Why don´t these figures match up?

[Crumpp]

Here you go....

So much for "my opinion".

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

Here you go....

So much for "my opinion".

Ah the good old AIAA-88-4512 document.. Love that one!

First thing I should point out..

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

That was your opinion, and thus far your opinion alone!

Granted, I am sure there are some out there that agree with you.. But this document is not one of them!

As for the document itself

To be honest Crumpp, when reading it I don't walk away with the impression that the testing of WWII flight testing for the most part was NOT sophisticated.

As a mater of fact I am impressed with the methods the test engineers and pilots came up with!

For example, the AIAA-88-4512 points out the following..

AIAA-88-4512:
Before covering some typical flight test programs the basic flight test instruments used in that era are listed. Cockpit instrumentation consisted of attitude and directional gyros that had to be caged in aerobatic maneuvers. The pressure instruments for airspeed, etc.. were quite well developed

When I read that, as in the instruments were well developed, I form the opinion that WWII flight testing for the most part was sophisticated, where as you form the opinion that WWII flight testing for the most part was NOT sophisticated.

And here is another example..

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

When I read that, as in they came up with a method in WWII that is still used today, I form the opinion that WWII flight testing for the most part was sophisticated, where as you form the opinion that WWII flight testing for the most part was NOT sophisticated.

No big deal really!

Just highlights the differences between you and I and others..

You think you know better than all the test engineers and pilots of WWII

Where as I and many others here admire and am impressed with what the test engineers and pilots of WWII did

But just to be clear, you are still welcome to your opinion! All I and others ask is that you don't take it personal when we don't agree with your assessment that WWII flight testing for the most part was NOT sophisticated.

Thanks in advance! S!

[fruitbat]

Originally Posted by ACE-OF-ACES

Just highlights the differences between you and I and others..

You think you know better than all the test engineers and pilots of WWII

Where as I and many others here admire and am impressed with what the test engineers and pilots of WWII did

But just to be clear, you are still welcome to your opinion! All I and others ask is that you don't take it personal when we don't agree with your assessment that WWII flight testing for the most part was NOT sophisticated.

Thanks in advance! S!

quoted for truth......

[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.

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Originally Posted by fruitbat

quoted for truth......

S!