US handling reports on the Spitfire

Discussion in 'Flight Test Data' started by Trilisser, Jul 10, 2012.

  1. Trilisser

    Trilisser Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2011
    Messages:
    152
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Mike's Neil's site has a US handling report on the Tempest V, but anyone with a similar report on the Spitfire?
     
  2. wells

    wells Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2008
    Messages:
    38
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    6
    There is a NACA report from September 1942. It's probably on the net somewhere.

    "Measurements of the Flying Qualities of a Supermarine Spitfire VA Airplane", by William H. Phillips and Joseph R. Vensel
    "Stalling Characteristics of the Supermarine Spitfire VA Airplane", same authors

    Maybe also check out Jeffrey Quill's book
     
  3. Vincenzo

    Vincenzo Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2007
    Messages:
    2,281
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    none
    Location:
    Lazio
  4. Aozora

    Aozora Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2012
    Messages:
    1,011
    Likes Received:
    123
    Trophy Points:
    63
  5. finnster

    finnster New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2009
    Messages:
    10
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    1
    Thing to remember about these reports: RAE maintained they got the max CL of the spit wrong due to measuring methodology flaws.
     
  6. Gaston

    Gaston Banned

    Joined:
    May 10, 2009
    Messages:
    126
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Low max. lift coefficient seems consistent with fairly moderate sustained turn performance, as is the 3/4 inch travel of the stick to start the stall rumble... Despite popular notion to the opposite, this is very consistent with noticeably inferior sustained turning performance to the Hurricane...

    I would like to see what "methodology flaw" evidence was presented by the RAE, as this is the flight behaviour one would expect of a large wing with a low lift coefficient...

    The big advantage of the Spitfire in turns was its ability to "stall" with full three-axis control, thus allowing it to "shoot accross the circle" while burning speed with the wings "rumbling"... So, with good pilot knowledge, it still could "win" turn fights (but only with guns blazing!) despite poor actual sustained turn performance, a performance so poor in Soviet eyes it forced them to get away from their usual horizontal turn tactics (they even removed the outer guns to try to lighten it, to no avail)... This Soviet opinion was with the Mk V, which even RAE concede sustained turns equally to the Mk IX at all altitudes (the Mk V was considered superior turning to the Mk IX from many other sources).

    Again this is consistent with known Spitfire behaviour, and given the large wings is also consistent with a low lift coefficient per square foot...

    Gaston
     
  7. Aozora

    Aozora Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2012
    Messages:
    1,011
    Likes Received:
    123
    Trophy Points:
    63
    ...:spam1::sleepy2:
     
  8. finnster

    finnster New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2009
    Messages:
    10
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    1
    The RAE contended in Technical note no.aero.1106 dated March 1943
    That the NACA testers used a less accurate method. I've attached a jpeg of the document.
    Here's something to try - I'm going to have a go later this week- using the same wing area and weight, calculate what the stall speed would be using both the NACA and RAE numbers and see which one matches the documented stall speeds of the Spitfire as shown in the POH.
     

    Attached Files:

  9. Ivan1GFP

    Ivan1GFP Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2008
    Messages:
    636
    Likes Received:
    9
    Trophy Points:
    18
    CoL of 1.89 sounds awfully high and 1.36 sounds a touch low.
    I wonder what the real numbers are for this beast?

    - Ivan.
     
  10. finnster

    finnster New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2009
    Messages:
    10
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    1
    I think the 1.36 CL max is the number they got trimmed for best glide engine off. Descending of course, it would generate a low lift. The highnumber would be for the number achieved at MAX AOA and full throttle.
    The high number is just a bit higher than I got with a basic calculation of MAX CL and stall using a little program called aircalc.
    I'm certainly not an expert, but most of the max CL numbers I see quoted are too low to support the stall speeds given in the POH. so I get puzzled.
     
  11. JtD

    JtD Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2010
    Messages:
    80
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    8
    Do you take the instrument error into account? These usually are not given in the pilot's notes down to stall speed, but a reasonable estimate is possible. I found that you end up in the proper speed/CL range.
     
Loading...

Share This Page