Official Fulqrum Publishing forum - The 'Great Debate'

Official Fulqrum Publishing forum (http://forum.fulqrumpublishing.com/index.php)

- FM/DM threads (http://forum.fulqrumpublishing.com/forumdisplay.php?f=196)

- - The 'Great Debate' - Spitfire vs BF109 (http://forum.fulqrumpublishing.com/showthread.php?t=33236)

Quote:

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crumpp (Post 447355)

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crumpp (Post 447227)

What theory??

You mean the measured results? The Operating Note warnings? The Test Pilot confirmation?

Still waiting for the test pilot confirmation

Quote:

Originally Posted by Glider (Post 448970)

Still waiting for the test pilot confirmation

Except Jeffrey Quill and Alex Henshaw, who don't count because they did not have Crumpp's vast experience in aerodynamics and engineering.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Glider (Post 448970)

Still waiting for the test pilot confirmation

We are still waiting on the Stability and Control characteristics of the Bf109.

Quote:

Originally Posted by lane (Post 447343)

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...

Quote:

Originally Posted by NZtyphoon (Post 448972)

Except Jeffrey Quill and Alex Henshaw, who don't count because they did not have Crumpp's vast experience in aerodynamics and engineering.

Don't forget Molders, Galland and the German test establishment. After all JQ and AH might be seen as biased

Crumpp
I believe the ball as they say is firmly in your court.

Quote:

I believe the ball as they say is firmly in your court.

Not really...

The game has been over for quite a while. You and some others continue to play on because you do not realize it as you do not understand the information presented.

You don't really want to understand and I am not going to force you either.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crumpp (Post 449127)

Ah yes, Crumpp's vast experience in aerodynamics and engineering - I guess it must be so frustrating being the only person who knows all there is to know about these subjects, while the rest of the world is made up of ignoramus'. What a shame that Reginald Mitchell did not have the benefit of Crumpp's vast capabilities - the Spitfire would have been a much better aircraft. And Jeffrey Quill could have done with Crumpp's abilities as a pilot on the Supermarine test pilot's team...*sigh* such might have beens.

Do you mean like he could hve designed the E-model wing right on the drawing board ?