Aerodynamic Buffet of the Spitfire

[Crumpp]

My thoughts precisely Bongo.

 

Ballast alters the CoG in relation to it's aerodynamic limits; how the blazes can you, a self professed expert, claim it's unrelated?!?!?! I've had no more experience in aerodynamics and CoG positions than flying radio controlled a/c, but dear lord, even I know this!

 

Your 'credentials' get more and more equivocal by the minute mate.

 

So, last chance Crummp me old china, money where your mouth is: let's see this report on the Mk.IX - and btw if it's anything to do with serial MK210 then I'm gonna blow whatever tired and flawed argument you have with that out of the water also.

 

Hoping for better but expecting more manure....

 

I gave you the FAA free Weight and Balance Handbook. Open it and read it. It covers this topic very well.

[Pilum]

Yes. And I ask again......have read what is already posted AND understood the information. It is not a dig on you as I doubt you had to take aircraft stability and control in college.....trust me it is a class to be avoided if your GPA is borderline.

 

It is a serious question. If you do understand it, please explain that understanding so we are not looking at hood ornaments instead of tires!!

 

:smilewink:

 

Again you are implying that you have a better background than the rest of us to understand stability and control and again you yourself bring up the subject of academic background and GPA grades.

 

So to put your statement above into perspective why don't you simply answer the questions in post #59?: http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2278425&postcount=59

 

After all, you yourself brought this subject up so why not finish what you started? Why are you avoiding the question?

Edited January 3, 2015 by Pilum

[Pilum]

Now we all know tail ballast is going to change the CoG and push it rearward, we also know that a forward CoG is beneficial to stability, so why add weight to shift a CoG rearward on an unstable aircraft?......unless of course the aircraft is not really unstable and has plenty of static margin in order to put ballast to correct a forward CoG from a heavier engine.

 

Yes, Bongodriver, I agree completely, but this simple fact seems to have escaped Crummp who now seems more focused on hood ornaments and flat tires.

 

Anyway, it seems we need to cut Crumpp some slack so he can sort out his South American FOD problem and find some precious time to find those reports showing the alleged Spitfire Mk9 instability.

 

I would not hold my breath though......

[bongodriver]

Yes, Bongodriver, I agree completely, but this simple fact seems to have escaped Crummp who now seems more focused on hood ornaments and flat tires.

 

Maybe the South American runway was strewn with those, though I would have practiced a rejected take off instead of a V1 cut......unless of course the engine ingested a hood ornament just before V1, in which case it's not really practice.

Edited January 3, 2015 by bongodriver

[Crumpp]

By all means present your theory to the dev's!!

 

:thumbup:

[Pilum]

By all means present your theory to the dev's!!

 

:thumbup:

Sorry Crumpp but you lost me there: What is the theory we should present to the developers? That you are prone to talking about hood ornaments and flat tires when pressured? That you don't have a report that shows that the Spitfire Mk9 is unstable or that you don't have an answer to post #59?

 

Could you clarify this please?

[NineLine]

Yawn....