Stability and Control characteristics of the Early Mark Spitfires

[Crumpp]

Alex Henshaw on flying the Spitfire

How many actual dogfights did Henshaw get into in an early mark Spitfire??

None.

How many in any Spitfire??

What Mark of Spitfire is that on the magazine cover?? What Mark was the topic of this thread??

[NZtyphoon]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

How many actual dogfights did Henshaw get into in an early mark Spitfire??

None.

How many in any Spitfire??

What Mark of Spitfire is that on the magazine cover?? What Mark was the topic of this thread??

What does it matter how many dogfights Henshaw got into - how many have you got into? How many Spitfires have you flown? And since when has this thread been a discussion on dogfighting in the Spitfire anyway?

Nor does the mark of Spitfire on the cover have anything to do with the article.

[Crumpp]

Where is your evidence that Supermarine was under no obligation to correct the Spitfire?

They knew about it in 1936!! Do you really think Supermarine is that stupid it took them four years to fix it???

It cost's money to add things to an airplane. Even more money to fix an issue that is the designers fault.

[NZtyphoon]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

They knew about it in 1936!! Do you really think Supermarine is that stupid it took them four years to fix it???

It cost's money to add things to an airplane. Even more money to fix an issue that is the designers fault.

Who knew about what in 1936? and no Supermarine were not stupid. And what relevance does the last statement have to with anything?

[Crumpp]

How did NA comply with the "standard" when they fitted the P-51B/C/D with rear fuel tanks

They restricted its use when full to non-combat flying. It was prohibited to dogfight with a specified amount of fuel in the tank.

That was so the CG would be within specs......

[NZtyphoon]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

They restricted its use when full to non-combat flying. It was prohibited to dogfight with a specified amount of fuel in the tank.

That was so the CG would be within specs......

So, NA issued instructions to the pilot - isn't that exactly what Supermarine did in their Pilot's Notes?

And again I ask where is your evidence that Supermarine was not obligated to "correct" the Spitfire - what were they doing when they added bob-weights and later modified the elevator?

[Crumpp]

So, NA issued instructions to the pilot - isn't that exactly what Supermarine did in their Pilot's Notes?

Of course....

NA said don't fight the aircraft and use the 25 gallons of fuel in the tank first in an airplane that will burn 26 gallons climbing to 11,000 feet.


Supermarine said, "It is messed up, deal with it by careful flying."

Don't you think in a simulation, players should have to deal with it by careful flying??

[NZtyphoon]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

Of course....

NA said don't fight the aircraft and use the 25 gallons of fuel in the tank first in an airplane that will burn 26 gallons climbing to 11,000 feet.


Supermarine said, "It is messed up, deal with it by careful flying."

So, NA can say "We messed up with the new fuel tank, don't try and be a hero flying this aircraft in this configuration" because they are complying with a standard, while Supermarine can point out that in bumpy air there may be problems at high speed because they are not complying with a standard?

Nor, it seems, were they under any obligation to say anything because they knew about some undetermined problem in 1936 but decided to do nothing because it was going to cost money and it was the designer's fault anyway.