The 'Great Debate' - Spitfire vs BF109

[Crumpp]

NACA data relates to a MK V.

They measured a Mk V but the issue existed in all the Spitfire Marks up to the Mk V. It was fixed with the addition of bob weights.

Here is the Mk I and the instructions for the bob-weights to fix the longitudinal instability.

[lane]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

They measured a Mk V but the issue existed in all the Spitfire Marks up to the Mk V. It was fixed with the addition of bob weights.

Here is the Mk I and the instructions for the bob-weights to fix the longitudinal instability.

Get a clue. That document is a hack. It is not a Spitfire I loading and C.G. diagram. A.P. 1565E corresponds to Spitfire V documentation. A cursory examination of the text will confirm that to anyone who knows what they are looking at. The 'IA' and 'IB' in the title block are obviously photo-shopped. You should be ashamed, but won’t be I’m certain.

[Crumpp]

A.P. 1565E corresponds to Spitfire V documentation

You are absolutely right!!! AP1565 A & B are the Spitfire Mk I and II.

Here is where I got the document!!

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpos...6&postcount=21

It was presented as evidence the NACA could not do a weight and balance on the Spitfire.

[taildraggernut]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

You are absolutely right!!! AP1565 A & B are the Spitfire Mk I and II.

Here is where I got the document!!

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpos...6&postcount=21

It was presented as evidence the NACA could not do a weight and balance on the Spitfire.

Funny how you still used a suspect document as your own evidence though.

[MiG-3U]

Originally Posted by lane

Get a clue. That document is a hack. It is not a Spitfire I loading and C.G. diagram. A.P. 1565E corresponds to Spitfire V documentation. A cursory examination of the text will confirm that to anyone who knows what they are looking at. The 'IA' and 'IB' in the title block are obviously photo-shopped. You should be ashamed, but won’t be I’m certain.

The only hack there is metric conversions of the moments because it was used to create Spitfire model for Targetware:

http://target4today.com/forum/viewto...&showtopic=581

The late war documentation for the early Spitfires (I, II and V) is basicly same.

As usual, Crumpp misinterpret the content of the table. It actually shows that the use of the bob weighs (inertia device) depends on CoG, propeller and tail configuration. Note that his original argument was that Bob-weights have absolutely nothing to do with CG limits:

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpos...&postcount=245

And it was the RAE report 2535 which proves that the NACA MAC calculation was in error (see dimensions p. 7), just like NACA admited the possibility in the their Spitfire report.

http://aerade.cranfield.ac.uk/ara/dl...rc/rm/2535.pdf

Anyway, you can continue to argue with him as long as you will, no matter what evidence you use, he will come back...