Quote:
Originally Posted by Crumpp
He is not an aircraft performance engineer or an aerodynamicist.
|
Actually the graphs were done by an
engineer..
Which is something I pointed out in the first response to this graph where I took the time to read and than quoted the graph's source, i.e.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by "The Most Dangerous Enemy" by Stephen Bungay
Turning circles are as calculated by John Ackroyd of the Manchester School of Engineering
|
Thus proving that humans (pilots, engineers, etc) can make mistakes..
As for the graph, as I initially noted, I questioned it's purpose..
Initially it seemed like it was done to give the impression that the 109 turn circles are far worse than the Spit and Hurri..
Which they well may be!
But, if that is the case this graph does not do a very good job of showing it!
It actually raises more questions and cast doubt for those who are use to looking at performance graphs (like myself)
If the purpose was to convey the turn radius (circle) at sea level than there is no need to provide an X (radius)
vs. Y (alt) graph in that there is no X (radius)
vs. Y (alt) taking place..
It is just X (radius)
@ Y (alt)
IF that is the case, than placing 'Altitude (000ft) along the Y axis was wrong!
A better way to 'graph' this 'data' would have been to draw circles inside of circle with the radius associated with each circle and title the plot turn radius (circle) at sea level