Quote:
|
until Crumpp can prove that NACA had calculated the cg position correctly
|
It is proven. The math has been done several times in this thread. It is not my fault you don't understand it and continue to argue in ignorance.
If you start another thread, I will be glad to go over MAC calculations with you.
The only important information is the NACA's report is their percentage MAC.
What you are taking as evidence of an error is the NACA explaining how they did the weight and balance (percentage MAC) and their numbers might not match.
Percentage MAC does not require the specific numbers to match as long as the margin of error is the same throughout. It is a non-dimensional proportion!!!!
Look at your RAF documents!!! The RAF has the MAC as both 84" and 78.54"!!
Do you really think the RAF did not know what the wing chord was on their own airplane???
Because of the stations chosen for LEMAC and TEMAC, the NACA choose 85" as the MAC.
The fact that has to be explained over and over to folks who pass themselves off as "Gods of Aviation" is puzzling at best.
