Quote:
Originally Posted by Glider
What is more likely to go wrong, A prototype on its sixth flight or a test pilot of many years experience. The problem was traced to issues with the avionics and delayed responses to control input, not pilot error.
These had been calculated and tested in simlators but it was only when they flew that the problem was idnetified.
So the calculations and theory was flawed resulting in a serious accident the pilot was lucky to get away with. People who rely on theory are banking the farm on a theory and thats why I posted the video.
|
OK, so they did employ maths and physics improperly. I'm fairly certain that they came up with proper calculations after the accident and managed to simulate the problem. Just like we can calculate turn performance nowadays, the calculation is sound and all you can do wrong is input data.
Quote:
|
This what hve ruined Il2 with a Spit that never depleted his E
|
You're wrong, Spits always flew to the same physics that applied to all other planes. The reason it could sustain a 17s turn is because it's one of the aircraft's design features. Just like high speed was a design feature of the Fw 190, which had no problem whatsoever to outrun Spitfires. Take a ton off a 190, give 200 extra hp at altitude and add 20% drag, and you got yourself a Spitfire.