A newbies impression of the 109 and spit

[Crumpp]

Crumpp I was the one in the aircraft and can promise you that they were intentional spins. You don't train in an accidental spin.

I would have to call you on this and ask for proof the aircaft were placarded. I have done plenty of spin training and it is always performed in an aircraft approved for spining.

[Glider]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

I would have to call you on this and ask for proof the aircaft were placarded. I have done plenty of spin training and it is always performed in an aircraft approved for spining.

Check the pilots notes.

[winny]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

Until it was addressed with bob-weights, it existed in all early mark Spitfires.

Read the Operating Notes....

Ok, what has it got to do with CloD?

[Crumpp]

I don't understand why you find difficult to grasp that pilots have to be trained to get out of a spin in a plane they fly in combat.

Glider,

They were trained but they did not spin Spitfires intentionally. The RAF Training Manual clearly states you will not intentionally spin an aircraft that is placarded against spinning.

The FAA, in following convention estabilished by British law says:

Spin training must be accomplished in an aircraft that is approved for spins. Before practicing intentional spins, the AFM or POH should be consulted for the proper entry and recovery techniques.

The pilot of an airplane placarded against intentional spins should assume that the airplane may become uncontrollable in a spin.

http://nobleairventures.com/StallandSpinAwareness.pdf

[Gabelschwanz Teufel]

Jesus wept...

[winny]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

Glider,

They were trained but they did not spin Spitfires intentionally. The RAF Training Manual clearly states you will not intentionally spin an aircraft that is placarded against spinning.

The FAA, in following convention estabilished by British law says:





http://nobleairventures.com/StallandSpinAwareness.pdf

Weren't the FAA set up in 1958?

[Crumpp]

Weren't the FAA set up in 1958?

You guys would have a better understanding of what you are reading in these documents and manuals if you learned a little about Aviation Law and Legislation. It would really help you to understand how to fit them into context. Testing standards and certification of airframes, engines, fuels, pilots manuals are all part of the airworthiness of the design. They were all done on the same principles with very little variation by the convention signers.

The FAA was created by merging the two aviation authorities in the United States under one roof. Before the FAA, aircraft were administered by both the Department of Commerce and the Department of Transportation.

It relocated everyone under one roof like the Air Ministry but the rules established by convention still applied and remained in place!

The FAA is based on British Aviation Law. The same law the Air Ministry still followed in 1940.

At the Paris Peace Conference in 1919 the Aeronautical Commission (a legal subcommittee) drafted the first set of international aviation laws, The International Air Navigation Convention. The laws were patterned after British aviation laws and dealt with both concrete and abstract principles.

The United Kingdom pioneered Aviation Law and was a major player in helping to establish an international standard for all convention signers.

Great Britain, in 1909, was the first nation to address the possibility of government control of aviation manufacturing and aviation transportation. British laws became a reality when the first successful cross-channel flight in 1909 jeopardized Britain’s national security. That year, under British encouragement, the first International Conference in Paris was held. During the conference a host of aviation problems, from the sovereignty of airspace to the spread of contagious diseases, were debated. While no laws were enacted, it was apparent that aviation law was soon to become a reality.

Then in 1917 Great Britain formed the Civil Aerial Transportation Committee to organize growing civil and commercial air traffic trade. The Committee suggested that the government regulate all forms of British aviation, both nationally and internationally. The creation of the committee was an important gesture; it signaled Britain’s intent to transform its military strength from naval to air power, and instigate European aviation reform. The European community of nations was not far behind the British, for it was realized that aviation had become a force to be reckoned with in the final phase of World War I.

Even though the United States was a world power, its government had no impact on the code drafted by Aviation Mission; apparently the United States did not desire to be involved in any law-making other than its own.

http://specialcollections.wichita.ed...8/92-18-A.HTML

[Glider]

There we have our ongoing difference between the practical and experience vs theory.

Logic - how can you train someone to spin a combat aircraft without putting it in an intentional spin, plus experience - someone who has actually done it.
vs
Theory - the paper says you cannot do it therefore you didn't do it

Logic - if the fuel is installed at a station and we have pilots combat reports that says they used the fuel therefore a) the fuel was in use in those stations and squadrons and b) the aircraft had to be modified to use it
vs
Theory - I haven't got the right paperwork therefore it didn't happen

I havn't been able to find a T8 Pilots notes but the T7 was basically the same aircraft and the F6 was also exactly the same apart from the cockpit so I would expect them to have the same notes re spinning if that helps

[Kurfürst]

Originally Posted by Glider

Just an observation, but the RAF never needed to develop a two seat Spit or Hurricane and trained many thousands of pilots to fly them.

That's just plain silly. Everybody needed two seat trainers, but it wasn't widely practiced in WW2, the need it was just began to be realized.

BTW: Supermarine Spitfire T9:

[Glider]

I will reword my previous posting:-

Just an observation, but during WW2 the RAF never needed to develop a two seat Spit or Hurricane and trained many thousands of pilots to fly them. But the Luftwaffe needed to develop two seat 109's with the inevitable distruption on the design and production teams, presumably because they needed to.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------