Stability and Control characteristics of the Early Mark Spitfires

[Crumpp]

Crumpp claimed right at the start of this thread that only the Americans and Germans had adopted standards for stability and control

You don't seem to grasp the difference between research and adopted standard.

This is an adopted Standard:

http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text....3.11.2.158.27


You keep making these claims without proof.

Go search the forum. I have posted the document.

You can buy the book yourself too and read it.

It is pretty interesting.

seems the Spitfire is getting a character assasination

Read the thread. Spitfire is just the first one.

The history is interesting but a sideline. Start another thread if you want to discuss it.

The Spitfires Longitudinal stability characteristics are well defined and measured. The NACA and Air Ministry were very much aware of it.

Why exactly is this relevant in any case?

It is not to this thread about the Spitfire. So please start another thread if you want to discuss it.

[taildraggernut]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

Read the thread. Spitfire is just the first one.

The history is interesting but a sideline. Start another thread if you want to discuss it.

The Spitfires Longitudinal stability characteristics are well defined and measured. The NACA and Air Ministry were very much aware of it.

First of all there is no need for the little blue sarcastic face, secondly....start a new thread to discuss what?
the Spitfires Longitudinal stability characteristics were actually quite unremarkeable and yes that 'is' very well documented, can you explain why the P-40 was not allowed to spin or flick roll? these seem to be important facts you use to back up claims about Spitfire stability issues.

Originally Posted by Crumpp

It is not to this thread about the Spitfire. So please start another thread if you want to discuss it

Sorry? i ask if something you posted is relevant and you say it's not, but as it's in this thread and I felt the need to enquire then why do I need to start another thread?

Please quit with the sarcastic tone.

[taildraggernut]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

You don't seem to grasp the difference between research and adopted standard.

This is an adopted Standard:

http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text....3.11.2.158.27

But this is a 'post war' adopted standard, have you got a link to the evidence of adoption of standards during the war? and clear evidence the British did not have any?

p.s. not sure why you PM'd me the answer, but it is probably the most relevant post made, would you mind if I put your PM up on here?

[Crumpp]

have you got a link to the evidence of adoption of standards during the war?

Start another thread.

I PM'd you the answer because it has NO BEARING on the Early Mark Spitfires.

The purpose of this thread is to define the early Mark Spitfire characteristics so they can be included in the game. Those characteristics are measured, defined, and agreed upon by all parties involved in the Spitfires design.

It is not to debate the history of stabilty and control engineering.

[taildraggernut]

Start another thread.

Sorry but that doesn't really cut it, there is nothing 'off topic' in my asking for your sources for claims you make on this thread, it's an open forum and that all sounds a bit evasive if you ask me, not to mention the rude tone you keep coming back with once someone asks a question.

I PM'd you the answer because it has NO BEARING on the Early Mark Spitfires.

The link to the modern day adopted standards has no bearing on the Spitfire either but it seems no problem to include it here....the adopted standard here seems a double one.

The purpose of this thread is to define the early Mark Spitfire characteristics so they can be included in the game. Those characteristics are measured, defined, and agreed upon by all parties involved in the Spitfires design.

That may be what you'd like it to be, in a one man show unhindered way, but it seems you have attracted a difference of oppinion, for the most part the enquiries into your sources have been valid and polite and deserve to be answered, it just seems the threat needs to titled 'according to Crumpp'

It is not to debate the history of stabilty and control engineering.

You did after all claim that the british had no adopted standards and have put NACA on a pedestal as an example of an establishment which had adopted standards.....this does not conform to what you put in the PM, I just think it's a little unfair to expect to have a thread dedicated to your 'sole' oppinions.

[NZtyphoon]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

You don't seem to grasp the difference between research and adopted standard.

This is an adopted Standard:

http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text....3.11.2.158.27

So what? You have absolutely no evidence for this ridiculous claim that the British had no adopted standards, although I have searched through all of your posts to find a "document" you claim to have posted - without success...

Originally Posted by Crumpp

Go search the forum. I have posted the document.

this is exactly like Crumpp's assertions over 100 octane and 16 fighter squadrons - all this does is show his level of ignorance and biased POV about the British aviation industry and administration, and about the Spitfire.

Originally Posted by Crumpp

It is not to debate the history of stabilty and control engineering.

Crumpp's introductory comments to this thread:

Originally Posted by Crumpp

Amoung the Western Front warring powers during World War II, only two nations had measurable and definable stability and control standards. Stability and control was a young science. Airplanes had simply been two slow and light previously. The forces were small enough such that there was little need. The two nation were the United States and Germany.

Let's not be obtuse. None of this is to claim other nations did not progress in aviation or contribute. It is only to lay the historical foundation as to why these were the only Western Nations to adopt stability and control standards.

Yeah, right - the poor ol' British had no proper stability and control standards and no clues, until the heroic Americans helped sort it out for
them...

[Crumpp]

P-40 was not allowed to spin or flick roll?

Sure, you can look at the design and its characteristics to easily see the behaviors that prohibited spins and flick rolls.

It is not that hard.

As for the Spitfire's longitudinal stability, there is nothing to dispute or argue about at this point. The only discussion that is really open is what can be modeled in the game.

People might not understand some things but the RAE Cm graphs, NACA measurements, RAE oscillation graphs, Operating Notes, and pilot reports are all in agreement.

Just as all the pointy tin foil hat CG position theory from people who do not understand MAC calculations, we are now just arguing because folks don't understand the results of the RAE Cm graphs, NACA measurements, RAE oscillation graphs, Operating Notes, and pilot reports.

[Crumpp]

I will be happy to take to PM and explain the results for the few who have questions.

Feel free to send me one.

[Crumpp]

That may be what you'd like it to be, in a one man show unhindered way, but it seems you have attracted a difference of oppinion, for the most part the enquiries into your sources have been valid and polite and deserve to be answered, it just seems the threat needs to titled 'according to Crumpp'

DEFINE what you do not understand.

Posting "It flew great and was easy" is not an argument nor definable. It is opinion.

[taildraggernut]

Sure, you can look at the design and its characteristics to easily see the behaviors that prohibited spins and flick rolls.

It is not that hard.

Actually the reason is even simpler, intentional spins were simply 'discouraged', there simply is no physical reason why the aircraft (any of them) could not be spun.

As for the Spitfire's longitudinal stability, there is nothing to dispute or argue about at this point. The only discussion that is really open is what can be modeled in the game.

Well I would tend to agree on the basis that there is 'nothing' particularily remarkeable about the Spitfires stability, so yes I see no need to continue a thread like this one, it seems to be going nowhere....appart from trying to paint an innacurate picture of the Spitfire, what should be modelled in the game is a Spitfire with light elevator controls that gives plenty of pre stall warning simple as that, the Spitfire did nothing out of the ordinary in a high speed stall, you only have to look at other aircrafts pilots notes to see that.

Just as all the pointy tin foil hat CG position theory from people who do not understand MAC calculations, we are now just arguing because folks don't understand the results of the RAE Cm graphs, NACA measurements, RAE oscillation graphs, Operating Notes, and pilot reports.

Bold claims, are you sure nobody else but you understands them?