| Forum Home | ||||
| PC World Chat | ||||
| Thread ID: 105625 | 2009-12-08 22:53:00 | The world's worst thing about PressF1 Chat persona... | Greg (193) | PC World Chat |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 837945 | 2009-12-10 18:25:00 | Whitworth thread almost indentical to ANC thread except for 1/2" so the yanks must have copied it from the pommies. Jags were a pain in the ass to work on my mate had a mid sixties jag something with a mark was a major mish just to change the spark plugs. |
prefect (6291) | ||
| 837946 | 2009-12-10 19:30:00 | Spitfire from England wasn't so bad,made of metal too! | Cicero (40) | ||
| 837947 | 2009-12-10 20:18:00 | They were a fine aircraft - but unfortunately too far advanced for the alloys and building processes available to the Brit airframe builders of the time. Actually it had some sever alloy problems. The Spitfire Supermarine H.F Mk.VII. had a problem with aileron reversal when the "d-shaped" leading edge-to-mean cord would twist and create the seemingly reversal of the aileron effect. The faults was in the hysteresis and low modulus of the poor aluminum and bad alloys in the skin, which had been originally fabric/dope in the first prototypes, and later covered with flawed flush pop-rivets and gaseous aluminum skin. It wasn't strong enough. This also showed up in a copycat design and attending project plans sent by the British design teams for "suggestions" in the design and construction of the B-47 - but this problem only surfaced at low altitudes with thicker air and unnatural demands by the pilots in wartime theaters of operation. What happened was that at the high speeds that the Supermarine Spitfire could be dived at, this problem of aileron reversal became apparent when it was wished to increase the lateral maneuverability (rate of roll) by increasing the aileron area to make them competitive with the biplane turn and roll rates that the Army desired and demanded. . The Brit designers knew that reversal was going to happen since the d-tube as designed and built- and for the thin resultant cross section - would deflect with the loss of torsional stability. The aircraft had a wing infidelity problem originally designed to happen at an airspeed of 580 mph, and subsequent attempts to increase the aileron area resulted in the wing twisting when the ailerons were applied at high speed, the aircraft then rolling in the opposite direction to that intended by the pilot. The biggest problem was the original design and wrong purpose for the aircraft - as it was deigned as a pursuit attack craft to go rapidly to pursue high altitude bombers, and very little consideration was made for any high speed maneuvers when so engaged. That was just plain/plane bad planning, bulldogedly blind insight and stiff upper lipped short sightedness. The problem of increasing the newly-defined and necessary rate of roll was temporarily alleviated with the introduction of "clipped" wing tips to reduce the aerodynamic load on the tip area, allowing larger ailerons to be used until a new, stiffer wing could be incorporated.This new wing was introduced in the Mark XXI and had a theoretical aileron reversal speed of 825 mph (1,328 km/h). Sadly - the originating problem was poor alloys, construction and design techniques and use of skin fasteners that also failed from poor alloys and irresponsibly bad quality control. |
SurferJoe46 (51) | ||
| 837948 | 2009-12-10 20:26:00 | Always thought the Spitfire saved the world didnt know it had control problems. | prefect (6291) | ||
| 837949 | 2009-12-10 20:38:00 | Spitfire was highly regarded by the press gallery, but one of the most unserviceable aircraft even the British could cobble together, although if they could have jammed a Bristol radial in there it could have been almost 100% out of service. | R2x1 (4628) | ||
| 837950 | 2009-12-10 20:39:00 | I nominate myself as being a bit difficult. I don't put all of the information in some of my posts that require assistance | convair (13650) | ||
| 837951 | 2009-12-10 20:46:00 | Funny everyone is destroying my long held love for spitfires. Didnt Galland say he wanted spitfeurs ?WTF is wrong with Bristol radials the sleeve valve ones were reliable and had an incredible power to weight ratio. Safe was using them up to the eighties. Beaufighters were the one ww2 plane the pomes used up to late fifities albeit target towing so the engines must have been good. The only bad thing I heard about spitfires was the complexity of the curved wings took a while to make. |
prefect (6291) | ||
| 837952 | 2009-12-10 20:52:00 | SAFE could afford to use Bristols as long as they were heavily subsidised. Do you know of any unsubsidised user that lasted longer than a few weeks? | R2x1 (4628) | ||
| 837953 | 2009-12-10 21:12:00 | SAFE could afford to use Bristols as long as they were heavily subsidised. Do you know of any unsubsidised user that lasted longer than a few weeks? We are talking engines,not subsidies. |
Cicero (40) | ||
| 837954 | 2009-12-10 21:22:00 | I nominate myself as being a bit difficult. I don't put all of the information in some of my posts that require assistance Ah, but you are honest about it! :D |
wratterus (105) | ||
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 | |||||