Quote:
Theres standards and then theres standardisation, you can have standards without standardisation, it simply means there was not a universally applied standard, I asure you the British aircraft industry was not a free-for all where they let the tea ladies get in on the act because it 'looked pretty', there were people who were very aware of what stability and control was within the RAE.
I am not arguing a point about whether a universal standard was adopted, I'm arguing against your bizarre claims the British had 'no' standards and therefore the RAE reports on the 109 may as well have been performed by monkeys.....until of course you want to 'cherry pick' anything positive.
|
The RAE left things up to the opinion of the pilot as the definative source on the stability and control.
That is why you had such a variation in stability and control in British designs.
Here I will quote Lyons in his report:
Quote:
It is recommended that Q be adopted for designers' use, that its limits of validity be checked by careful tests on one aeroplane, and that more force measurements in pull out from dives be made on a number of aeroplanes in order that numerical standards may be attached to Q. Reference is made to American standards....
|
Quote:
A compact formula Im a criterion of manoeuvrability Q the stick force per g is proposed as a basis of design.
|
Quote:
If Q is adopted as a criterion, numerical standards should be attached to it. More measurements are needed of stick force in pulling out of dives, particularly on bombers, before these can be fixed.
|