Stability and Control characteristics of the Early Mark Spitfires

[Al Schlageter]

The vast majority of Typhoon losses due to the loss of the tail happened over Germany areas

Is the opposite. In the Thomas/Shore book on the Typhoon/Tempest there is 18 losses listed as 'sf' (structural failure) of which 14 were over Britain and only 2 of these past Jan 1944.

[Glider]

Originally Posted by Al Schlageter

Is the opposite. In the Thomas/Shore book on the Typhoon/Tempest there is 18 losses listed as 'sf' (structural failure) of which 14 were over Britain and only 2 of these past Jan 1944.

I stand corrected

[Al Schlageter]

Originally Posted by Glider

I stand corrected

Nice of you to admit you were incorrect Glider, unlike another person who does a 'song and dance' to deflect the discussion away from his error.

[Crumpp]

There was no Spitfire I serialed X4228

Typo...X4268.

I hope you do not sit and wonder when others show you the same courtesy you show them.

It should not be a mystery.

Did you locate X4181?? The one used for 100 Octane testing in August of 1940 in 616 Squadron?

[Crumpp]

In the Thomas/Shore book on the Typhoon/Tempest there is 18 losses listed as 'sf' (structural failure) of which 14 were over Britain and only 2 of these past Jan 1944.

What a shame the Air Ministry did not have stability and control standards in place.

They would have realized something was not kosher when the aircraft motion did not align with predicted results.

[Crumpp]

which is well researched and more accessible than M & S:

And obviously not as in-depth as M&S.

[NZtyphoon]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

And obviously not as in-depth as M&S.

Prove it - scan and post the relevant pages instead of making useless comments.

[Crumpp]

1567MkI produced/17 structural failures = 92

About the same as the Beechcraft Bonanza.......

No wonder the RAF wanted to solve the issue.






I just thought this one was very interesting.....

[Al Schlageter]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

What a shame the Air Ministry did not have stability and control standards in place.

They would have realized something was not kosher when the aircraft motion did not align with predicted results.

UGH!!!?

The s/fs had nothing to do with 'stability and control standards'. To bad the Americans didn't have S&CS for the P-51 when they were loosing wings.

[NZtyphoon]

Originally Posted by Al Schlageter

UGH!!!?

The s/fs had nothing to do with 'stability and control standards'. To bad the Americans didn't have S&CS for the P-51 when they were loosing wings.

Just another one of Crumpp's diversions - I'm waiting for his list of Mk Is destroyed through structural failure, along with scans of the relevant pages from Morgan and Shacklady.