Quote:
Originally Posted by Kurfürst
Absolutely, however some of the limitation were not soft ones. Say the manual may say spinning is not permitted below a said altitude, and it may well be on the safe side. However it wasn't there without a reason. The rules could only be bent to a certain degree, and after that line was left behind, there was no coming back, and no telling of stories.
Mother Nature took care about enforcing it though..
It's not petty, it's realistic. If a plane can only take 12 gs before breaking up, it will at 12.1 g. If its humanly impossible to get it out from spin without having 5-10 000 feet of altitude, you will die in it.
What I find petty is that when some guy damands the same papers he has seen about 2 years ago already (back then the excuse was that it's a 'forgery'), he knows very well about it, then when he is presented with it, he changes to subject and tries argues that it really isn't to be taken so seriously.
The Pilot's notes describe the behaviour of an aircraft accurately. They cannot be just dismissed with that 'oh, its not set in stone'.
Sure not, though I've heard some times the damages were deducted, if it was for careless flying. Combat of course is a different matter, anything goes. As Crumpp said, you take a ris k and choose between certain death and likely death, as cruel as it is.
The question is alway: Which one is which? Is flying within the limits or pressing your luck is more beneficial to your survival in combat? Sometimes its the former sometimes its the latter, and the unlucky ones do not tell stories.
Physics just keep working all the same, those rules cannot be bent.
|
I'm not arguing the physics. At all. I'm also definitely talking combat.
I'm highlighting the fact that context is important too.
History is important, i've read of at least 2 RAF pilot's intentionally spinning as a way to lose altitude whilst being shot at, and I think at least 1 LW guy. I'd have to check thru piles of books...
I'm sure that plenty of pilot's were killed by their own machines failing well within the limits, after all these were hand built. I'm equally sure some went through the limits and survived. It's being made out in this thread that because the pilot's notes say that xyz will get you killed, you get killed every time. I'm merely pointing out that this is actually xyz will
probably get you killed.
I maintain that pilots notes alone are not proof of anything other than recommendations. There are too many variables to simply rely on a set of instructions.