Updated RAF FMs in 1.07.18301

[Glider]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

Subjective opinion, unmeasureable, and without definition...

Possibly, quite possibly, but the problem with post war studies are precisely that, they are post war. The benchmarks that apply post war are often not the same benchmarks that apply during a war. Even during a war, there are sometimes differences between what the engineers believe to be acceptable and what the people on the front line believe to be acceptable.

This is probably the main difference between us.

[Crumpp]

the problem with post war studies are precisely that, they are post war.

The NACA study was not post war....

The RAE Operating Notes warnings were not post war.....

Gates attempts to get the RAE on a measureable standard were not post war.....

He wrote over 130 papers during his career on stability and control. A significant portion of them were written during the war attempting to convince his colleagues at the Air Ministry to adopt measureable standards.

In fact, Gates stability margin criteria were part of the NACA's standards!!! Gates developed the "Aerodynamic Center" which would replace the obsolete "center of pressure".

All of Gates findings agreed with the NACA's conclusions!

He and Gilruth were good friends. In his 1942 visit to the NACA, Gilruth hosted Gates.

One of his sources for the development of the following table is the basis of the NACA standards!!

Gilruth . .Requirements for Satisfactory Flying Qualities of Airplanes•
N.A.C.A. Advance Report A.R'.C. 5543.

Just as a chart of speed or climb performance shows us how the aircraft should perform, the plots of acceleration forces over velocity tell us how the aircraft performs in abrupt maneuvers.

For satisfactory stability and control, a pilot is able to precisely control the accelerations on the aircraft.

This is not what the plots show for the Spitfire. The accelerations vary wildly as the pilot is unable to precisely control them.

[Crumpp]

This is probably the main difference between us.

It is a fantasy world to think the physical world will change because your scared and your life is being threatenend. The reality is you will just do something dumb and make the enemies job of killing you easier.

[Glider]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

For satisfactory stability and control, a pilot is able to precisely control the accelerations on the aircraft.

This is not what the plots show for the Spitfire. The accelerations vary wildly as the pilot is unable to precisely control them.

Then you need to explain why if in theory the pilot is unable to precisely control them, did all the pilots I have read about, of all nations, praise the Spits handling abilities.

It is a fundamental difference and I would appreciate it if you could explain this conundrum.


Re this statement
It is a fantasy world to think the physical world will change because your scared and your life is being threatenend. The reality is you will just do something dumb and make the enemies job of killing you easier.

Its rubbish, I can think of a half dozen examples where the rules that apply in war did not apply in peace and / or where the theorists during the war were at odds wiith the people in the front line.
You are firmly in the theorists area,

[TomcatViP]

Originally Posted by Glider

Then you need to explain why if in theory the pilot is unable to precisely control them, did all the pilots I have read about, of all nations, praise the Spits handling abilities.

Did you really read many of them talking specifically about the production model mk I & II ? because that's what we are talking abt here.

You'd certainly read it everywhere about the Hurri an the 109.

Just remind the heavy losses young Spit pilots did have to suffer compared to their Hurri colleagues.

[Igo kyu]

Originally Posted by Glider

Re this statement

Its rubbish, I can think of a half dozen examples where the rules that apply in war did not apply in peace and / or where the theorists during the war were at odds wiith the people in the front line.
You are firmly in the theorists area,

There are rules, which are made by people, and there are physical laws which come with the universe (what or who made that being an unknown), you are talking about rules being broken in war, which happens, what does not happen is the universe being bent out of shape just for the wars of puny humans on a microscopic planet.

[Crumpp]

all the pilots I have read about, of all nations, praise the Spits handling abilities.

Light forces and small stick travel is very pleasant to cruise about on nice day.

[Crumpp]

You are firmly in the theorists area,

My DD214 says something different, what does yours say!!

[ATAG_Snapper]

Originally Posted by TomcatViP

Did you really read many of them talking specifically about the production model mk I & II ? because that's what we are talking abt here.

You'd certainly read it everywhere about the Hurri an the 109.

Just remind the heavy losses young Spit pilots did have to suffer compared to their Hurri colleagues.

This is getting silly.

EVERY account by Battle of Britain pilots flying the Spitfire for the first time -- including the 2-speed Spitfire Mark I -- extolled their praises of its handling characteristics and performance capabilities. Start with Al Deere's "Nine Lives", which I read back in '63, and there are dozens more accounts all of which are glowing in their initial and subsequent impressions of the early Spits. I've never read a negative report on the Spitfire's handling -- not a one.

EDIT: Oops, I lied: No one was keen on the Merlin cutting out with negative g's. Granted, that has nothing to do with the stability of the Spitfires, but IS a handling characteristic no one liked.

Unfortunately, those who flew and fought in the Spitfires back in 1940 never had the benefit of Crumps' theoretical insights that may have swayed their collective opinion to the contrary.

[Crumpp]

theoretical insights

There is no theory to it. It is measured, quantified, and the performance plotted.