Spitfire engine failure in dive?

[Kwiatek]

I really wonder if during negative G engine would be stop in early Spitfire and Hurrciane? How it looks like for these 2 cases:

1. - pilot is making shallow sustained dive with only small negative G

2. - pilot is apply suddenly high negative G

I really wonder if engine would be stopped or just have pause in working or so? When engine should be stopped definitly?

I play Il2 1946 where after pushing suddelny negative G or during medium constanly G engine is immidietly stoping but under only small suistaned negative G engine work properly. Is these correct and corespondly to RL?

 

[Observer1940]

Hi Koolkitty,
...

From the Pilot Training Manual for the P-51 Mustang (covering the D and K variants with Merlin engines):

"However, when the plane is in inverted flight, the oil pressure falls off because no oil reaches the scavenger pump. For that reason you must limit inverted flying to 10 seconds - which is plenty of time for any normal or ombat maneuvers."

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

Hello

A file in TNA, Kew, has a 1940 copy letter stating quite clearly that Inverted flying of the RAF fighter with the Merlin engine should be stopped, due to oil starvation to bearings.

Mark

 

[stona]

The manoeuvre is explained in this 1976 documentary by a couple of chaps who were there, did it and were actually rather good at it. Scroll to about 24' 30" if you don't have time or have a short attention span


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vDzZnCkbxgs

Cheers

Steve

 

[rochie]

Good stuff Steve.

Not everyone's cup of tea but Bader is a massive hero of mine faults and all !

 

[stona]

He could fly the sh*t out of a Spitfire or Hurricane and was as brave as they come. He should have stuck to doing that.

Cheers

Steve

 

[rochie]

Yup !

 

[XBe02Drvr]

Wait, how come rolling inverted before the dive does not make the engine cut out? I thought inverted flight would pull negative G and mess up the engine.....

Haven't any of you guys DONE any of this stuff? When you're doing a positive G split-S, you "barrel" the roll by making a sharp coordinated ailerons-and-rudder turn in the desired direction (usually the one in which engine torque and "P" factor will aid your roll rate), while maintaining gentle back pressure on the stick. As you pass through 90 degrees bank angle, your nose will start to fall through and you will pass through inverted nose down in a dive. Continue your coordinated roll with just a touch of back pressure until you're right side up again, relax the back pressure, and you're in a 1 G dive. The float carb in your Cessna 152 Acrobat hasn't even burped.
If, on the other hand, you attempt a slow aileron roll around the plane's longitudinal axis, you will experience negative G while inverted with accompanying sputters and stumbles.
Y'all have fun, now, y'hear?
Wes

 

[bobbysocks]

they probably haven't. even a lot of guys that do fly haven't had the opportunity to do some of those maneuvers. I have been in pipers, stinsons, and cessnas but none were rated for that. I have never had the chance to do a split S....would love to.

 

[Shortround6]

 

[XBe02Drvr]

Thanks for the graphics Sr6!
The slightly barreled split-S I was describing was simply an expeditious way to get the nose pointed downhill while maintaining positive G. Sort of a hybrid of the depicted aileron and barrel rolls without the swooping climbing roll of the barrel and allowing back stick pressure and gravity to pull the nose sharply down once past the vertical bank. Not very expeditious actually in a slow underpowered General Aviation aircraft. A stoutly constructed 1000 hp fighter going circa 300 mph would pull it off quite nicely as long as it wasn't going fast enough to bind up the ailerons. A combat maneuver, not an air show maneuver. I could do it in the T-34 keeping all the coral dust and bits of electrical insulation firmly planted on the cockpit floor.
Cheers
Wes

 

[Shortround6]

Just trying to show that a plane could upside down and yet not suffer from negative "G".

Like inside loop and outside loop. Outside loop would have the oil system suffering from the same problems as inverted flight even if the planes attitude was near horizontal and right side up near the beginning and end of the loop.

Barrel roll is sort of like a loop gone sideways

 

[XBe02Drvr]

A "horizontal spiral loop", the "hurricane" to the snap-roll's "tornado". Snap-rolls are such fun! (And so much easier to do safely than barrel rolls.) More than once I've had a tense, apprehensive student overdo a yaw correction at the break of the stall, resulting in a snap-roll/spin entry. That's why I insisted on demonstrating spin entry and recovery real early in the training process. That way if they scare themself some time practicing stalls, they'll have the experience to cope with it. It's mighty startling the first time your stomach hits your diaphragm, the sky and earth swap places, and your windshield is suddenly full of trees. (They look so close, even if they're 4 or 5 thousand feet away!) Best if you've seen it before.
Cheers,
Wes

 

[BLine22]

Thats first time I've heard of a slightly barreled split S but it certainly explains footage I've seen of formations transitioning from level flight to a diving attack. IIRC the split S in a T-34C was power to idle, slow to 120kts, roll inverted and pull. It was a lot off fun and much easier than the opposite maneuver which was the Immelmann.

 

[XBe02Drvr]

Gawd, if I could only have gotten my hands on a Charlie model!! That was long after my T-34 days and before my PT-6 days. Betcha that was a blast! Our club plane was a tired old Bravo. Fun, but a bit of a dog, and certainly less thirsty than Charlie. Pre oil embargo, and gas was actually affordable, even for an O-470. We were housed on base and got our gas at government bulk contract price. Never would happen today!
Cheers,
Wes

 

[XBe02Drvr]

It was a lot off fun and much easier than the opposite maneuver which was the Immelmann.

In our Bravo we had to dive so far to reach entry speed for a Immelmann, we rolled level at a lower altitude than we began. "Woof, woof"
Cheers,
Wes

 

[BLine22]

Gawd, if I could only have gotten my hands on a Charlie model!! That was long after my T-34 days and before my PT-6 days. Betcha that was a blast! Our club plane was a tired old Bravo. Fun, but a bit of a dog, and certainly less thirsty than Charlie. Pre oil embargo, and gas was actually affordable, even for an O-470. We were housed on base and got our gas at government bulk contract price. Never would happen today!
Cheers,
Wes

It was a great aircraft to train in. The Navy is done with them now. I saw rows of them at Davis Monthan last month. Hopefully some will make into civilian hands. I did get to fly a T-34B at the flying club and really enjoyed that especially taking my dad for a flight as that was the plane he trained in.

 

[XBe02Drvr]

Don't know about civilian Charlies. Beech got burned on the Alpha, as the Air Force surplused them much earlier than expected, and Beech perceived they cut into Bonanza sales. The Alpha had been given an Acrobatic Category civil type certificate so Beech could fly sales demonstrators, which Beech felt came back to bite them. The Bravo was sold to the Navy with the provision that when they came off the BuAer active list they would revert to Beech. So far as I know, all currently airworthy Bravos, military and civil, are still on the official BuAer list and still officially government property. I know every year we paid one dollar to the Navy, and reported all our T-34's activity to BuAer. We also got parts support from Pensacola
The Bravo got its civil type certificate when the Navy supplied some used ones to the Forest Service for use as air tanker guides. Forest Service certified it in Utility Category, as they saw no need for acrobatics. The local feds (ex-Navy guys) ignored our aerial antics. As government employees, they had (and used) access to our bird.
I'm guessing the Charlies are similarly restricted as to ownership.
Cheers,
Wes

 

[XBe02Drvr]

I'm also guessing that Charlies wouldn't be practical as club aircraft as their maintenance would be beyond the capabilities of most service clubs and their experience requirements for insurance would be impossibly high.
Our Bravo required 100 hrs total time and a five hour checkout with one hour and five landings at night.
Needless to say this was long before the Great General Aviation Tort Law Disaster of the 1980s!
Cheers,
Wes