almost always have multiple positions, even if only take off and landing though many also have approach settings.

The first Spitfires raised and lowered the undercarriage by hand, this had some bearing on the position of various stuff in the cockpit.

 

[nuuumannn]

But is indicative that it could/would happen in combat against the zero.

Or the pilot could break off combat and not risk overstressing his aircraft and having to return home by parachute or not returning at all. I doubt conditions of combat that either the RAF or RAAF included attempting to kill the opposition by destroying their own aeroplane. The simple fact was, never attempt to dogfight the Zero. Airframes were precious and pilots damaging them to get a kill weren't gonna help win the war.

 

[GregP]

I wouldn't say the Spitfire was fragile, perhaps its not as structurally robust as US types, but fragile? Never heard of Spitfires suffering any form of failure due to structural weakness or fragility. One thing here the US manufacturers were better than British was in the manufacture of aircraft, US production methods were faster and their aircraft were strongly built, but this doesn't mean British ones weren't. The British tended to overly complicate things structurally, but fragile? Nope.

By fragile, I don't mean structurally weak, it isn't. I mean it suffers rather easily from "hangar rash," or getting dented / damaged very easily. It is much more prone to be damaged than a U.S. type, from personal experience with it, seeing it operated. As I said earlier, the extra weight in a U.S. airplane is simple to figure when you take a good, close look.

I didn't say it was wrong, or that I preferred one over the other. I said it was more fragile, and it is. If you dispute that, I'm inclined to think you've not seen both types operated for several years side-by-side by the same people and observed the differences. Spitfire owners are not prone to letting you sit in or get on their airplanes. Mustang owners, at least where I live, are much more prone to let you take a good close look, even going so far as to let you sit in it. Neither condition is better or worse; just an observation.

Getting dented or damaged a bit more easily does NOT preclude the Spitfire from being a great defensive fighter; it was and IS. It performs quite well and SHOULD climb better than a P-51 with the power-to-weight ratio it enjoys. Different is not necessarily better or worse; it is just "not the same."

But, hey, some people today can't seem to decide male from female, even though the differences should be obvious, at least to me.

I'm a Spitfire fan regardless of fragility. If I had one, I'd fly it every single chance I got to fly ... as long as the money held out, anyway.

 

[gruad]

US aircraft were always going to eventually be superior to British, because they were a much richer nation with an undamaged economy.

The US should acknowledge the freely given input of British design especially radar.

 

[BiffF15]

But is indicative that it could/would happen in combat against the zero.

Given the pilot of the Spitfire in that trial had bucket loads of experience on type and the RAAF Zero pilot had only a handful of hours I think that an experienced Japanese pilot would be able to turn tighter and therefore the chances of a Spitfire pilot being caught out in the heat of battle would be quite high. Given the Spit pilot almost certainly failed to return to base there would be no record of how the aircraft was lost, and unlike in Britain there would be no wreckage to analyse on allied land.

If the aircraft went down in jungle in the SWPA and was actually found the rear fuselage/tail damage would be dismissed as impact damage.

MiTasol,

Regarding over stressing / structural failure in combat I agree, it can and has happened. It happens in training, more frequently than you might imagine (I averaged about 1 per year in the Eagle - and flew it for 17 years). Surprisingly enough, we practice intense Basic Fighter Maneuvers (BFM or dog fighting) about once a year. Trying to squeeze more out of the plane than your bud can easily result into an aircraft over stress. In this particular case I could easily see buck fever / ego writing checks the airframe could not cash. Your pride, your experience, and the expectations of your squadron mates that you will do well can lay quite a heavy load of peer pressure on. And that happens quite frequently.

Just my 2 centavos...

Cheers,
Biff

 

[MiTasol]

Add to that the Zero is on your tail and you have additional incentives to make sure you are not where he is aiming

 

[nuuumannn]

I mean it suffers rather easily from "hangar rash," or getting dented / damaged very easily.

Seriously?! This is how you regard the fragility of an airframe?

Getting dented or damaged a bit more easily

Again, not the way any aeroplane should be operated, whether US or British! I've worked around aircraft for more than 25 years, Greg and whether aeroplanes survive instances of hangar rash better than others doesn't indicate strength or "fragility" of an airframe. All that indicates is carelessness, which I have seen plenty of in my career, but surely that isn't a qualification of flimsiness. The Spit might not be as structurally robust as US fighters but it certainly isn't fragile.

fragile

frăj′əl, -īl″

adjective

1. Easily broken, damaged, or destroyed.
2. Lacking physical or emotional strength; delicate.
3. Lacking substance; tenuous or flimsy.

The Spitfire was/is none of these things, Greg.

 

[GregP]

Seriously, that's your opinion above? I have worked exclusively restoring WWII warbirds for 17 years. More fragile is more fragile. It doesn't mean it isn't airworthy; it means it gets damaged more easily than another more-rugged airplane when treated the same way.

If they don't remove a dent or two or three, it doesn't really matter much. If they don't remove a lot of dents, it won't fly as well as it did when the skin was smoother. It certainly won't be as fast, after awhile, as one that is less dented, but it also doesn't mean it isn't fit to fly. I'm taking piston fighters here, not Eagles or Typhoons. I also didn't say Spitfires got slower as a group over time, but they DID require more minor repair/TLC than some aircraft that were built a bit heavier.

A P-51D weighs about 7,635 lbs. empty. A Spitfire IX weighs about 5,000 lbs. empty. They both sport a 2-stage Merlin. In my opinion, the extra 2,635 lbs. makes the P-51D a bit more rugged than the Spitfire. Your opinion may vary.

I'm guessing Spitfires lasted as well as any other WWII production fighter, albeit with a bit more minor maintenance required than some other aircraft did. Nothing out of the ordinary, and the Spits gave more than just good service; they gave excellent service. Nothing I said above detracts from their accomplishments. It's just a different animal than a more rugged one is; and is not better or worse because of it. British aircraft have always been good performers ... well ... maybe not the Roc / Skua family, but most have been very good airplanes. I'm sure someone can come up with one other than a Roc/Skua that wasn't quite up to snuff. I daresay that all countries that produced airplanes have had one or more that wasn't top notch. Can you say, "PZL Zubr?"

The Spitfire isn't among the less-than-top-notch and I never implied it was.

Saw something above about the A6M being weak. It isn't. Yes, it has .032" skin in places where some others have .040" skin, but it isn't weak at all. Most U.S. fighters were designed for 8 g's with the 12 g ultimate load. That's a 50% safety factor. The A6M was designed for 6 g's with a 12 g ultimate load. That's a 100% safety factor and both have the same load limit, but the A6M might and likely will sustain damage at 8 g's without failure where a U.S. fighter would not sustain damage in the same 8 g load. The difference is relatively meaningless since we all know a WWII piston fighter won't sustain even 6 g's for all that long. If there was an A6M that lost a tail in trials, you can be sure it was damaged or over-g'd. The A6M is a very good airplane that was purposely-designed to have the general performance of a 1,500 hp Allied fighter with an engine that never developed more than 1,160 hp. It had to give something up to get that performance, and what it gave up was structural robustness.

If everything was undamaged, the A6M was quite strong. But, if damaged structurally, it didn't have the same reserve strength that a more heavily-built airplane enjoyed. If you were in an A6M and took a 50-cal bullet to a wing attach point, it was likely nylon letdown time. Perhaps so and perhaps not if you were in a P-40. At least you had a good chance of flying the P-40 home. Call the P-40 bad names if you want, but you can't say it was weak or that it couldn't absorb damage well.

Can't say the same about the ability of the A6M to absorb much damage.

None of the above addresses the Mosquito thread title so, if we MUST discuss this further (do we have to?), maybe in another thread or PM? Cheers.

 

[Greyman]

I'm guessing Spitfires lasted as well as any other WWII production fighter ...

In wartime they certainly had a different outlook on these airframes than the lovingly-restored examples we can enjoy today (re: wastage). I'm not sure what other aircraft/regulations were but I do have this c.1943 anecdote:

Bud Handley, the Canadian rigger in charge of my aircraft, and the rest of the lads on my ground crew, considered themselves part of a team with me competing against the others. Even with two sweeps a day, my Spitfire never left the ground before every speck of oil had been washed from its belly and the perspex cleaned and shining like a mirror.​

​

I had put 150 operational hours on it, and on the last sortie I had chased a 109 straight down through fifteen thousand feet until my aircraft was shuddering so hard I couldn't shoot. At full throttle, I expected I might have damaged the engine and shaken more than one rivet loose.​

​

After careful inspection it was discovered that the only thing wrong with it was that the paint was flaking off. It was still as fast as any aircraft in the squadron. But RAF regulations demanded that if an aircraft survived 150 hours operational flying, it was slated for the bone-yard, taken to pieces, never to fly again.​

 

[nuuumannn]

More fragile is more fragile. It doesn't mean it isn't airworthy; it means it gets damaged more easily than another more-rugged airplane when treated the same way.

Whether it gets damaged more easily is NOT an indication of "fragility". Look up the definition of fragile Greg!

Jeebus! I even posted it earlier!

 

[GregP]

I wouldn't expect an airplane flying through the air to get dented by just flying. When it gets dents, it is usually from wrenches, sockets and the like, screwdrivers, and people walking where they shouldn't on it and possibly just running things into it slowly ... not flying.

Fragile means easily damaged, broken, or destroyed. Compared with a P-51, the Spitfire IS fragile. It is still one of the best fighters of the war. Jeebus, go look it up yourself.

We don't have to agree on it and, having watched Spitfires be operated for 4 years or so, you'll never convince me they are especially rugged. Heck, when they tried to make a carrier airplane out of it, it failed primarily due to being easily broken! It just was not up to Naval standards of ruggedness. Still, if I could own and fly one, I would, anytime.

Either way, the Spitfire is a great plane and I very much doubt that the definition, actual fragility of a Spitfire, or lack thereof changes anything. It was a one-remark observation from experience, not a condemnation of the type. It's all good. Cheers.

 

[pbehn]

Who buys a Lambo to walk on, hit with wrenches and bump into other Lambos?

 

[K5083]

Spitfires, especially the Mk V, had a tendency to longitudinal instability. It resulted in the turn tightening without pilot input. You had to push the stick to avoid overstressing. This is not to do with outturning a Zero, because g is g, not radius or rate. Any fighter of the time or since could pull too many g*. There were modifications, bob weights in the elevator system or re-profiled elevators which were supposed to fix it.

* Yeah, I know there are software limits nowadays but the airframe has the potential to overstress.

 

[MiTasol]

All that indicates is carelessness, which I have seen plenty of in my career,

Greg is working in a museum situation where most of the people involved moving things are volunteers who do not understand how long it takes to stop a heavy item that is in motion and who, unlike those of us in the industry, do not have years of gauging distances and visualizing pathways. I doubt that many of them could get a DC-3 in and out of a hangar with a 63ft doorway but I have seen it done many times without damage because the people doing it were moving aircraft in confined spaces daily and the wing walkers could tell what was happening long before contact would occur.

 

[GregP]

Actually, the full-time Museum employees typically move museum airplanes, volunteers generally don't. But The airplanes DO get moved, probably less than in operational units since they fly ... but not especially often when compared with military units. I had a fork lift license and a truck license in the Air Force, but didn't keep them up. So, yeah, I occasionally drive a fork lift but no, I don't usually move airplanes with a tow tractor. I DID move airplanes with a tow tractor when I worked for an avionics shop, but these were Cessna / Piper / Beechcraft units, not many warbirds.

The only warbird I actually moved with a human driver-type tug was a Morane-Saulnier MS.760 in which we installed a Garmin GTN 750 / 650 combination. It was painted overall black and was a very nice 4-place jet. I backed it into a hangar once when nobody else was available and it was about to rain. Didn't damage anything ... especially the nosewheel steering limit. I HAVE moved a few with a radio-control small airplane mover that looks like a Battle of the Robots tank with a cradle on top for the nose or tail wheel.

Here's a pair of MS.760s.

and below is a radio-control airplane tug.

Works great and handles up to 7,000 pounds of airplane on a level surface including grass. The one show above is on AstroTurf, but it works fine on grass.

 

[GregP]

Who buys a Lambo to walk on, hit with wrenches and bump into other Lambos?

Ever hear of normal maintenance? Stuff happens, especially in a very crowded hangar. Just taking assemblies off and setting them aside can cause damage, usually to paint or sheet metal edges. Depends on who is moving them and with what care. Nobody takes care of a machine quite like the owners does, but most owners don't DO all the maintenance on their warbirds.

And last I heard, Lamborghini didn't make the Spitfire. That was Vickers-Supermarine.

My logo attempt above. Cheers.