A newbies impression of the 109 and spit

[Crumpp]

IIRC, the War of 1812 was the last time England and the United States declared war on each other, Fruitbat.

Airplanes were not an issue in that war.

[fruitbat]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

IIRC, the War of 1812 was the last time England and the United States declared war on each other, Fruitbat.

Airplanes were not an issue in that war.

i'm aware of that, i just don't understand what relevance that has to do with the price of fish.

[Crumpp]

i just don't believe they are adhered to in the same way.

Of course they were adhered too. Dead is dead. It does not matter if the enemy kills you or the airplane.

Not only that, if you suddenly had everyone in your force going out breaking airplanes, what are you going to fight the enemy with while all your airplanes are getting fixed? Idiots making airplane noises on the ground because they think they know more than the designers?

You guys read a few anecdotes from a very small group who gambled and won. You don't get the wartime feedback from the 85% who lost because they are not around to tell you, "Hey, that did not work like I thought it would."


Those rules and operating limits define the airworthiness of the aircraft. Within those limits, you are flying an airplane, outside of them you are no longer in an airplane but a trainwreck headed for disaster.

[bongodriver]

I like fish....

[Crumpp]

where the hell did that quote come from anyway

Quite a few pages back when I first mentioned it.

what exactly was your link to the CAA supposed to show me?

All convention signers are on the same rules for airworthiness, then and now.

[bongodriver]

Quite a few pages back when I first mentioned it.

and the origin of that original statement?

All convention signers are on the same rules for airworthiness, then and now.

No...it seems to just show some FAR's for certification in the US, much like American light aircraft certificates show UK/European requirements likewise, really not an indication of similarity but more of differences in standards.

[Crumpp]

Spitfires did not break up in spin recovery but some did break up recovering from dives

And what are doing in spin recovery?

Asymmetrical loading....

With a significant yaw-wise pitch up.....in the Spitfire

An airplane with a neutral or negative dynamically stable airplane with 3/4 inch stick travel at 5 lbs per G.....

SPINS. Since a stabilized spin is not essentially different from a stall in any element other than rotation, the same load factor considerations apply as those which apply to stall recovery. Since spin recoveries usually are effected with the nose much lower than is common in stall recoveries, higher airspeeds and consequently higher load factors are to be expected. The load factor in a proper spin recovery will usually be found to be about 2.5 G's.

http://avstop.com/ac/flighttrainghan...maneuvers.html

Asymmetrical loading is the mechanism. It significantly degrades the airframe load factor limits when you start adding multiple axis accelerations. You are approaching the airframe limits on normal recovery. Stomp the rudder too much or add in some gusting and you can break the airplane.

Read the pilot notes as it will tell you how to operate the aircraft so that is stays within its airworthy limitations.

[bongodriver]

And what are doing in spin recovery?

Not pulling out of a Vne dive thats for sure, if you think spitfires all broke up in post spin dives then every one of them would have crashed.

absolutely nothing you have written here applies specifically to the Spit, you cling on to the obscure certification entry about 'no intentional spins' which if you know anything you will accept it can be down to factors I described earlier.

A load factor of 2.5 G's......wow massive, the Spit airframe could stand 10 G's, serously find a official source for claims spitfires 'broke up' post spin.

[Crumpp]

No...it seems to just show some FAR's for certification in the US, much like American light aircraft certificates show UK/European requirements

It is a fact all convention signers follow the same rules, principles, and procedure for aircraft airworthiness.

That is why we all use the same regulations and quote them.

Here is a quick highlight of the worlds aviation conventions. The only thing state and military aircraft are exempt from is the navigation rules.

They still must abide by the convention airworthiness standards.

October 1919 , Paris : Convention Relating to the regulation of Air navigation

Sovereignity over Airspace.

Standard for airworthiness

Certificates of competency for crews

Definition of aircraft

http://www.fabioaddeo.com/2011/02/26...nd-agreements/

[Crumpp]

A load factor of 2.5 G's......wow massive, the Spit airframe could stand 10 G's

10G's asymmetrically? You think?