Quote:
Originally Posted by bongodriver
You miss the point, it's been a claim since the beginning of this thread that Spits broke up in flight, now it's come down to piles of wings, both theories are pure anecdotes and have no proof whatsoever.....so what is it? do they break up? or do they just bend wings?......or is it in fact neither because the apparent problem is all a fabrication?.....my vote is the latter because it is clear this thread is about nothing more than a desparate attempt to pork the Spit, there won't be a 109 thread...not from the OP anyway.....I see no reason one couldn't have been started already.....well the reason is actually obvious, it avoids bringing unwanted attention to the favoured aircraft, people can just rip the Spit to shreds and make all the accusations of Spit 'fanboys' or red v blue agendas in the Spit thread.
|
Warning on pilot's notes are not a fabrication.
According the numbers posted by Glider (even if they're from an limited investigation on only 121 accidents... a small sample of course) the 38% of those planes were lost for a overstressed airframe issue.
Quote:
|
The next most serious cause of structural failure in the Spitfire was pilots overstressing the airframe. She was extremely responsive on the controls and one must remember that in those days there was no accelerometer to tell the pilot how close he was to the limit. So it was not difficult to exceed the aircraft's 10G ultimate stress factor during combat or when pulling out from a high speed dive; during the war we were able to put down 46 major accidents to this cause, though undoubtedly there were many other occasions when it happened and we did not see the wreckage. Incidentally, if there was a structural failure in the Spitfire it was almost inevitably the wing that went; the fuselage was far less likely to fail first (the same for most low wing monoplane fighters?-except the Typhoon?- Berkshire).
|
Is it an OP's fabrication?
Do you really think that this kind of issue has not to be simulated? On all the planes, of course.
Quote:
|
I see no reason one couldn't have been started already.....well the reason is actually obvious, it avoids bringing unwanted attention to the favoured aircraft
|
Really?
- 109's fans want to talk about Spitfire to avoid attention on their plane
- Spitifire's fans want to talk about 109 to avoid attention on their plane
Great logic IMO.
Can you suggest a plane to talk about to avoid attention on the P51 (my favourite plane with the 190)?
Why can't we admit that those were high performance fighters and everyone of these had some issues? We should just take note of that to have a realistic sim and then we can start to analyze another plane.
Let's do it in a mature way... in this thread there are to many childish reactions and it's clear that all is created by the same few posters who keep fighting in every WW2 message board of the web.