Why don´t these figures match up?

[Crumpp]

No where in the document does it say or imply WWII flight testing for the most part was NOT sophisticated.

Read it Tagert. They used analog instruments and the same things homebuilders use in their garages today.

Not quite the sophisiticated testing regiments in use today. They did lay the foundations of what we use today but only in general terms without the detail. The testing of enemy designs was especially rudimentary as they lacked the logistics for long term support of a design to maintain optimal performance.

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

Read it Tagert. They used analog instruments and the same things homebuilders use in their garages today.

Ah, I see where you are confused!

Note all I am saying is the document does NOT agree with or support your opinion

Originally Posted by Crumpp

Not quite the sophisiticated testing regiments in use today.

Actully you may want to read the document yourself.. Or my quote above, allow me to re-post it here

AIAA-88-4512:
For airspeed indicator calibration a reciprocal low level course was flown between two accurately located landmarks (still used today).

Pay close att to the text in RED at which point you may want to re-consider or re-word your statment of "Not quite the sophisiticated testing regiments in use today"

Hope that helps! S!

[Crumpp]

Fruitbat,

Nobody is saying I know better. One can read what they did and if you the procedures in use today.....

It is easy to compare.

If you don't know then you have no basis for comparison. It is not my fault people do not have a basis to compare the development of flight testing regiments.

I can post some papers on the subject from an aeronautical engineering library if you would like to learn more about this subject.

[Crumpp]

Some of the methods they used in WWII have a high margin of error due to the equipment and the techniques required to operate it.

It is all pretty simple stuff.

[Al Schlageter]

They didn't have computers 'back in the day' either.
Considering what they had to work with, I would say they did a pretty darn good job.

[Crumpp]

Considering what they had to work with, I would say they did a pretty darn good job.

Yes they did but that has nothing to do with the fact things were not sophisticated.

[Al Schlageter]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

Yes they did but that has nothing to do with the fact things were not sophisticated.

It was sophisticated for the day, just like 70 years from now there will be those saying how arcadish todays methods are.

[Crumpp]

It was sophisticated for the day

Even a stick to pluck termites was considered high tech at some point in history.

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Originally Posted by Al Schlageter

It was sophisticated for the day

The most telling part of all this is that they still use some of the methods that were used in WWII today..

So, using Crumpps logic, that would mean todays methods are un-sophisticated!