Quote:
Originally Posted by Crumpp
The aircraft's reaction to gun recoil could also be modeled. As an unstable platform, the arm is shorter which means less resistance to motion.
|
Documented evidence for this, please.
Alex Henshaw's comments make interesting reading on the Spitfire as a gun platform and on its elevators:
Note Henshaw comments that the Spitfire's elevators were light cf those of the Tiger Moth or Magister on which pilots trained....
Now, a comment on the Pilot's Notes used by Crumpp which can be found here:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/4598146/Pi...lin-XII-Engine - this is a most unusual set of PNs, even for a reproduction. For one thing these have detailed information and comments on combat skills and aerobatics, which few pilot's notes normally had.
These were not the standard PNs issued to pilots on frontline units - those ones invariably
had blue covers: the notes that were issued to trainee pilots at OTUs had orange covers and these notes were conservative in their approach to ensure hotdog young pilots, who had gotten used to heavier elevators on the Tiger Moths etc, were made fully aware of the lighter Spitfire controls.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crumpp
Again, the RAE may have blamed it on that (overloading at a squadron level) but they were also behind in Stability and Control research.
|
Wrong, once again, as Jeffrey Quill made quite clear he witnessed what had happened - unless Crumpp can show that he knows better about what happened in 1942 than Quill...nothing but speculation.
As for Crumpp's continued assertions about how hapless the Brits were when it came to defining control and stability?
The first page shown by Crumpp is talking about 1910-1912: it has no relationship to the 1930s and the Spitfire whatsoever!
This is page 5 from the Von Karman Lecture 1970:
Page 6 - the one posted by Crumpp
What has what happened in1910-1912 got to do with ANYTHING in this thread???
CF: 1937 ARC report
CF: the 1939-48 ARC report
