Move Over, RealAir

[Alfashark]

Having a high wing loading is one thing... but to compound it by putting some bloody silly automatic leading edge slats on it was what really stuffed it :poo:

Imagine, you've got a Spit looming large in your Revi (gunsight)... he breaks right into a tight climbing turn, you follow but due to the higher wing loading you end up running wider - so you pull even tighter, you've almost got enough lead on him and then BANG! the inside wing's leading edge slat pops out and you're on the fast road to spin entry

[Ian Warren]

lotta field fix's ... rivet them and they did ! .. the good pilots made sure they never put themselfs into that position , many newbie pilot still tried diving to the ground ... in a spit .. rule number 1 .. don't go there ... same with slats

[Alfashark]

Yep, no negative G's for a Merlin... only way to stay with a 109 that pushed over into a dive was to half-roll inverted and then pull through.
Not ideal, but sure showed those beautiful elliptic wings off

[markll]

QUOTE (Charl @ Jun 10 2008, 10:45 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The modellers tell me that this is true of the early Marks, but for the later ones (esp Griffon-powered clipped wing) it's another story entirely.
It's one reason they went contra-prop.
And fuel management is critically mentioned in the pilot's handbook: No flick rolls aerobatics etc when full.

Yes, I realise that the Griffin engined spits were more of a handful, but the Mk XVI was powered by a Packard-built Merlin. That was the only difference between the XVI and the XI.

So the Plane Designs bird's flight model of should reflect the fact that this was the case....oh, and also, apparently not all Mk XVI spits actually had a rear fuel tank either...

Sorry, but I'm a bit of a Spitfire nut, and I can get quite anal about them...

Mark

QUOTE (Alfashark @ Jun 10 2008, 09:21 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yep, no negative G's for a Merlin...

Actually they fixed that problem mid-war by fitting a "negative-g" or "anti-g" carb to them...

Mark

[Charl]

QUOTE (markll @ Jun 10 2008, 10:46 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Sorry, but I'm a bit of a Spitfire nut, and I can get quite anal about them...

Anal is the only way to get your head around all the various Mk's and mods!
Anyway, you preach to the converted, all I can suggest is: get the model for its brilliant sound and modelling, and decide for yourself!
Then, badger the designers to fix the flight model...

[markll]

QUOTE (Charl @ Jun 11 2008, 09:42 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Anal is the only way to get your head around all the various Mk's and mods!
Anyway, you preach to the converted, all I can suggest is: get the model for its brilliant sound and modelling, and decide for yourself!
Then, badger the designers to fix the flight model...

Heh - yeah I might have to do that...I don't have a decent low back spit model yet...

Still looking for a nice two seater as well - not the ugly duckling "piggy back one, but one with the in-line Grace/Melton canopy conversion...that'd be cool...