Quote:
Originally Posted by DC338
Now I understand that Figure 15 does hint at what you are getting at yet I see no such problem in figures 16, 17 & 18 of the same report and you don't seem to analyse them in your argument? Odd as they are essentially they are same test as figure 15 but in the opposite direction (16) and at higher speeds (17 & 1  . Looks like a relatively constant G was held throughout by the pilot. Or am I missing something?
Yet it does not say that is was dangerous flying quality. It just did not meet the Requirements laid out in report 755. It was not built to that standard so should it surprise that it doesn't meet all of them?
Now on the Spit V they did use a inertia weight to combat over sensitive elevators on that Mark. Why did they not demand a retro fit of inertia weights to the MK I & II that would have been in the OTU squadrons at the time if it was such a problem? |
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 (see Quill
http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpos...&postcount=781 )
08-06-2012, 02:53 PM
Threaded Mode