Quote:
Originally Posted by Crumpp
...and the steps the RAE took to fix the longitudinal stability in later Marks.
The weight and balance is a sideline that the RAE did not even believe.
|
Please prove that the RAE had no belief in weight and balance, and explain how the RAE took steps to fix so-called longitudinal instability when they had no belief in weight and balance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crumpp
A weight and balance is done when the aircraft is complete and the empty weight CG is estabilished. It must be within that tolerance range for the type but the empty weight CG will be specific to the individual aircraft.
That empty weight CG for that specific aircraft then has its specific range for foward and aft limits based on its authorized configurations. That is why the weight and balance is part of the Pilot's Handbook for that aircraft. It is required documentation and just like the Handbook, propeller logs, engine logs, and airframe logbooks follows the aircraft throughout its life.
|
NACA did not have any drawings for the Spitfire and specifically state that their measurements might have been in error - without a weight and loading diagram of the specific aircraft tested there is no way to know whether the aircraft was teetering on instability because it was loaded beyond the usual tolerances.
To claim that this report proves all early Spitfires were unstable is a stretch, particularly when the Supermarine chief test pilot Jeffrey Quill, states in his book that the longitudinal stability of the Spitfire I was okay.