Thread: Stability and Control characteristics of the Early Mark Spitfires
View Single Post
  #663  
Old 08-02-2012, 12:51 PM
6S.Manu 6S.Manu is offline
Approved Member
  
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Venice - Italy
Posts: 585
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crumpp View Post
Completely, absolutely, utterly false and extremely dangerous attitude.

Engineering tolerances are naturally tight due to the physics of flight. The POH instructions are part of the airworthiness of the design.

In the famous 100 Octane thread, I posted the convention that makes compliance a legal issue. The Operating Instructions carry the weight of law from the aviation authority of the convention signer. Only by explicit instruction is deviation authorized. An example of that explicit instruction is found in the RAF General Pilot's Operating Notes.

Statistically, deviation from those instruction is a factor in the vast majority of aviation accidents whether the deviation, such as the allowance for combat in the RAF General Pilot's Notes, is authorized or not.


All of this is off topic. Start another thread if you want to discuss POH compliance issues.
Sorry fot the OT Crumpp, but I think that there's nothing more to talk about in this threat.

Are you planning to open a new one for the 109? I'm really interested about it!
__________________

A whole generation of pilots learned to treasure the Spitfire for its delightful response to aerobatic manoeuvres and its handiness as a dogfighter. Iit is odd that they had continued to esteem these qualities over those of other fighters in spite of the fact that they were of only secondary importance tactically.Thus it is doubly ironic that the Spitfire’s reputation would habitually be established by reference to archaic, non-tactical criteria.