Quote:
Originally Posted by 6S.Manu
If you provide a method to identificate which poster are part of the "blue side"...
|
Well, I see blue side planes on the signatures, is that a poor indicator? Sorry if you feel offended.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 6S.Manu
Anyway it's not a smart question: "why only the blue side want the the feature modelled?" can easily become "why only the red side don't want the feature modelled?"
|
Actually I'm asking why you, regardless your color, are demanding that the longitudal stability and elevator control of the early Spitfire's after the worst case scenario?
The worst case scenario means here a Rotol propeller and CoG behind the aft limit for that configuration, like in the NACA tested Spitfire.
Note that typical pre war or BoB service CoG for a Spitfire with DeHavilland propeller ok even for the Spitfires flying today. Actually even the CoG NACA used for a Rotol propelled variant is ok with the DeHavilland prop... but not with the Rotol prop.
And the manual containing control reversal warnings is for the Rotol propelled variant.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 6S.Manu
Do you mean that the test in the first post is not real?
|
Of course it's real but if you question pilots comments, you should also apply the same standard for all the data, including that report:
1. They did not know the CoG for military load.
2. They tested just one CoG position.
3. The CoG they used, 31.4" behind leading edge at the root is 7.8" aft datum. The rear limit for the same configuration is 7.5".
Quote:
Originally Posted by 6S.Manu
No... There is a ton of documents in this thread... I don't think to have questioned them all.  |
Actually you should, and more precisely, put things on right contex. Yes, there is plenty of documentation posted, including critics on NACA test (even wartime critics by RAE).