The Spit certainly does turn better, both in the rate at which it rolls in and
the rate of turn that it can sustain (both important in a gunfight).
Lower wing
loading, that beautiful elliptical planform, and a traditional
non-laminar wing
section all contribute. The lower wing loading and planform also resulted in
suprelative high altitude performance. The Spit's weakest point was
its lack of
legs. Paul and his team also spent a lot of time trying to improve the Spit's
range. They had one shipped to Dayton where they sealed every
volume they could
find to make tankage. Fuel management was nightmare and their work was never
incorporated into production. The Brits could have done this work themselves,
but were rather busy simultaneously dodging Luftwaffe bombs and producing
airplanes.
Gary Edwards
(an engineer in awe of what those guys did back then with nothing
but slide rules
and smarts)
Engineers, huh! What did they know? It was the pilots who made it happen ;->
Seriously though, the use of slide rules had the advantage of making
you aware of what calculations you were carrying out surely?
BTW, aircrew and engineers have a love-hate relationship in my
experience - especially design engineers since each thinks that he
knows best what the other needs. Witness "The Right Stuff" when the
pilot and astronaut-to-be asks where the window is in the space
module...
But we all have something to bring to the table, as long as we get to
the table and we talk when we get there to see what we need and
whether we can have it - isn't that true of all parts of life?
[I spent 18 months discussing the design of the cockpit of
Eurofighter with the avionics engineers who were designing its
components.]
I'm better now though.
Chris
~~~~~ ><>
Chris Barker
mailto:cmib@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|