A newbies impression of the 109 and spit

[Crumpp]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

That is not what I said. Pilots in the 1930's and 1940's were given only very elementary training in aerodynamics. It was considered unnecessary and demanded too much mathematical knowledge. That is straight out of the RAF Flying Manual.

They are not the experts in aerodynamics that we see today in the cockpit.

Glider,

The Spitfire Mk I had unacceptable longitudinal instability. The RAE knew it and corrected it in later marks.

It is a fact.

3/4 inch stick movement to run the usable Angle of Attack range at weak or neutral stability with light stick forces is going to make for a squirrely airplane.



Read the report, the stick force gradient on the longitudinal axis was considered too light by most of the pilots.

By careful flying, maximum performance turns could be made.

The yaw wise stability experiences a pitch up with large deflections that coupled with the longitudinal instability caused the plane to experience rapid accelerations. That means it is very difficult for the pilot to precisely control the elevator. That asymetrical loading is what can cause the airframe to break apart in spin recovery.

That asymetrical loading is what can cause the airframe to break apart in spin recovery.

Completely different condition of flight from in a spin.

Bongodriver says:
But I am quite frankly amazed crumpp claims the Spitfire would 'break up' in a spin,

As for the T-67, it depends on the type. Some are certified to spin and some are not. There is no blanket prohibition in either country.

Either way, the United States and Great Britain follow convention. It is impossible for an aircraft to be disapproved of something in the United States and approved of it by another convention signer without violating the convention.

Read the Type Certificate issued by the United Kingdon Civil Aviation Authority. It quotes FAR/JAR and CFR's. That stands for Federal Aviation Regulation/Joint Aviation Regulation and Combined Federal Regulations.

In otherwords, all convention signers are on the same standard for airworthiness. In aviation, what is British Law, is United States Law as well as everyone else who signed the convention. We all do things basically the same. It has been that way since 1919.

http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/1419/srg_acp_ba17-08.pdf

[Crumpp]

The jump from a Harvard to a Spit/Typhoon/whatever is a serious leap

Not really. The Harvard is a beast to fly and if you master it, the Fighters are "easy to fly" by very subjective comparison. The Harvard's mission is prepare pilots to fly these fighters. It does that very well and will bite a student hard if he does not follow the basic rules. That is the airplanes purpose in life, to teach pilots to become pilots and not break those rules. It is not to be gentle and docile so that a pilot thinks he can get away with something. A good trainer should bite but not kill you. It is hard to make the next lesson if you are dead.

The Spitfire is "easy to fly" compared to the Harvard/Texan.

The T-6 Texan is over 70 years old and is still a legend in the aviation world. It is referred to as the Pilot Maker because of all of the pilots it taught during WWII and continues to teach today the fine art of flying big engine tail wheel airplanes. The Texan is considered the basic trainer for those who want to transition into a Mustang or other high performance warbirds. However, with over 8,500 hours in the Mustang, Lee Lauderback will be the first to say jokingly, “the P-51 Mustang is a great trainer for the T-6 Texan!” The Mustang is easier to handle in several areas of operation, especially ground handling and crosswind situations. The Texan has been and still is a demanding teacher, not willing to compromise on basic rules and will slap you hard with the proverbial ruler if you break them.

http://www.stallion51.com/news-press-releases.php?i=9

The airplane is harder to fly than a P-51. I’ve flown both now, and I never would have never thought that was true. Understand, it’s nothing a competent pilot can’t handle, but the aircraft is the consummate trainer; she demands constant attention to be flown well – just like the T-38 did.

http://www.warbirdalley.com/articles/T6-sf.htm

[Al Schlageter]

How does the civilian aviation relate military aviation?

[fruitbat]

Originally Posted by Al Schlageter

How does the civilian aviation relate military aviation?

and in wartime as well.

anyone who's had any contact with the military will know for sure that peace time rules and war time rules are not the same. Safety levels are somewhat different.

[Crumpp]

and in wartime as well.

The only exemption from the convention is the navigation rules for state aircraft in wartime.

In short, it says you don't have to file a flight plan or notify customs if you are at war with a convention signing nation to overfly their airspace with state aircraft.



I don't think airplanes were an issue the last time the United States and England went to war.

[fruitbat]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

I don't think airplanes were an issue the last time the United States and England went to war.

lost me on that one, but i am willing to concede that point.

[Crumpp]

Safety levels are somewhat different.

The rules for airworthiness remain the same.

[fruitbat]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

The rules for airworthiness remain the same.

i don't disagree that the rules are the same.

i just don't believe they are adhered to in the same way.

[Crumpp]

IIRC, the War of 1812 was the last time England and the United States declared war on each other, Fruitbat.

Airplanes were not an issue in that war.

[fruitbat]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

IIRC, the War of 1812 was the last time England and the United States declared war on each other, Fruitbat.

Airplanes were not an issue in that war.

i'm aware of that, i just don't understand what relevance that has to do with the price of fish.