Quote:
Originally Posted by Crumpp
The RAE did not have a standard for stability and control.
ONCE again, there is nothing else in the Operating Notes in either the Typhoon or the Tempest that pertain to any kind of longitudinal stability issue. Had their been an issue, it would reflect in the cautions.
This is in sharp contrast to the early Mark Spitfires whose Operating Notes are filled with warnings of symptoms that are the result of longitudinal stability.
|
Quote:
|
The tail problems turned out to be due to elevator flutter and were cured by modifying elevator balance, but that didn't happen until very near to the end of the war.
|
The Typhoon's tail problems had nothing to do with the longitudinal instability described in the Pilot's Notes. The Tempest did not suffer from "low velocity tail flutter" yet also displayed slight longitudinal instability.
And, BTW the website is completely wrong - the
rudder balances, which were at the root of the tail problems, were modified in 1943 - there was no problem with the elevator balances. From early 1944 new production Typhoons, and some earlier ones, adopted Hawker Tempest horizontal tailplanes and elevators which had a larger area - with the small tailplanes and a full weapons load of either 8 RP-3s or 1,000 lb bombs the longitudinal stability deteriorated.
Your comment was the Hurricane, Typhoon and Tempest had near perfect longitudinal stability - no comment about a "longitudinal stability
issue." Fact is you were wrong, once again - both aircraft were slightly unstable longitudinally.
If the RAE had no standards for stability and control it meant they were unable to comment on the stability and control of aircraft they tested - read the
1938 report carefully, it is most illuminating.
The Spitfire PNs describe control and g-limits in rough air and caution pilots against making high-speed manœuvres in such conditions, something also covered in Pilot's Notes General.