Stability and Control characteristics of the Early Mark Spitfires

[TomcatViP]

Originally Posted by Sandstone

Air combat is often about speed and climb rate. The Hurricane was effective against bombers but less so against the Bf-109 simply because it was significantly slower and had a poorer rate of climb than the German aircraft.

At most combat altitude, the Spit had the same prob.

[fruitbat]

Originally Posted by TomcatViP

At most combat altitude, the Spit had the same prob.

Yes, but by a lesser margin, making that particular problem therefore less of an issue than in the Hurricane.

[TomcatViP]

Originally Posted by fruitbat

Yes, but by a lesser margin, making that particular problem therefore less of an issue than in the Hurricane.

+1

but we are OT now

[Crumpp]

That empty weight CG for that specific aircraft then has its specific range for foward and aft limits based on its authorized configurations. That is why the weight and balance is part of the Pilot's Handbook for that aircraft. It is required documentation and just like the Handbook, propeller logs, engine logs, and airframe logbooks follows the aircraft throughout its life.

The RAF did not have a Pilot's Handbook either, they had Pilot Operating Notes. Your post is nitpicky and irrelevant.

Sometime in the 80's by convention, everybody got on the same page as far as airworthiness documentation formats. Until then, the required information was in each nations own format but still required.

Completely wrong, neither individual CG drawings, nor weight and balance sheets were issued with the Pilot's Notes

Read the first paragraph of the very first document you posted. The specific weight and balance for that serial numbered aircraft is found in the RAF with the Aircraft handbook.

By convention, it is part of the airworthiness of that specific aircraft and part of the aircraft's maintenance documents. There will also be seperate engine, airframe, and propeller logs.

[Crumpp]

until Crumpp can prove that NACA had calculated the cg position correctly

It is proven. The math has been done several times in this thread. It is not my fault you don't understand it and continue to argue in ignorance.

If you start another thread, I will be glad to go over MAC calculations with you.

The only important information is the NACA's report is their percentage MAC.

What you are taking as evidence of an error is the NACA explaining how they did the weight and balance (percentage MAC) and their numbers might not match.

Percentage MAC does not require the specific numbers to match as long as the margin of error is the same throughout. It is a non-dimensional proportion!!!!

Look at your RAF documents!!! The RAF has the MAC as both 84" and 78.54"!!

Do you really think the RAF did not know what the wing chord was on their own airplane???

Because of the stations chosen for LEMAC and TEMAC, the NACA choose 85" as the MAC.

The fact that has to be explained over and over to folks who pass themselves off as "Gods of Aviation" is puzzling at best.

[winny]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

Well that is up to the devs as I don't know the game engine. If they are using the standard Cm calcs, then it should be rather straight forward.

OK, let me put it another way, what behaviour would you expect to see?

In layman's terms. What do you expect the Spitfire to do that it isn't already doing in game? Without going into the game engine.

Something like 'if you do xyz then this happens', please.

Just so everyone understands what it is you're asking for, not just the brainiacs..

[Al Schlageter]

Originally Posted by Crumpp View Post
That empty weight CG for that specific aircraft then has its specific range for foward and aft limits based on its authorized configurations. That is why the weight and balance is part of the Pilot's Handbook for that aircraft. It is required documentation and just like the Handbook, propeller logs, engine logs, and airframe logbooks follows the aircraft throughout its life.

Originally Posted by Crumpp

The RAF did not have a Pilot's Handbook either, they had Pilot Operating Notes. Your post is nitpicky and irrelevant.

First there is a Pilot's Handbook and then there is no Pilot's Handbook.

[TomcatViP]

You shld open another thread on Crumpp.

But it might be that an edito in the next Cosmopolitan issue will be more suited to your prose.

[Al Schlageter]

Originally Posted by bongodriver

Crumpp does that alot, he hopes he can hide it in the reams of pseudo-braniac blabber.

It is truly hilarious that he says his own post is nitpicky and irrelevant.

[fruitbat]

I await with interest his thread on the 109.