You have demonstrated to my satisfaction that you not what know the difference between a split gear opposite turn gear box is or opposite turn engine driven propellers are. Torque is a problem on a twin engine plane due to something called flexion. 

 

This is when the a bridge load across a span is bent under tension widthwise along the wingspan and not across the chord.

 

But then you would need to know how force loads work to add inertia potential to such a plane as the P-38. It affects roll.

 

Your explanations and excuses are foolish to me. 

Nothing. What a shame that I understand so much more and am willing to share and all you do is want to fight instead of have an honest conversation.

You do not fix that combination input force error quickly or easily. It is trial by error to fly the modifications into the plane. These are factors of the problem you mentioned, but have almost nothing to do with the problem I mentioned.

Control force harmonization. But then you do not understand what that means, Shooter, for you do not fly. 

Why are their some pilots who think the Mk-V was the "Best Handling" Spitfire of all time? What changes were made and how did they effect the "Handling" qualities such that the later planes were not as well thought of?

Some pilots though the Mk I was the best handling, others thought the Mk IX or the Mk VIII was the best handling.

 

Opinions differ between pilots.

 

I wonder, what then, is your point?

 

Changes to the Mk V included a bob weight for the elevators, to reduce sensitivity, and the introduction of metal skinned ailerons. There were also changes to the aileron hinge type and minor adjustments to the elevator shape during the production run.

 

Changes to the Mk VIIIg included repositioning of ailerons slightly inboard, the extended rudder (adopted on the Mk IX and VIII for good measure) and changes to the elevator droop.

 

Handling in an aircraft is a function of stability along all three axis. Normally

What about torque do you understand? Unless the plane has CR Props, it will be plaigued by Torque effects!
Oh course that is why there are no single engined aircraft to today without CR props, or that all single engined prop planes from 43 onwards had CR props, oh wait a minute they wernt were they

 
What about wetted surface area do you understand? More is bad and less is good! That is why the RAF chose not to add as much rudder/Vert-stab and Horizontal Stab/Elevator as required to fix the problem in the first place!

Just read the book dammit it explanes this in detail, just increasing the area is not always the solution as it has other effects, shape and thickness also effect the story

 

 What about stall do you understand?Post stall maneuvering is, or more exactly can be good and unintended stall is bad!

so the controlable stall of a Spit is superior to the sudden stall of a 109/190 or P51?

What about weight loading do you understand? Less weight is better than more weight, if all other things are equal.

?

What about the B-17, a bomber noted for crab do you understand? That you all, colectively, that is fail to differentiate between the few hundred early models and the ~twelve thousand later models absolutely free of this vice.

Sorry but I think that as the Problem effected the E, F and G models that most on here were not aware that they made 12000+ B17 of later models than the G

 

What about aircraft do you understand? Enough to have passed the A&P at one time! Also to have several degrees earned from Avionic schools in the Army and the UoNY, Regent's Coledge.

Yeah right we are going to believe that, more likely a 2 star award from Macdonalds for customer service

 

 So I guess that I know more than you. Nothing. What a shame that I understand so much more and am willing to share and all you do is want to fight instead of have an honest conversation.

Because you have never been able to show honesty.

You do not fix that combination input force error quickly or easily. It is trial by error to fly the modifications into the plane. These are factors of the problem you mentioned, but have almost nothing to do with the problem I mentioned.

none statement! word that sound good but add nothing to the undersatnding of anything


Why are their some pilots who think the Mk-V was the "Best Handling" Spitfire of all time? What changes were made and how did they effect the "Handling" qualities such that the later planes were not as well thought of?

 

could be they added heavier longer more powerful engines and more equipment, but it doesnot mean that the later Spits were poor as any of them would out fly any US fighter of the time

 

Some planes can fly for hours with out the pilot touching the controls at all!

This is only true if all forces are equalised, but it is never the case, any plane will climb as fuel is used, also a gust will change the flight of an aircraft, whilst it may stabilise after the gust it will do so ON A DIFFERENT course

 

They are naturally stable and resume their original flight attitude after a gust departure. This also applies to the statement below.

This, the problem of three axis control, and the realization that the heavier than air machine based on lift and thrust is constantly unstable, is why the Wrights understood that it was three axis control and not lift that was the secret to the airplane. It is why they are the inventors of the airplane and not this imbecile.

Planes do not fly straight and level. They are corrected by control forces.
SOME planes clearly do fligh straight and level WO pilot imput! At least as long as the fuel hold out. 

 

If the controls can be harmonised correctly, this was why RAF and USAAF planes had trim controls and what made the 109 and 190 more difficult to fly, the late models 109s required constant right foot to fly straight

it strikes me that it is a circular argument, the US made the best long range fighter so long range must be the deciding factor in judging the quality of a fighter  

 

There are more than a few historians who think that lack of range was the main, if not only reason why the Germans lost the BoB.

 

There are other historians who think that the Spitfire lost the Battle of France because of it's short range.

Note that even in modern times, many European AFs think a plane can be had that has considerably less range than we like to have in America. See Rafale, Grippon and proliferation of the Mig-29 family. Note that they all are forced to cary drop tanks all the time inorder to fly missions outside of their own countries. They do this because lack of range saves them huge amounts of money in all facits of it's procurement. IE, less range means less airfraim weight, less engine power to lift that weight, smaller wings and surfaces, etc...

 

Range is important for DOMESTIC reasons, in US forces.  It's pointed out in Fire in the Sky that the US is a BIG place.  Just xsfering aircraft from station-to-station  requires considerable range.

 

but early US fighters didnt have significantly more range than european ones, it was later actaully during bthe war that the US realised it needed these long range fighters to prevent the slaughter of its bombers, it had to get them or admit that unescorted baybombing was a none starter

 

  The example Bergerud uses is a USAAF pilot flying a Spitfire across the US.  He simply was amazed at how many times the Spitfire had to land and refuel, it had such short legs.  Realize the USAAF had to plan on moving A/c from New York to California.  It also had to plan on fighting in Pacific distances and have a/c that could ferry from California to Hawai'i.

yet it had neither. I still say that long range came because the US relised that its bombing campaign needed them not for any other reason

 

In short the CONUS is HUGE as compared to Europe....and that was just to move A/c from the factory to a CONUS staging area...and it was even further to Hawai'i...again not a combat area.  The US simply needed a/c with long range for internal administrative reasons as well as for strategic reasons.

 

I have made my point, I agree that it was a US rerquirement and as such does make US planes more suitable for US deployment, however the point was why does a US centric requirement make the fighters the best?

I was having a look at what range could be squeezed from the spit and found that a US developed Long range spit MKIX had a combat range of over 800 miles using the 60 gallon wing tanks (rather than the 110 gallon units on the P47 used to get similar range)

Whilst it was never progressed it is interesting for a couple of reasons,1, it shows that whilst P51D range could not be matched a long range spit not only was possible (Vickers also made a long range MkIX that didn't quite match that of the US plane and was less stable until the fuel burnt off) but actually made

2, and I find this intriguing, why were the US experimenting with extracting long range from a Spitfire when they had the P51D,P47 and the P38?

The original report, if it is the one I think it is, is most interesting! Read the whole thing! You will be surprised!

The original report! I bet you have never seen, it says that with minimum changes a combat range of 800 miles could be achieved (this comapirs tio the P47 of the time which also had a combat range of 800 miles but needed the 110 gallon wing drop tanks and a 200 gallon belly tank as opposed to the 65 gallon wing tanks that was being used on the Spit, they considered using the 110 gallon tanks but this would have required wing strengthening as the wing was not designed to take that point loading,  with  additional internal bracing the 110 could have been carried but that would vickers to change the production lines someting that they were against.

 

 

(1)Note the concept, mechanical feedback loop. 

 

Others have said this, but I will add.

 

(2) As fuel burns off or weight is jettisoned, if the plane has no trim or weight correction it will pitch in the direction of the load shift, which means nose up or down until it eventually stalls and falls. Or in alternate condition,  it will roll out of control and nose (yaw) over into an eventual stall and fall if control force limits are exceeded. It does not fly 'straight'... ever.

 

(3) Trim controls had to be adjusted throughout the flight. 

 

But "Angle fighting" is the worst possable type of airial combat! Why would you want to do it if it could be avoided?