Piper_EEWL wrote:
80-90 would be more comfortable for me in low wind no turbulence conditions. And especially considering if one is still in training 100mph would for sure be on the safe side. Which is nice because speed = life (in aviation at least
). And I totally know why they build in those margins. I had to use them too
I don't think that nowadays a Spitfire would operate out of short runways in real life anyways. They're way to valuable for risking landing and takeoff accidents. But considering what you define as over the fence 80-90mph are what I would aim for too probably.
Keep in mind that the published stall speeds are in standard atmosphere with an aircraft that's performing perfectly!
So for someone in training some added safety is never wrong!
Great conversation here!
Happy flying
Sebastian
G'day Sebastian,
The problem with margin of safety is that it is easy to get into danger simply by trying to build in too much. The Spitfire has two overriding features that affect the final stages of landing
1 It continues to fly well (ie, float) and has very good controllability, right down to the stall .... due to the eliptical wing.
2. It has ground clearance of 7 odd inches on the airscrew in flying attitude, making it essential to land as close to a three point attitude as humanly possible. Fortunately 1 above makes this reasonably easy with some practice.
If you carry too much speed on short final you are faced with a long, slow, nose high float/bounce/float which can not be addressed with forward stick or you will balloon badly, can not be adressed with power to hold up the nose due to torque and other effects and the risk of floating even more...can not be killed with sideslip because you are too low, can not be fixed by retracting flaps partially because they are single stage... and finally, due to having to hold three point attitude, can lead to a stall at considerable height.
Next add the risk of wind gusts, turbulence etc which on a low, slow, nose high aircraft, can be "sub optimal"
Having had that very experince whilst learning to fly the Tiger moth, I can vouch for its undesirability!!
Of course the Tiger is recommended to be "Wheeled" in any sort of turbulence/wind but with the Spitty, that is not an option. I shudder everytime (often) I see it in FSX videos because in the real world such a pilot would never be allowed near a Spitfire again.
Have a look at the below video of the "perfect" Spitfire landing and then imagine carrying an extra 10-15mph with attendant float, in even those fairly benign conditions...watch the stick and rudder work to keep her straight! Would you really want to give the wind an extra three or four goes at bending your aircraft?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d_3YuwerLCQ
It may interest you to hear that John Romain begins finals in the Mk I at 90mph and flares at 75mph... pretty much on the upper limits of my suggestions. He has the luxury of long runways and the experience to handle windgusts.
Oh and just a small point on stall speeds and "standard atmospheres"... the stall speed is
indicated and therefore holds for any pressure height, meaning that a hot day/cold day/stormy day etc will make no difference to the speed on the ASI at which the aircraft stalls. What will vary is ground speed but that will not, of course, affect your handling...just the length of runway potentially used.
And yes, a very interesting discussion thank you! I know the whole team here are VERY proud to create aircraft worthy of such indepth and realistic analysis.
Very best
Darryl
). Which is why we can rely on our ASI's in general aviation concerning to stall limitations. The true airspeed is a different story. That proofs again that one should think before one speaks (or posts in that case) 
