Airdynamic quality of spitfire and bf109

[Vlerkies]

Sure thing.
I'm just curious. The test itself doesn't say anything we don't already know about either airframe.
My curiosity lies rather with how much further can the 109 go if you really tried. (if at all)
Nose up will increase the angle of the air coming at it head on, but at 300kmh you should be able to eek out a few more meters agl before the slats 'want' to deploy if you go easy. Now at that initial speed and alt, would it be worth it.

Its purely academic, as at that alt and speed if the fans stops you are toast anyway, unless you have a coastline you are trying to aim at ditching on something.

[Vlerkies]

Gave it a quick whirl. Just used Le Harve map and one of the canals as a yard stick of sort.
Without being to be precise I managed to get it a few hundred meters further, by closing rads at cut off and using trim up as fast as I could keep up with the required AoA.

Trying to climb from that low base and speed on 0 power, without slats deploying didnt gain anything in distance, probably lost a bit.

[=vit_unit=]

Gave it a quick whirl. Just used Le Harve map and one of the canals as a yard stick of sort.
Without being to be precise I managed to get it a few hundred meters further, by closing rads at cut off and using trim up as fast as I could keep up with the required AoA.

Trying to climb from that low base and speed on 0 power, without slats deploying didnt gain anything in distance, probably lost a bit.

Have you done it for both planes?

[Vlerkies]

Have you done it for both planes?

Nope, just did a few quick tests on a E1 and just compared my various attempts/setting changes to see what difference they made in glide distance.
From that alt is wasn't much though. Still very poor.
With the 300kmh limited speed available the rad setting seemed to offer the best gain, so if at alt and engine goes tits up it may gain you an extra km or 2 to make the coast.

[RAF74_Buzzsaw]

Buzz may i ask for a example of whats to come? Meaning, on the current example of gliding, what will be affected on TF 5.0 with the elimination of the density bug? (expected to affect engine performance, but no idea on what will do to lift).

Can we have a insight? Please, pretty please?

Aerodynamically we will have more accurate modeling of a number of elements, most notably inverted flight, inertial effects in lateral maneuver, etc.

People who don't fly the virtual aircraft very much may not notice that much difference, but those who fly regularly and who know their preferred ride will recognize there are changes.

The engine performance changes will also be noticeable to those who fly a lot... most obviously in higher, more historical ceilings.

[Broodwich]

Very interesting, though the Spit is about 10% larger and is about 10% heavier than the 109 it glides about twice as far.
This difference is too great imho.
But as there is no hard data for the real difference we have to life with it, me thinks.

Where do weight or size play a factor in drag or lift?

When does a heavier object slow more rapidly than a lighter one?

This is basic physics guys...

[VO101_Kurfurst]

Well - what was the glide ratio of the Spit I? What's the figure in CLOD-TF?

[rel4y]

Where do weight or size play a factor in drag or lift?

When does a heavier object slow more rapidly than a lighter one?

This is basic physics guys...

Well size in form of area is actually one of the main factors for lift and drag calculation. The lift force has to overcome gravitational force, a product of mass and gravitational acceleration which equals weight.

If the drag or friction produced is large enough to overcome inertia, a heavier object will deaccelerate more rapidly than a light one. So you need to consider object density which results in different area of drag or friction.

It really is basic physics.

Now in theory for glide performance weight is not much of a factor since L/D ratio determines the gliding range. Weight does however influence the speed at which max L/D occurs. When two identical aircraft are flown at the same speed the light aircraft will descend faster than the heavier one. Therefore optimal gliding speed will be slower for the lighter aircraft than for the heavier one. Now in practice for testing a Spit to a 109 you have to fly them at their respective optimal airspeeds which result in optimal L/D. The test in the video tells us nothing about aerodynamic efficiency.

For testing optimal L/D one would need to find out the required vertical speed to sustain a desired airspeed as Colander suggested. By dividing airspeed with vertical speed you can calculate the glide ratio for an aircraft producing no thrust and flying at a constant airspeed. At these conditions glide ratio also equals L/D. For a better accuracy it may be beneficial to divide vertical distance by horizontal distance traveled after dt.

I found a thread in the banana forums where a guy actually tested L/D but sadly only for IL-2 4.10. http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=18688 But this is the way to compare.

[Broodwich]

Well size in form of area is actually one of the main factors for lift and drag calculation. The lift force has to overcome gravitational force, a product of mass and gravitational acceleration which equals weight.

If the drag or friction produced is large enough to overcome inertia, a heavier object will deaccelerate more rapidly than a light one. So you need to consider object density which results in different area of drag or friction.

It really is basic physics.

Now in theory for glide performance weight is not much of a factor since L/D ratio determines the gliding range. Weight does however influence the speed at which max L/D occurs. When two identical aircraft are flown at the same speed the light aircraft will descend faster than the heavier one. Therefore optimal gliding speed will be slower for the lighter aircraft than for the heavier one. Now in practice for testing a Spit to a 109 you have to fly them at their respective optimal airspeeds which result in optimal L/D. The test in the video tells us nothing about aerodynamic efficiency.

Precisely. They are both fractions of factors in the actual equations and have practically no bearing on the final outcome given how vague the variables were. Taken to an extreme, a banana is both smaller and lighter, so it should glide better?

[Steve D]

Another factor affecting the drag in the respective aircraft was that the Spitfire Mk1 had thinner wings that a 109E, plus the complex to manufacture fairing between wing trailing edge and fuselage. A thinner wing section will tend to result in less drag. I believe the thickness to chord ratio of a Mk1 Spit was 13% which would give a thickness at the root of approx 13", maybe slightly less. Thinner than that of a 109, and much thinner than a Hurricane. It's one of the main reasons for the Spitfire's excellent high Mach capability and thick wing on the Hurri is one of the main reasons for its comparative slowness. Draaaag.

[III./JG27_Kimbak-2]

And do not forget the ellipse form of the spit, which is the best form you can give to a wing, as the airflow on the upper-site, do not tend towards the root, as the airflow on the lower site does not turns towards the tip, which creates a massive amount of extra drag, resulting in wake turbulence, as we have all seen it on most modern airliners.
This extra drag caused on the 109 is by the fact tremendously and rises, as the slower the plane gets and the heavier it is (clean Config).
The disadvantage of an ellipse formed wing, is, as there is no boundary layer deflection towards the tip, a stall will occur everywhere, over the whole, wing at the same time.
This concludes that the stall on a spitfire inst announcing itself, by the voice of boundary layer separation.
Where on the rectangular wing of the 109, the stall occurs first at the root and progresses its way towards the tip if the speed drops more.
(Definition of Stall speed: Speed where the first part of a wing, starts to stall).
Due to the slats, which keep the airflow alive over the Ailerons, even below stall speed, otherwise by that wing-form, the stall could even occur at the tip first, if not known better.
Early 109 Pilots tend to use a wire to stop the Slats from deploying, as it tended to get out of trim and misleading their shots at low speeds.
But it could.
So we putt together:
109 = rectangular Wing = Low speed means high wakes which results in extra (a lot) more drag, stall is indicated, long before wing-drop.
spit = Ellipse Wing-form = low speed, doesn't result in huge loads (wakes), not much extra drag, stall is NOT indicated, before wing-drop.

Nevertheless, two aircraft of the same class, should glide within the same distances, as the spit is even heavier and bigger, than the 109, the stall speeds should be taken into account as well.
Vs =150km/h in this video for the Spit (Is that a "confirmed" Value ??? I dont know) Sure, the parasite Drag of the Spit is way less then from the 109, but at this low speeds, the difference between this values, are getting smaller and smaller, the lesser the speed.

---->Why? Parasite Drag increases with the Square of increase in speed. (Parasite Drag = unused drag: Wake Turbs, Frontal Areas, Prop wash, Interference between Fuselage and Wings, and so on)

---->Dynamic Drag instead, goes with the Square-root of an increase in Speed. (Dynamic Drag= Drag caused by the creation of lift)

Example:
Same Aircraft and Weight(Mass)
---->V*2 = 4*Parasite Drag and 1/4 Dynamical Drag (Pull your hand out the Car at 50km/h and do it again at 100km/h, check if you need double or 4 times more force, to keep the hand at its position.)
---->V/2 = 1/4 Parasite Drag and 4+Dynamical Drag (logical, as much more Lift needs to be generated from a slower airflow, to keep that aircraft up in the air)


Vs =165km/h in this video for the 109 (Is that a confirmed Value??? I don't know) But I do like the behavior, the time it takes for the stall towards the wing drop and the possibility in using the ailerons.
Reminds me of my Stall training in a PA28.

Anyway, I´d say the glide distance of the Spit might be too a bit to high, but even though its a bit heavier, gliding almost double the distance might be far off. (Might be)

Still the Psychological Factor is at the end the reason for this discussion anyway.
People love the Spit and some the 109 and we all are fans of our Planes and we fly and fly them, and its just natural, that we tend to believe that our FM is probably the most real one.
And though most of us tend to acknowledge mainly arguments, which are determining our point of view.
Some we do even ignore facts for it. And we are enemies, of we will say, that the enemies aircraft is way better and unrealistic as our own.
Simply makes winning even more sweet and delicious.
Nowadays, everything is possible to be calculated, with the current knowledge of aerodynamics, computer simulations, experiences, we can come close to 95% of the real values.
So, I´like my 109, and I´m just a bit sad, about the stall characteristics of the Spit in the game. As I (just) believe, that this is simply wrong, and the stall should occur in a direct and sudden wing-drop.
But I can be wrong, What do I remember what my sources about this where, My teacher in Aerodynamics and Performance. But did he ever sat in a Spitfire ?
So whats the Point ?
Still love TF for what they did and are doing.
Cant actually believe, that some professional aerodynamic Dudes, haven't put this two planes into a big and deep study, to test their values...
Someone should study that and write his PHD about it!
I´d be thrilled to see how close or far we are all of from reality, even though I know it wound't have any serious matter to this community

Hope my entry was worth reading

Cheers

Kim

[Talisman]

I thought the Spitfire wing was designed to twist and produce washout that meant the inner wing stalled before the outer wing. Moreover, I thought the Spitfire wing was famous for giving plenty of warning for a stall and that the stall was not a violent affair.

Happy landings,

Talisman

[III./JG27_Kimbak-2]

@ Talisman, I just saw a that documentary today, where they said the exact same thing and I do seriously wounder about, as that is the opposite of what I´ve learned.
See I do not trust Documentaries much, when their research lags withing the first 5 minutes, where thei stated, that the elliptical wingform, was the reason of that good an early warning stall characteristic...
There is more behind then that.
From the aerodynamically point of view, I still do not see, why an elliptical Wing should give any warning, as due to the curved, and more narrow ends, the washout will be reduced, as the reason for the washout, is simply by the form dinished.
Washout is created by the pressure differences, between the upper and the lower sider of an airfoil.
At the Root on the lower side, the pressure is highest, where it becomes smaller towards the tip.
On the upper site of the tip the depression is lower as the depression at the upper root.
So we have due to the pressure differences a tendency of the airflow, from low root- to the low tip, upwards to the upper tip and towards the upper root.
This pressure is commonly seen on rectangular Wings, like airliners as an example.
on an elliptical wing, the pressure distribution is also elliptical, and the short wingtip, has almost no lift, though no pressure differences, therefore no or less down wash, which is reducing the dynamic drag. But with this uniform lift distribution, a stall, will also be uniform and simultaneously and therefore with little warning time.
but also here is said, that if you do look at the shape of the spitfires wing, it inst completely elliptical, and sure with some twisting towards the root, you can make it happen to have the root section stalling first, but this cost a rise in dynamic drag, but still then, the warning time will be much less than on a rectangular wing, and the stall will be still more severe, as the tips aren't still producing much lift, if any.
On the 109 the tip are producing lift.
On the other hand, is the thickness of the Spitfireairfoil, much thinner compared to the 109. This results in lesser drag, but also lesser lift, means not necessarily an earlier stalling, but when you then consider a higher weight... The result could Odd-Even at the end. "COULD".
Thinner airfoil, easier boundary layer separation (stall)...

Here from Wikipedia Spitfire:
Another feature of the wing was its washout. The trailing edge of the wing twisted slightly upward along its span, the angle of incidence decreasing from +2° at its root to -½° at its tip.[66] This caused the wing roots to stall before the tips, reducing tip-stall that could otherwise have resulted in a wing drop, often leading to a spin. As the wing roots started to stall, the separating air stream started to buffet (vibrate) the aircraft, warning the pilot, and hence allowing even relatively inexperienced pilots to fly the aircraft to the limits of its performance.[67] This washout was first featured in the wing of the Type 224 and became a consistent feature in subsequent designs leading to the Spitfire.[68] The complexity of the wing design, especially the precision required to manufacture the vital spar and leading-edge structures, at first caused some major hold-ups in the production of the Spitfire. The problems increased when the work was put out to subcontractors, most of whom had never dealt with metal-structured, high-speed aircraft. By June 1939, most of these problems had been resolved, and production was no longer held up by a lack of wings.[69]

Still, I guess here,the differences in stall speeds, and this glide distances of the two aircraft shown in the video aren't the real differences and probably not even close.
I mean the spit was gliding and gliding and gliding and gliding. It still is fighter aircraft and not a glider aircraft.
Which of the aircraft, have here a not correct FM, isn't to be said, maybe the 109 wasn't that bad after all.
But my guess is, that probably both aircraft, where much closer to each other in their performances.
Look at the statistics, at the end and that is what most IIWW Pilots, say it was the better Pilot who won the battle.
Simple as that.
I remember one very important sentence of my teacher who told us:
Aerodynamics means, always finding a compromise. If you alter this, something else gets bad, so cant eliminate one disturbing factor, as other favors are being eliminated as well and so on...

[5th_Hellrider]

I think all of you are losing time with a discussion like that. Only comments Buzzsaw are worth looking into.

We all know that the physics of Clod is simplified and some things wrong, worse than the old Il2 46.
The game was released incomplete; missing practically the part of physics, instead DM is great and very accurate (although it has a few little mistakes, like taking rarely spits in fire, etc).

We hope that in the TF 5.0 physics is slightly better.

[ATAG_Colander]

CLOD physics are indeed a simplified version of real life but more complex than 1946. Because of this and the devs having to leave it "as is", there are still some bugs in the code some of which are being addressed for TF5.

[Talisman]

Thinking about this gliding lark, and as a layman with no special knowledge, I have a kind of thinking out loud suggestion.

I don't think there was much difference in weight between the DB and the Merlin engine (DB approx. 1,460lbs and Merlin approx. 1,375lbs). However, the DB was fitted to a considerably lighter and smaller aircraft than the Spitfire. Therefore, it strikes me that the larger lift providing surfaces of the Spitfire would have a lot less work to do than the Bf 109 and would be able to more easily provide lift to carry the dead weight of an engine further in a glide. Moreover, the dead weight of the engine is at the very front of the aircraft, so I imagine that the lighter aircraft would need more nose up movement of control surfaces to maintain a glide and that the control surfaces would then add to the drag and cause a lower forward speed and a more rapid decent due to the dead weight of the engine.
I suppose this may have something to do with the mathematics of lift to weight ratio when gliding rather than the power to weight ratio when the engine is working. Any way, I don't do math, LOL, so I will just offer this layman theory and retreat ready to be shot down in flames

Happy landings,

Talisman

[Vlerkies]

Telemetry software like Tacview would be a glorious addition and shed light on many things. If only.

[Starik]

I'm sorry, but the weight of the empty Spitfire 2261 kg take-off weight of 2846 kg, BF-109 E empty weight of 1900 kg, 2665 kg take-off. So the wing area of 22.5 m at the Spitfire against 16.16 m at BF 109e to easily compensate for the difference weight of 200 kg (Spitfire heavier).
Translation with Google.

[Vlerkies]

I'm sorry, but the weight of the empty Spitfire 2261 kg take-off weight of 2846 kg, BF-109 E empty weight of 1900 kg, 2665 kg take-off. So the wing area of 22.5 m at the Spitfire against 16.16 m at BF 109e to easily compensate for the difference weight of 200 kg (Spitfire heavier).
Translation with Google.

Weight is not always/ or necessarily a disadvantage

[ATAG_Colander]

With enough engine, even a stone flies

[TURK_Enlem]

Weight is not always/ or necessarily a disadvantage

W. Messerschmitt, R. J. Mitchell, E. Schmued, Mikoyan and Gurevich disliked this post

[AH-DG]

Weight is not always/ or necessarily a disadvantage

wOw...the gravity of the earth someone been canceled, as the law of Newton?

tells them at least that what...

Spit III 7400lbs=3356.6kg(!), Incidence=2,1°, WA=22,48m²
109E-3 Fluggewicht voll (t-off)=2583kg(!), Flügeleinstellwinkel (Incidence)=1°42', Flügelfläche=16,35m²

or they really think that mathematics or physics can outsmart?

[Vlerkies]

W. Messerschmitt, R. J. Mitchell, E. Schmued, Mikoyan and Gurevich disliked this post

We are talking un-powered flight here are we not?

Gliders actually add weight sometimes. The same plane at different weights would glide differently. The heavier one faster, increasing stall speed and reducing AoA required. The lift to drag is the same.
So gliders add ballast to allow them to increase their airspeed in X country events, which they would typically dump before landing so they can have a lower approach speed.

[TURK_Enlem]

We are talking un-powered flight here are we not?

Gliders actually add weight sometimes. The same plane at different weights would glide differently. The heavier one faster, increasing stall speed and reducing AoA required. The lift to drag is the same.
So gliders add ballast to allow them to increase their airspeed in X country events, which they would typically dump before landing so they can have a lower approach speed.

I don’t know what are you talking about, but the poster that you answered(Starik) were trying to talk about weight of Spitfire and its possible effects on gliding until you showed up with your unnecessary /unproductive aphorism.

Now we came from WW II planes to gliders to defend your aphorism. I suggest that drop it, drop it to free fall with its own weight.

In a sunny day I would mention that; gliders are extremely sensitive to lift changes(which is basically created by horizontal part of weight vector or thermals) , they have very large wing area, they have very low parasitic/induced drag, they are very light, they are not WWII fighters, etc, etc...

But... Hey, it is an aphorism, one question more than enough:

Have you ever seen an iron cast glider?

Reductio ad absurdum.

Best regards

[Vlerkies]

I don’t know what are you talking about, but the poster that you answered(Starik) were trying to talk about weight of Spitfire and its possible effects on gliding until you showed up with your unnecessary /unproductive aphorism.

Now we came from WW II planes to gliders to defend your aphorism. I suggest that drop it, drop it to free fall with its own weight.

In a sunny day I would mention that; gliders are extremely sensitive to lift changes(which is basically created by horizontal part of weight vector or thermals) , they have very large wing area, they have very low parasitic/induced drag, they are very light, they are not WWII fighters, etc, etc...

But... Hey, it is an aphorism, one question more than enough:

Have you ever seen an iron cast glider?

Reductio ad absurdum.

Best regards

I'm not trying to defend anything, a 109 or a Spitfire or comparing them, just made a comment that I believe is interesting as the OP was exactly about essentially gliding as demonstrated in the video.
It was a simple statement that in not all instances is weight a disadvantage as in the case with gliding where the extra weight can reduce the times on a circuit. The commonly accepted practice is that you sacrifice speed of climb in thermals but make up for it in airspeed over the course. So you get where you want to go quicker (not necessarily further) so its not a disadvantage in that respect.

No problem at all though, apologies for ruffling feathers, that was never the intention. I am quite happy to admit if I have erred or learn anything new so I will humbly sit back and watch the more informed folks discuss the topic and video.

[Talisman]

And do not forget the ellipse form of the spit, which is the best form you can give to a wing, as the airflow on the upper-site, do not tend towards the root, as the airflow on the lower site does not turns towards the tip, which creates a massive amount of extra drag, resulting in wake turbulence, as we have all seen it on most modern airliners.
This extra drag caused on the 109 is by the fact tremendously and rises, as the slower the plane gets and the heavier it is (clean Config).
The disadvantage of an ellipse formed wing, is, as there is no boundary layer deflection towards the tip, a stall will occur everywhere, over the whole, wing at the same time.
This concludes that the stall on a spitfire inst announcing itself, by the voice of boundary layer separation.
Where on the rectangular wing of the 109, the stall occurs first at the root and progresses its way towards the tip if the speed drops more.
(Definition of Stall speed: Speed where the first part of a wing, starts to stall).
Due to the slats, which keep the airflow alive over the Ailerons, even below stall speed, otherwise by that wing-form, the stall could even occur at the tip first, if not known better.
Early 109 Pilots tend to use a wire to stop the Slats from deploying, as it tended to get out of trim and misleading their shots at low speeds.
But it could.
So we putt together:
109 = rectangular Wing = Low speed means high wakes which results in extra (a lot) more drag, stall is indicated, long before wing-drop.
spit = Ellipse Wing-form = low speed, doesn't result in huge loads (wakes), not much extra drag, stall is NOT indicated, before wing-drop.

Nevertheless, two aircraft of the same class, should glide within the same distances, as the spit is even heavier and bigger, than the 109, the stall speeds should be taken into account as well.
Vs =150km/h in this video for the Spit (Is that a "confirmed" Value ??? I dont know) Sure, the parasite Drag of the Spit is way less then from the 109, but at this low speeds, the difference between this values, are getting smaller and smaller, the lesser the speed.

---->Why? Parasite Drag increases with the Square of increase in speed. (Parasite Drag = unused drag: Wake Turbs, Frontal Areas, Prop wash, Interference between Fuselage and Wings, and so on)

---->Dynamic Drag instead, goes with the Square-root of an increase in Speed. (Dynamic Drag= Drag caused by the creation of lift)

Example:
Same Aircraft and Weight(Mass)
---->V*2 = 4*Parasite Drag and 1/4 Dynamical Drag (Pull your hand out the Car at 50km/h and do it again at 100km/h, check if you need double or 4 times more force, to keep the hand at its position.)
---->V/2 = 1/4 Parasite Drag and 4+Dynamical Drag (logical, as much more Lift needs to be generated from a slower airflow, to keep that aircraft up in the air)


Vs =165km/h in this video for the 109 (Is that a confirmed Value??? I don't know) But I do like the behavior, the time it takes for the stall towards the wing drop and the possibility in using the ailerons.
Reminds me of my Stall training in a PA28.

Anyway, I´d say the glide distance of the Spit might be too a bit to high, but even though its a bit heavier, gliding almost double the distance might be far off. (Might be)

Still the Psychological Factor is at the end the reason for this discussion anyway.
People love the Spit and some the 109 and we all are fans of our Planes and we fly and fly them, and its just natural, that we tend to believe that our FM is probably the most real one.
And though most of us tend to acknowledge mainly arguments, which are determining our point of view.
Some we do even ignore facts for it. And we are enemies, of we will say, that the enemies aircraft is way better and unrealistic as our own.
Simply makes winning even more sweet and delicious.
Nowadays, everything is possible to be calculated, with the current knowledge of aerodynamics, computer simulations, experiences, we can come close to 95% of the real values.
So, I´like my 109, and I´m just a bit sad, about the stall characteristics of the Spit in the game. As I (just) believe, that this is simply wrong, and the stall should occur in a direct and sudden wing-drop.
But I can be wrong, What do I remember what my sources about this where, My teacher in Aerodynamics and Performance. But did he ever sat in a Spitfire ?
So whats the Point ?
Still love TF for what they did and are doing.
Cant actually believe, that some professional aerodynamic Dudes, haven't put this two planes into a big and deep study, to test their values...
Someone should study that and write his PHD about it!
I´d be thrilled to see how close or far we are all of from reality, even though I know it wound't have any serious matter to this community

Hope my entry was worth reading

Cheers

Kim

Hi Kim,

The thing is that the stall issue that you mention appears to be at odds with the real life description generally given my pilots. For example:

This from Squadron Leader Clive Rowley MBE RAF Ret'd using his first-hand experience as an RAF fighter pilot and former Officer Commanding Battle of Britain Memorial Flight flying both the Spitfire and the Hurricane:

"Stalling

The stalling characteristics of the Hurricane and the Spitfire differ markedly and this could affect the confidence that pilots had in flying their aircraft to the limits and, therefore, in generating the maximum possible turning performance. The Spitfire's beautiful elliptical wingtips are as near to an optimum aerodynamic design as you can get for the speed regime in which it operated. The elliptical wing shape generates the least lift-induced drag by minimising the wing tip vortices. This is one of the principal reasons why the Spitfire generates less drag than the Hurricane when turning hard. Also, when the wing roots of the Spitfire have stalled, the wingtips will still be flying quite happily, and the ailerons provide good roll control even at the stall.

A stall in the Spitfire is characterised by some buffet being transmitted though the control column from the elevators, giving ample warning, then at the stall a loss of lift and a 'mushing' sensation in a turn, but with no tendency to drop a wing or to flick. The stall in a Spitfire, even in a hard turn, is completely benign and the aircraft can easily be flown to its limit and at its optimum angle of attack with great confidence. In the air the Spitfire was, and is, totally forgiving of any over-enthusiasm by the pilot. The Hurricane on the other hand gives its pilot less warning of the approaching stall and will invariably drop a wing if fully stalled. In a hard turn this might lead to the Hurricane 'flicking' if pulled too hard into the turn. The Spitfire is much the nicer of the two aircraft in this respect."

Happy landings,

Talisman

[Steve D]

Hi Kim,

The thing is that the stall issue that you mention appears to be at odds with the real life description generally given my pilots. For example:

This from Squadron Leader Clive Rowley MBE RAF Ret'd using his first-hand experience as an RAF fighter pilot and former Officer Commanding Battle of Britain Memorial Flight flying both the Spitfire and the Hurricane:

"Stalling

The stalling characteristics of the Hurricane and the Spitfire differ markedly and this could affect the confidence that pilots had in flying their aircraft to the limits and, therefore, in generating the maximum possible turning performance. The Spitfire's beautiful elliptical wingtips are as near to an optimum aerodynamic design as you can get for the speed regime in which it operated. The elliptical wing shape generates the least lift-induced drag by minimising the wing tip vortices. This is one of the principal reasons why the Spitfire generates less drag than the Hurricane when turning hard. Also, when the wing roots of the Spitfire have stalled, the wingtips will still be flying quite happily, and the ailerons provide good roll control even at the stall.

A stall in the Spitfire is characterised by some buffet being transmitted though the control column from the elevators, giving ample warning, then at the stall a loss of lift and a 'mushing' sensation in a turn, but with no tendency to drop a wing or to flick. The stall in a Spitfire, even in a hard turn, is completely benign and the aircraft can easily be flown to its limit and at its optimum angle of attack with great confidence. In the air the Spitfire was, and is, totally forgiving of any over-enthusiasm by the pilot. The Hurricane on the other hand gives its pilot less warning of the approaching stall and will invariably drop a wing if fully stalled. In a hard turn this might lead to the Hurricane 'flicking' if pulled too hard into the turn. The Spitfire is much the nicer of the two aircraft in this respect."

Happy landings,

Talisman

I concur. At the end of the day, contemporary accounts all point to the Spitfire being a benign and forgiving aircraft, well mannered with excellent stall characteristics. Even those by German pilots testing captured aircraft. The washout designed into the wings which contributed to this was complex to manufacture but Mitchell had the pilot's interest at heart and ensured that his aircraft would continue to behave well at the limits of handling close to the stall. How many lives this feature saved is unknown, but I bet it will not be a few. I suspect Geoff Wellum owes his life to it when as a rookie he was bounced by a 109, beaten up, but escaped with his life by hard turning out of danger. Had he been in a Hurricane and panicked he could well have stalled and been toast.

Other contemporary accounts indicate the Spitfire did not like to land..it would just float, and float, and float, which kind of gives credence to it's good gliding capability.