Spit/109 sea level speed comparisons in 1.08 beta patch

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Originally Posted by "The Most Dangerous Enemy" by Stephen Bungay

Turning circles are as calculated by John Ackroyd of the Manchester Schoold of Engineering

That is a strange looking turning circles graph..

Altitude vs. Radius?

Where alt units state ('000 ft)

Something is strange here.. as in some info is missing (calc at a fixxed speed?)

I mean based on that graph the Spit is not able to go above 700ft in alt?

At a glance one might conclude that the Spit and Hurry have better turn radius..

But it is allmost as if that was done on purpose..

Does the book say more about that graph and how Mr. Ackroyd calculated it?

[NZtyphoon]

Originally Posted by ACE-OF-ACES

That is a strange looking turning circles graph..

Altitude vs. Radius?

Where alt units state ('000 ft)

Something is strange here.. as in some info is missing (calc at a fixxed speed?)

I mean based on that graph the Spit is not able to go above 700ft in alt?

At a glance one might conclude that the Spit and Hurry have better turn radius..

But it is allmost as if that was done on purpose..

Does the book say more about that graph and how Mr. Ackroyd calculated it?

At first glance I though the altitudes were reading as 600,000 to 900,000 ft -

shades of the Dr Who Spitfires!

[ATAG_Snapper]

It appears the Turning Circle chart is poorly presented. It's not an X-axis/Y-axis graph at all that I can see. It's simply drawing the turning circle arcs showing the relative diameters; all at "000 ft" which I take to be sea level.

Secondly, have a look at the relative speed charts between the Hurricane I, 109 E3, and the Spitfire I. The speed curve for the Spitfire I looks remarkably like the one for the much-decried "Über Sissyfire IIa" in the current retail version 1.05, as does the curve for the E3 to the CoD v. 1.05 E3, and, by gosh.....there's JTDawg's old Rotol!!!!!

Obviously that chart is wrong and the author sadly misinformed.

[Crumpp]

Obviously that chart is wrong

Typical....

Most of these history are written by amateurs who know very little about the science of aircraft.


I think the author is a Management consultant.

[ATAG_Snapper]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

Typical....

Most of these history are written by amateurs who know very little about the science of aircraft.


I think the author is a Management consultant.

No doubt. Barely able to tie his shoelaces, I should think!

[Crumpp]

I did not say the guy was stupid, Snapper. He is very intelligent and well respected. He has also written some good books.

He is not an aircraft performance engineer or an aerodynamicist.

[ATAG_Snapper]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

I did not say the guy was stupid, Snapper. He is very intelligent and well respected. He has also written some good books.

He is not an aircraft performance engineer or an aerodynamicist.

Sooooo, he's very intelligent and well respected....but since he is not an aircraft performance engineer or an aerodynamicist he therefore publishes incorrect information? Please clarify.

[NZtyphoon]

Originally Posted by ATAG_Snapper

Sooooo, he's very intelligent and well respected....but since he is not an aircraft performance engineer or an aerodynamicist he therefore publishes incorrect information? Please clarify.

Unfortunately there are very few aviation or aviation related books that meet Crumpp's extremely high standards, because they are not written by engineers. Until true professionals like Crumpp descend from their elevated heights and start researching, writing and publishing books on aircraft, our bookshelves will continue to be cluttered with books written by intelligent, well respected amateurs who know nothing and write abysmal nonsense.

[Al Schlageter]

Bungay didn't do the graphs as anyone who can read can easily see.

"Turning circles are calculated by John Ackroyd of Manchester School of Engineering."

[Crumpp]

John Ackroyd of Manchester School of Engineering

Care to explain them.......