[NZtyphoon]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

Again, the RAE may have blamed it on that but they were also behind in Stability and Control research. The NPL pretty much stagnated until the efforts of Gates and Lyons came to fruition post war moving AWAY from the conclusion stability and control could not be defined without pilot input.

Crumpp's story has now changed from a blanket statement that the British had no standards on control and stability to one saying that the British "moved away from the conclusion stability and control could not be defined without pilot input."

The Americans no longer needed pilots because their know-all engineers could design perfect aircraft without any input from pilots whatsoever. Just pop an engineer into the cockpit...leave the pilots twiddling thumbs on the ground.

Originally Posted by Crumpp

You have hit upon the entire reason the Air Ministry did not have stability and control standards outside of pilot opinion.

So why, pray tell was lack of pilot input such a wonderful development? Because it was purely subjective! Ignorant pilots could not quantify that seat of the pants feeling, nor could they accurately report on what had happened because they were too busy flying and controlling the plane.

Originally Posted by Crumpp

That all changed with the advent in the powerful monoplane fighters of World War II. The speed and forces involved pushed the science of stability and control to the forefront.

Which is exactly what the British were saying in 1937


and 1938

Originally Posted by Crumpp

MMM, It is in the thread already. Read the stability characteristics of the Spitfire. You seem to not understand it or ignore it. Instead, you place more value on anecdotes which are impossible to quantify.

You also quote the lone voice in the wilderness from Alex Henshaw who never fired a shot in anger.

Meaning that Crumpp has flown a Spitfire and fired its guns in anger - albeit in a flight sim - and knows more on the subject than Henshaw, who had simply spoken to Spitfire pilots about its qualities as a gun-platform. Then he goes into anecdotes which cannot be quantified and happen to be from pilots who had gotten used to the Hurricane and showed a certain amount of prejudice





As well as this Crumpp also claims that he knows better than Jeffrey Quill why Spitfire Vs were fitted with inertia weights:

Originally Posted by NZtyphoon

Slight correction on the Mk V - the reason the inertia weights were added was to help overcome a problem with poor cg loading at a squadron level, plus the added weight of new equipment not used in Spitfire Is and IIs.

and the reply...

Originally Posted by Crumpp

Again, the RAE may have blamed it on that but they were also behind in Stability and Control research.