Calling all pilots! What is it?

**Bass** · 29th August 2009, 17:32

Originally Posted by Pussy

A technicolour debrief, huh?

A well executed barrell roll is barely discernable (I'm VERY rusty on aerobatics, so not referring to moi as pilot!) to the bod.
It's great fun, T.G.W!

Have flown aeros occasionally and as the man said, it's not too bad if you have a pilot who is trying to show you a good time rather than a hard time. Also, if you can handle the controls, it's less uncomfortable when you are doing the driving, rather than just along for the ride. I can't explain that but it is an almost universal comment from those who have done both.
It also depends a bit on the aircraft because many manoevres can be done more gently if you have more power available. I was more comfortable in the front of a 2 place Pitts with 360 hp than in a Slingsby Firefly with only 110. The roll rate in the Pitts was really cool - how to make the world go round real quick.

**Bass** · 29th August 2009, 17:45

Originally Posted by Pussy

The specific NACA section of the P-51 wing is laminar... and the Spitfire had more of a "lift" wing section than the P-51. Which is why it could turn tighter, but had less speed. My steed would probably only do 200 knots even with 1300 hp under the bonnet because of the section

Laminar flow wings are really tricky beasts. I was involved in racing model aircraft for over a decade and we experimented with laminar aerofoils a great deal and with much success. The problem was the accuracy with which they had to be made. There were 3 varsity students across the world who gained their Phd's designing wings for model racers and the best of them had to be so accurately made that the only way was to mould them in carbon fibre. The hassle was that the CNC machine time required to make the moulds cost about $10,000. Even so, it was done and you could buy a set of wings. The end result was a model that with the right motor, was capable of something approaching 400 kph according to a radar gun. More surprisingly, they had a very gentle stall and were really forgiving at low speeds. Their high speed stall was never found. On the race course 40 to 50 G's in the turns were required to be competitive and the wings would snap off before they stalled.

**Bass** · 29th August 2009, 18:04

Originally Posted by Pussy

Packards were built to better tolerances than the hand finished Rolls Royce ones were, despite being manufactured by automotive mass production techniques

My understanding on this one was that the tolerances between Packards was much better largely because of the mass production but that the tolerances within a single engine were better on the RR. However I stand to be corrected on this if someone can come up with hard data.

**James Deuce** · 29th August 2009, 18:20

Originally Posted by Bass

My understanding on this one was that the tolerances between Packards was much better largely because of the mass production but that the tolerances within a single engine were better on the RR. However I stand to be corrected on this if someone can come up with hard data.

Trying to find it - I did a big reasearch effort on another forum but the article has been archived. It was nearly 10 years ago.

**Kickaha** · 29th August 2009, 18:37

Originally Posted by James Deuce

The only "best" thing about the 51 was sheer number of them in the sky.

The Sherman of the skys

Originally Posted by Boob Johnson

Suppose you think the Spitfire is a better plane than the Hurricane too!

Well they did shoot down more planes far faster turnaround on the ground and were easier to repair

I like the Mosquito best anyway

**Maha** · 29th August 2009, 18:40

Originally Posted by Jantar

Can't be a pitt if its a mono.

Maybe he lost one while performing and inside-out loop??

**BMWST?** · 29th August 2009, 18:43

the merlin was supposed to be overhauled if the throttle was ever pushed "through the gate"This engaged BOTH superchargers(the second one was only supposed to operate at higher altitude)During the battle of Britain this might happen several times on each flight !

The real success of the spitfire can be perhaps attributed to Rolls Royce always being able to respond to the quest for more horsepower.I think the mk1 had about 1000 hp but by the end of the war the griffon was producing 2500 hp

**Owl** · 29th August 2009, 18:47

Originally Posted by Kickaha

Well they did shoot down more planes far faster turnaround on the ground and were easier to repair

Isn't that back to front?

**dangerous** · 29th August 2009, 18:47

Originally Posted by James Deuce

Bristol sleeve valve radials make Merlins sound like Harleys.

haha... I like your way of thinking man

Originally Posted by slofox

Listen to this then...

Ahhh yes and hes only idling to, love the super charger sound, the Sea Fury used a 2480-hp Bristol Centaurus 18-cylinder radial, altho the V12 (mk24 spitty went up to a v24) sound awesome thers no way you can beat the sound of a radial... there used to be a fury in NZ that one in the vid could be it as it went to the UK, I have been luckynuff to have sat in it

ps, Wigram musume has a square/flat 24 from a grumman possibly on the floor.. that I'd love to hear.

**Kickaha** · 29th August 2009, 18:49

Originally Posted by Owl

Isn't that back to front?

good call, I right royally fucked that up

fuck all those single engined pussies anyway

**James Deuce** · 29th August 2009, 18:54

Originally Posted by Boob Johnson

Suppose you think the Spitfire is a better plane than the Hurricane too!

Lets have a look at that shall we.

Hurricane - Produced in 4 versions, development ceased in 1942. Construction techniques were late '20s early '30s, skin was mixed fabric and aluminium. Retired from frontline duty in 1944, but had been effectively retired in '42 by placing them in secondary theatres like Africa, the Middle East, and South East Asia.

Spitfire - Produced in more than 20 versions, still in service in the late 50s in Hong Kong flying PR (Photo Recon) missions over China. Stressed aluminium skin, early fabric ailerons gave way to metal covered ones from the Mk 4 (Actually the development mules for the Griffon engine project. They have more in common with the Mk VII than teh V)

Neither was "better" than the other, they were simply different aircraft with very different roles, and the Hurricane fell victim to obsolescence earlier than the Spitfire due to construction techniques required to produce it (Chicks with air wrenches and rivet guns are not good at joinery and rigging) and the fact that Hawker replaced it with the Typhoon, rather than trying to develop an out of date dead end. The Typhoon suffered at high altitude because it used a development of the concept used for the Hurricane's wing and had a very thick chord wing (ratio of depth to width). This wing design and very powerful engine in the Napier Sabre (once the bugs were ironed out - H engines are always trouble) made it an excellent ordinance truck instead.

Hurricane and Spitfire? Apples and Cockroaches. It's like saying an RF900 is better than a BMW GS1200.