Quote:
Originally Posted by Kurfürst
Funny how our dear Jeff first demands the evidence he has seen a great many times himself (the Spitfire pilot's notes), then when is shown that again he changes the subject and begins to say that the Spitfire's (or any other plane's) operational limitations are not really limitations at all, and they should be adhered only at the pilot's will.
Yeah right, the RAF was busy printing out manuals for aircraft and define their flying limitations simply because they had nothing better to do.  |
I think this is slightly unfair. Pilot's who flew 'by the book' generally didn't last very long, on both sides. There are too many stories of people breaking 'planes out of desperation, panic or fear. Lot's of Spitfire and 109 pilot's took thier machines to the limit, and beyond. In fact nearly all the top guys did it.
Pilot's are given notes so that they understand the limits and dangers. There were no referees or people from the ministry flying around enforcing the law...
To simply dismiss this in such a trivial way
"limitations are not really limitations at all, and they should be adhered only at the pilot's will." seems petty.
At the end of the day individuals made individual choices. If you returned from a mission with a bent airframe nobody grounded you for it, they just said 'oh he's bent the airframe' and ordered a new one.
@:Crumpp.
All this FAA stuff is a smokescreen. You find me a rule and I'll find you someone who broke it.. What has the FAA got to say about intentionally ramming another aircraft? Or shootng down another aircraft, or bailing out at 500 ft, inverted? Aor what you do when your left foot has just been blown off at the ankle?