PDA

View Full Version : A SPitfire review from a Grumman test pilot...



Xiolablu3
07-24-2008, 07:56 AM
' There is no question that the Spitfire has one of the most beautiful silhouettes of all of the major fighters to evolve from the drawing board. Her elliptical wing and long fuselage are beautiful to watch in flight or on the ground. The long nose and the rearward elevated attitude in flight promotes much improved pilot visibility compared to other fighters where one is obliged to roll partially inverted or to zigzag in taxing in order to maintain adequate visibility.

I was warned prior to my test flight that her hydraulic pumps were troublesome, problematic, and that I should not trust the brakes. As soon as I placed myself on the flight line and arrived at the moment of truth I applied throttle and I was delighted with her acceleration. She lifted off in a short 150 meters into a wind of only 20 knots. She climbed like a Japanese Zero. Any shortcomings of this plane that had been expressed to me prior to this test flight had completely vanished in my mind by now.

A slow speed stall at 110 km/h revealed only a slight drop of the right wing. She responded and recovered promptly from the stall as soon as I re-applied power. Despite the busy array of instruments and switches in the cockpit that is typical of British planes I found that I did not need any compensators; everything was located where it seemed natural.

Her stability on the three axes was sufficiently sensitive to delight a fighter pilot yet sufficiently stable to permit smooth flying in turbulent air. I felt that the Spitfire was a better pilot intrinsically than her pilot riders in the cockpit. Aerobatics were a delight. She responded to my thoughts apparently without any effort.

Her qualities of flight were so marvelous that I proceeded on with a few reverse Cuban eights. They were no more complicated to perform in the Spitfire than to eat a piece of cake. Upside down I hung in the harness but found it quite comfortable.

I never derived as much pleasure in flying any fighter as the Spitfire. She made me feel comfortable in any attitude of flight. Now I gained some understanding how the pilots in the Battle of Brittan (sic) could form up repeatedly day after day, exhausted, yet admirably succeed in their mission and in the end defeat the Luftwaffe.

I confess that my Tomcats, Wildcats, Hellcats, and the Corsairs and Thunderbolt P-47s are beasts of burden compared to this thoroughbred, the Spitfire. She is analogous to an Arabian stallion. As for the landing she was no more difficult than to down a dry martini. -

Corky Meyer - Grumman test pilot.'

Xiolablu3
07-24-2008, 07:56 AM
' There is no question that the Spitfire has one of the most beautiful silhouettes of all of the major fighters to evolve from the drawing board. Her elliptical wing and long fuselage are beautiful to watch in flight or on the ground. The long nose and the rearward elevated attitude in flight promotes much improved pilot visibility compared to other fighters where one is obliged to roll partially inverted or to zigzag in taxing in order to maintain adequate visibility.

I was warned prior to my test flight that her hydraulic pumps were troublesome, problematic, and that I should not trust the brakes. As soon as I placed myself on the flight line and arrived at the moment of truth I applied throttle and I was delighted with her acceleration. She lifted off in a short 150 meters into a wind of only 20 knots. She climbed like a Japanese Zero. Any shortcomings of this plane that had been expressed to me prior to this test flight had completely vanished in my mind by now.

A slow speed stall at 110 km/h revealed only a slight drop of the right wing. She responded and recovered promptly from the stall as soon as I re-applied power. Despite the busy array of instruments and switches in the cockpit that is typical of British planes I found that I did not need any compensators; everything was located where it seemed natural.

Her stability on the three axes was sufficiently sensitive to delight a fighter pilot yet sufficiently stable to permit smooth flying in turbulent air. I felt that the Spitfire was a better pilot intrinsically than her pilot riders in the cockpit. Aerobatics were a delight. She responded to my thoughts apparently without any effort.

Her qualities of flight were so marvelous that I proceeded on with a few reverse Cuban eights. They were no more complicated to perform in the Spitfire than to eat a piece of cake. Upside down I hung in the harness but found it quite comfortable.

I never derived as much pleasure in flying any fighter as the Spitfire. She made me feel comfortable in any attitude of flight. Now I gained some understanding how the pilots in the Battle of Brittan (sic) could form up repeatedly day after day, exhausted, yet admirably succeed in their mission and in the end defeat the Luftwaffe.

I confess that my Tomcats, Wildcats, Hellcats, and the Corsairs and Thunderbolt P-47s are beasts of burden compared to this thoroughbred, the Spitfire. She is analogous to an Arabian stallion. As for the landing she was no more difficult than to down a dry martini. -

Corky Meyer - Grumman test pilot.'

R_Target
07-24-2008, 10:17 AM
Corky loves the Spit. There's more in his book.

ploughman
07-24-2008, 10:44 AM
Which Spit[s] did Corky fly? He does seem rather enamored.

M_Gunz
07-24-2008, 12:38 PM
It kind of adds a note to what pilots have written/said about the other planes than he flew
yet they hadn't flown that one. That note should be understood by players who read reviews
and stories of planes and insist they be taken in an absolute manner, ie "make the sim like
HE says to". If the sim P-51 should easily do whatever you want then how should the Spit
perform after an account like that? It's a ladder of abstraction that can reach the stars!

Xiolablu3
07-24-2008, 01:35 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
It kind of adds a note to what pilots have written/said about the other planes than he flew
yet they hadn't flown that one. That note should be understood by players who read reviews
and stories of planes and insist they be taken in an absolute manner, ie "make the sim like
HE says to". If the sim P-51 should easily do whatever you want then how should the Spit
perform after an account like that? It's a ladder of abstraction that can reach the stars! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Agreed, thats the main reason I posted this, as he definitely cvompares the Spitfire to other types, which makes it relatively useful as a source for us amateur historians who have never flown these planes, but want to know how they compared.

He has flown other types and is making a comparison to them, rather than just flying one type and declaring it as 'the best fighter'.

M_Gunz
07-24-2008, 01:51 PM
Just saying read with great care.

If I believe that the others were easy to fly then I should almost expect this one to shoot
the enemy down for me!

Friendly_flyer
07-24-2008, 02:30 PM
Oooo, about time I gave my trusty Hurri a rest and fly Spitfire for a bit.

ElAurens
07-24-2008, 04:38 PM
Since when does an American test pilot in WW2 use meters for distance and KPH for speed?

Especially in an aircraft that has it's ASI calibrated in knots, and it's altimeter in feet, like the USN aircraft he normally flew.

slipBall
07-24-2008, 04:46 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ElAurens:
Since when does an American test pilot in WW2 use meters for distance and KPH for speed?

Especially in an aircraft that has it's ASI calibrated in knots, and it's altimeter in feet, like the USN aircraft he normally flew. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>



good observation http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif

Jaws2002
07-24-2008, 05:28 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
' There is no question that the Spitfire has one of the most beautiful silhouettes of all of the major fighters to evolve from the drawing board. Her elliptical wing and long fuselage are beautiful to watch in flight or on the ground. The long nose and the rearward elevated attitude in flight promotes much improved pilot visibility compared to other fighters where one is obliged to roll partially inverted or to zigzag in taxing in order to maintain adequate visibility.

I was warned prior to my test flight that her hydraulic pumps were troublesome, problematic, and that I should not trust the brakes. As soon as I placed myself on the flight line and arrived at the moment of truth I applied throttle and I was delighted with her acceleration. She lifted off in a short 150 meters into a wind of only 20 knots. She climbed like a Japanese Zero. Any shortcomings of this plane that had been expressed to me prior to this test flight had completely vanished in my mind by now.

A slow speed stall at 110 km/h revealed only a slight drop of the right wing. She responded and recovered promptly from the stall as soon as I re-applied power. Despite the busy array of instruments and switches in the cockpit that is typical of British planes I found that I did not need any compensators; everything was located where it seemed natural.

Her stability on the three axes was sufficiently sensitive to delight a fighter pilot yet sufficiently stable to permit smooth flying in turbulent air. I felt that the Spitfire was a better pilot intrinsically than her pilot riders in the cockpit. Aerobatics were a delight. She responded to my thoughts apparently without any effort.

Her qualities of flight were so marvelous that I proceeded on with a few reverse Cuban eights. They were no more complicated to perform in the Spitfire than to eat a piece of cake. Upside down I hung in the harness but found it quite comfortable.

I never derived as much pleasure in flying any fighter as the Spitfire. She made me feel comfortable in any attitude of flight. Now I gained some understanding how the pilots in the Battle of Brittan (sic) could form up repeatedly day after day, exhausted, yet admirably succeed in their mission and in the end defeat the Luftwaffe.

I confess that my Tomcats, Wildcats, Hellcats, and the Corsairs and Thunderbolt P-47s are beasts of burden compared to this thoroughbred, the Spitfire. She is analogous to an Arabian stallion. As for the landing she was no more difficult than to down a dry martini. -

Corky Meyer - Grumman test pilot.' </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Spit dweeb. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/crackwhip.gif

crucislancer
07-24-2008, 05:41 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ElAurens:
Since when does an American test pilot in WW2 use meters for distance and KPH for speed?

Especially in an aircraft that has it's ASI calibrated in knots, and it's altimeter in feet, like the USN aircraft he normally flew. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Perhaps the account was taken from a book that was edited for the European market? Just a thought. But, it's a very good point, ElAurens.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Oringally posted by Friendly_flyer:
Oooo, about time I gave my trusty Hurri a rest and fly Spitfire for a bit. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

A good choice, sir. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

JZG_Thiem
07-24-2008, 06:01 PM
Wow!
Hellcats, Corsairs and P47s felt much heavier/more sluggish/etc. than a Spit? Now thats some breaking news.
Not to mention the totally underpowered (yet lightweight compared to the former) Wildcat.

Aerobatics were a delight compared to those? Who would have thought.

KrashanTopolova
07-24-2008, 06:02 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ElAurens:
Since when does an American test pilot in WW2 use meters for distance and KPH for speed?

Especially in an aircraft that has it's ASI calibrated in knots, and it's altimeter in feet, like the USN aircraft he normally flew. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

check that the Spit ASI is a combination instrument that also reads in mph (top range). KIAS (bottom range) would have been used for specialist distances over water or normal AIS calculations.
check if the test flight was in Germany and they use metric to measure ground distance?

R_Target
07-24-2008, 07:01 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ElAurens:
Since when does an American test pilot in WW2 use meters for distance and KPH for speed?

Especially in an aircraft that has it's ASI calibrated in knots, and it's altimeter in feet, like the USN aircraft he normally flew. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I compared the passage above to to the one in Corky Meyer's Flight Journal. It appears to be paraphrased and cobbled together from the book, with sections left out. Speeds are given in mph, and Meyer doesn't refer to planes in the feminine. Also, "Britain" is spelled correctly, and there's no mention of a martini.

crucislancer
07-24-2008, 07:09 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by R_Target:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ElAurens:
Since when does an American test pilot in WW2 use meters for distance and KPH for speed?

Especially in an aircraft that has it's ASI calibrated in knots, and it's altimeter in feet, like the USN aircraft he normally flew. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I compared the passage above to to the one in Corky Meyer's Flight Journal. It appears to be paraphrased and cobbled together from the book, with sections left out. Speeds are given in mph, and Meyer doesn't refer to planes in the feminine. Also, "Britain" is spelled correctly, and there's no mention of a martini. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm going to pick up that book. The reader reviews are glowing at Amazon.

La7_brook
07-24-2008, 08:17 PM
omg http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/compsmash.gif

R_Target
07-24-2008, 08:29 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by crucislancer:
I'm going to pick up that book. The reader reviews are glowing at Amazon. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's good reading. Two others that I would recommend, especially if you're interested in USN planes, are Richard Linnekin's Eighty Knots to Mach 2 and Boone Guyton's Whistling Death: The Test Pilot's Story of the F4U Corsair. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Xiolablu3
07-25-2008, 03:28 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by R_Target:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ElAurens:
Since when does an American test pilot in WW2 use meters for distance and KPH for speed?

Especially in an aircraft that has it's ASI calibrated in knots, and it's altimeter in feet, like the USN aircraft he normally flew. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I compared the passage above to to the one in Corky Meyer's Flight Journal. It appears to be paraphrased and cobbled together from the book, with sections left out. Speeds are given in mph, and Meyer doesn't refer to planes in the feminine. Also, "Britain" is spelled correctly, and there's no mention of a martini. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Can you show us the real one pls mate? The post I made is second hand, copied and pasted, but the person who sent it me is trustworthy and wouldnt make stuff up.

It IS possible that the one above is actually straight from Corky, and it was cleaned up and bolstered by a professional author/publisher for the book isnt it?

The part I posted was apparantly from 'Flying and Evaluating the Seafire mkIII'. Unless you know better?

It would be great to read the real version, if you are saying it IS incorrect. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Xiolablu3
07-25-2008, 03:32 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JZG_Thiem:
Wow!
Hellcats, Corsairs and P47s felt much heavier/more sluggish/etc. than a Spit? Now thats some breaking news.
Not to mention the totally underpowered (yet lightweight compared to the former) Wildcat.

Aerobatics were a delight compared to those? Who would have thought. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The exact words were 'beasts of burden' compared to the Spit. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

'As one of the most respected test pilots of WW II, Corwin ""Corky"" Meyer has given the opportunity to fly nearly every major fighter of both the Axis and the Allies and proclaims the Spitfire as his favorite.'

Its not JUST about the aerobatics.

joeap
07-25-2008, 04:20 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by La7_brook:
omg http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/compsmash.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif I enjoy reading pilot accounts.

Thanks Xio

ElAurens
07-25-2008, 05:42 AM
I enjoy them too, but the way this is worded makes me very skeptical of it's authenticity.

I suspect it is highly paraphrased from an original interview.

Americans of the 1940s did not use metric measurements. Mostly we still don't.

R_Target
07-25-2008, 05:44 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Can you show us the real one pls mate? The post I made is second hand, copied and pasted, but the person who sent it me is trustworthy and wouldnt make stuff up.

It IS possible that the one above is actually straight from Corky, and it was cleaned up and bolstered by a professional author/publisher for the book isnt it?

The part I posted was apparantly from 'Flying and Evaluating the Seafire mkIII'. Unless you know better?

It would be great to read the real version, if you are saying it IS incorrect. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's not incorrect-he really did enjoy the Spitfire (actually a Seafire III in this case). Meyer was an attendee of the Joint Fighter Conference, and this is when he flew the Seafire. I'll put up the pages from the book this evening(EST).

Manu-6S
07-25-2008, 07:29 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by R_Target:
It's not incorrect-he really did enjoy the Spitfire (actually a Seafire III in this case). Meyer was an attendee of the Joint Fighter Conference, and this is when he flew the Seafire. I'll put up the pages from the book this evening(EST). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Really!?!?!?

I read somewhere a report by a dedicated spit pilot that Seafire was rubbish compared to the real Spit.. that the modifications made it heavy and troublesome ...

luftluuver
07-25-2008, 08:32 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Manu-6S:
Really!?!?!?

I read somewhere a report by a dedicated spit pilot that Seafire was rubbish compared to the real Spit.. that the modifications made it heavy and troublesome ... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just think how sweet a real Spit was if Meyer thought a Seafire was sweet. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Low_Flyer_MkIX
07-25-2008, 08:49 AM
Interesting American Spitfire stories you may have missed:

USAAF Spitfire Operations in the Mediterranean (http://www.star-games.com/exhibits/spitfire/spitops.html)

DKoor
07-25-2008, 09:10 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by luftluuver:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Manu-6S:
Really!?!?!?

I read somewhere a report by a dedicated spit pilot that Seafire was rubbish compared to the real Spit.. that the modifications made it heavy and troublesome ... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just think how sweet a real Spit was if Meyer thought a Seafire was sweet. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This another case of Soviet & American Cobra?

DKoor
07-25-2008, 09:13 AM
The way I see it, only variables here are the pilots.
Aircraft are pretty much the same.

Or if you want take a mythical FW-190 fitted with a Ju-87 prop (most likely never happened, but for the sake of a proving a point), it is much less of a variable when comparing it to a 'normal' FW-190, than a few pilot opinions about the same FW-190.

Kettenhunde
07-25-2008, 12:02 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Meyer was an attendee of the Joint Fighter Conference, and this is when he flew the Seafire. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Here is the combat qualities:

http://img378.imageshack.us/img378/9264/seafirejfcfy3.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
http://img378.imageshack.us/img378/9264/seafirejfcfy3.5b5e6bb730.jpg (http://g.imageshack.us/g.php?h=378&i=seafirejfcfy3.jpg)

The J-3 Cub is an excellent airplane with beautiful handling characteristics. However as a cross country IFR platform a J-3 Cub is not a very good choice.

All the best,

Crumpp

Aaron_GT
07-25-2008, 12:53 PM
I have the JFC book, and some of the comments are interesting (e.g. P-51 rated generally as not very stable) but you do get some odd contradictions in the little comment summaries and the overall ratings. In 1944 the Spitfire's climb rate was pretty competitive, so the climb rate comment for the Seafire seemd odd unless the Seafire was old by that model or the Seafire had a much poorer climb.

Xiolablu3
07-25-2008, 01:22 PM
NIce find Crumpp, thanks for posting http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

What must be remembered howeveris how old the Seafire III was when the JFC took place. Basically a 1941-42 SPitfire mkV in a competition with late 1944-45 planes like the Bearcat.

The SPit IX/XIV in 1944 was in top class of climb rate. The Seafire III is very outdated when compared to land planes of 1944, so the comments are understandable.

R_Target
07-25-2008, 05:01 PM
I was wrong about the martini bit. It is mentioned and I missed it earlier.

From Corky Meyer's Flight Journal, ęCorwin H. Meyer/Specialty Press 2006.

http://i38.tinypic.com/2en2lmq.jpg

Kettenhunde
07-25-2008, 05:46 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> how old the Seafire III was when the JFC took place. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Your most welcome, Xio.

According to the USN records, The Seafire Mk III used at the conference was the standard 1944 variant of the Navalized version of the Spitfire Mk IX LF in use by the Royal Navy.

Here is the aircraft used at the JFC:

http://img508.imageshack.us/img508/346/jfcseafirekn8.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
http://img508.imageshack.us/img508/346/jfcseafirekn8.48c525baf4.jpg (http://g.imageshack.us/g.php?h=508&i=jfcseafirekn8.jpg)

Of course it was missing ~700lbs from its normal service weight and had the missing cannon ports faired and sealed.

All the best,

Crumpp

hop2002
07-25-2008, 09:25 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">According to the USN records, The Seafire Mk III used at the conference was the standard 1944 variant of the Navalized version of the Spitfire Mk IX LF in use by the Royal Navy.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

There never was a navalised version of the Spitfire IX.

The Seafire I, II and III were all versions of the Spitfire V. They had single speed, single stage Merlins.

The next Seafire model was the Seafire XV, and that was a navalised Spitfire XII, with a single speed, single stage Griffon engine.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Here is the aircraft used at the JFC: </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Does it give the serial number of the aircraft? I'd like to track it down in the production list, but I don't know what to search for. It will be two letters followed by a 3 digit number, eg NN456

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Of course it was missing ~700lbs from its normal service weight and had the missing cannon ports faired and sealed. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Does it give the actual weight?

M_Gunz
07-25-2008, 09:38 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Despite the busy array of instruments and switches in the cockpit that is typical of British planes I found that I did not need any compensators; everything was located where it seemed natural. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This seems a bit at odds with the text posted....

"The cockpit internal layout was a disaster" -- take it from there.

Kettenhunde
07-25-2008, 11:31 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> There never was a navalised version of the Spitfire IX.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You are correct. They just used an awful lot of Spitfire Mk IX parts in the prototype! I have the trials.

The engine is a Merlin 55 which develops ~1600hp with the Merlin 55M with a cropped impeller being used in the LF variant.

The weight comes from the weight and balance sheets and only accounts for the obviously missing armament. Unless of course we want to pretend that very short barrels are mounted on the Hispanos or for some reason the Royal Navy kept their cannon but made a gift of the Brownings.

I left an approximate due to the fact I did not know if the Royal Navy left the life raft, catapult reels, British encoded IFF, crypto graphical equipment, and radios. I would think that they removed them but I am sure the US Government would not have minded a peek at the RN's cipher systems!

All the best,

Crumpp

Kettenhunde
07-26-2008, 08:21 AM
Now that we know the aircraft is equal to a Spitfire Mk Vc (+16) we can do some simple math to determine the weight the aircraft must be in the vicinity of to reach the numbers Corkey Meyers relates.

We have some very good data on the stall points of the Spitfire Mk Vc contained in the NACA report on the Spitfire stalling characteristics.

The report averages the weight of the aircraft tested at 6184lbs for its calculations. This corresponds to the weight in overload condition minus all of the RAF Military disposables.

Using that weight and Corkey Meyers observation of the stall speeds he attained, we can get a pretty good idea of the weight range the aircraft had to be in order to achieve the observed performance.

Using the formula:

http://img253.imageshack.us/img253/3550/seafirestallgf4.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

We can see that the aircraft has to be in the vicinity of ~4500lbs to achieve a power on stall speed of 66 mph IAS.

We can cross check this with the Seafire Mk III's weight and balance sheets.

The TARE weight is listed as 5505. Since we don't know the specific of load factors or exactly how Corky measured his stall speeds we can draw no specific conclusions.

We can certainly conclude however that like the NACA aircraft, the Seafire was most likely stripped down and missing all of the Royal Navy disposables in order to achieve a stall speed that is only possible if the design sheds almost 1000lbs.

All the best,

Crumpp

hop2002
07-26-2008, 08:24 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">You are correct. They just used an awful lot of Spitfire Mk IX parts in the prototype! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh, almost certainly. Of course, the Spitfire IX was simply a Spitfire V with a two stage, two speed engine, although improvements were incorporated as production went on.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The weight comes from the weight and balance sheets and only accounts for the obviously missing armament. Unless of course we want to pretend that very short barrels are mounted on the Hispanos or for some reason the Royal Navy kept their cannon but made a gift of the Brownings. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So it doesn't actually state the armament was missing?

Spitfire the History says some Seafire IIIs were fitted with Hispano Vs, which were of course much shorter and mounted entirely within the wing. So unless it states otherwise, I don't think we can rule out the armament being fitted.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">We have some very good data on the stall points of the Spitfire Mk Vc contained in the NACA report on the Spitfire stalling characteristics. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm not sure how good the data is. The RAE were dismissive of NACA's CL figure for the Spitfire V:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The only reliable method of obtaining Cl max in flight is by use of a swivelling pitot and a trailing static head. Operation of a trailing static head from a single seater is admittedly awkward, but had been done successfully on the Spitfire, Me 109, Whirlwind and Buffalo.

Values for flaps up Cl max on the Spitfire, measured in this way at the Royal Aircraft Establishment, are 1.36 on the glide and 1.89 at full throttle. During the American test reliance was placed on a swivelling pitot-static head mounted on a pole ahead of the wing tip, the readings being corrected by applying a position error correction (obtained by flying in formation with an aircraft of known position error). As a method of measuring stalling speeds this is thought to be unreliable, and the values of Cl max quoted (between 1.1 and 1.2 flaps up) appear to be unduly low; Cl max at full throttle was not obtained. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">We can see that the aircraft has to be in the vicinity of ~4500lbs to achieve a power on stall speed of 66 mph IAS. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't think 4500 lbs was remotely possible.

Tare, as you said, was 5,505 lbs. Incidentally, this is the tare for the Hispano V version, the Hispano II version weighed 5,454 lbs, even though neither model includes guns in tare weight.

Tare weight doesn't include guns, ammunition, fuel, oil, pilot, gunsight, clock, radio, dinghy etc. To the tare you have to add, at least:

Pilot and parachute - 200 lbs
Oil - 50 lbs
Fuel - 100 lbs.

Both the fuel and oil figures assume a much reduced load, of course.

That takes weight up to at least 5,850 lbs assuming not even a radio is fitted. (Meyer said he called the tower after landing, so he must have had some type of radio). I can't see how you can then reduce that weight by another 1,350 lbs.

I suspect there are two problems that account for the differences in your figures. First, NACAs stall speed for the Va they tested was off. Can you do the calculations again assuming the Cl figures the RAE achieved?

Secondly, the position error correction. On the Spitfire V you needed to add 4 mph to the indicated speed to account for PEC at 100 mph, it should be even larger at lower speeds.

Kettenhunde
07-26-2008, 09:34 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">So it doesn't actually state the armament was missing? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Do you see any in the picture? Do I need to post a Seafire with cannons mounted to compare or do you know what the cannon look like?

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Can you do the calculations again assuming the Cl figures the RAE achieved?
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

There is no CL factored in, Hop. It simply at this weight one speed is achieved. We then use the fixed by design relationship of lift, drag, and AoA to find the new weight at the new speed.

Although I can easily calculate the CL, there is no need too. The weight is a known factor as well as the velocity at that weight. That is all the information we need!

Both speeds are indicated too Hop. The PEC is irrelevant. I wasn't looking for the impossible by trying to nail down a specific weight. We don't have enough facts about the JFC bird. I just wanted to identify the trend and get a ballpark idea of how large a gap.

All we can tell is that it did not have armament and that in order for Corkey to achieve the stall speed he relates, the bird had to be much lighter than a service aircraft.

The most likely explanation is that the Royal Navy removed all the service components such as armor and ballast. That being said, I don't think the aircraft was some 1000lbs below TARE. It was definitely very light and not anywhere close to being representative of a service aircraft.

It is highly likely that the technique to reach the stall is a factor in this case, too. The control input at the stall point makes a huge difference. It can vary the stall speed in any aircraft greatly.

All the best,

Crumpp

M_Gunz
07-27-2008, 06:32 AM
Were the JFC planes all so lightened, with guns, etc removed?

hop2002
07-27-2008, 06:35 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Do you see any in the picture? Do I need to post a Seafire with cannons mounted to compare or do you know what the cannon look like? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't know what an early Hispano V installation looked like.

I also know that in RAF tests, where armament was not carried, ballast to the same weight was. See for example:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Although at the time of test 2 x 20 mm. and 4 x .303" guns were fitted, the aeroplane had been ballasted internally the give this weight in connection with the other tests being made to obtain comparative performance figures with the two types of armament. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/aa878.html

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">There is no CL factored in, Hop. It simply at this weight one speed is achieved. We then use the fixed by design relationship of lift, drag, and AoA to find the new weight at the new speed. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Right, but if NACA found a Cl of 1.1 to 1.2 resulted in a stall speed of X, then a higher Cl would result in a lower stall speed. As the RAE said:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">During the American test reliance was placed on a swivelling pitot-static head mounted on a pole ahead of the wing tip, the readings being corrected by applying a position error correction (obtained by flying in formation with an aircraft of known position error). As a method of measuring stalling speeds this is thought to be unreliable, and the values of Cl max quoted (between 1.1 and 1.2 flaps up) appear to be unduly low </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Both speeds are indicated too Hop. The PEC is irrelevant. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

How on earth can PEC be irrelevant? You have to know the PEC to compare different aircraft.

Imagine two identical Spitfires, but with different pitot heads and positions. One, when flying at 70 mph at sea level reads 65 mph. The other at the same speed and altitude reads 75 mph. One pilot reports the stall speed as 65, the other 75. That doesn't mean there is any actual difference in the stall speeds, just in the instrumentation.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I wasn't looking for the impossible by trying to nail down a specific weight. We don't have enough facts about the JFC bird. I just wanted to identify the trend and get a ballpark idea of how large a gap. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The figure you produced was impossible. A Seafire III with no equipment weighs 5,505 lbs. With some fuel, oil and a pilot it's over 5,800 lbs. How do you strip another 1,400 lbs from that weight? What on earth can you remove?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">All we can tell is that it did not have armament and that in order for Corkey to achieve the stall speed he relates, the bird had to be much lighter than a service aircraft. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, we can tell it didn't have Hispano IIs, it might have had an early Hispano V installation or simply ballast to simulate the guns and ammo. Without an accurate report of its weight, we simply don't know how heavy it was.

We don't know the PEC for the stall speed Meyer reported, we know the stall speeds quoted by NACA were considered by the RAE to be much too high, and using two uncertain figures to calculate the weight is coming up with a figure far too low to be possible.

There is a much simpler way of arriving at the probable weight of the Seafire Meyer flew, that doesn't rely on using figures the RAE criticised as being far too high.

Meyer quotes the stall speed of the Hellcat as 85 mph, which was the figure for landing condition, flaps and gear down.

Stall speeds of Spitfires, from manuals:

V - 64 mph @ 6,400 lbs
IX - 69 - 76 mph @ 7,150

Weight of the Seafire III was 6,600 - 7,224 lbs, with all equipment and depending on fuel load. With low fuel that could easily fit Meyer's "65 mph".

HayateAce
07-27-2008, 07:20 AM
I put less credence in the JFC with each passing day.....


http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/disagree.gif

Kettenhunde
07-27-2008, 07:22 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">No, we can tell it didn't have Hispano IIs, it might have had an early Hispano V installation </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> I don't know what an early Hispano V installation looked like. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

While the barrel is somewhat shorter on the Mk IV we would easily see the cannon protruding from the wing.

http://www.spitfiresite.com/reference/variants-technolo...4/hispano-cannon.htm (http://www.spitfiresite.com/reference/variants-technology/2008/04/hispano-cannon.htm)

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> The figure you produced was impossible. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You miss the point and Ihave stated this from the begining. We don't care about the specific number.

We only need identify the trend and get an idea of the size of the relative gap.

As both are indicated airspeeds, apply a PEC of any number of your choosing, lets say 10mph IAS is simply going to slip the scale.

It is not going to change the conclusion of our results.

The aircraft Mr Meyers flew was certainly far below the weight of a standard fighter in RN service.

I think you not understanding what I am saying about how the pilot flies the stall too.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">V - 64 mph @ 6,400 lbs
IX - 69 - 76 mph @ 7,150
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't think that Corkey had the gear and flaps down in landing configuration.

http://img155.imageshack.us/img155/9011/spit23kf0.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
http://img155.imageshack.us/img155/9011/spit23kf0.32f6f84f03.jpg (http://g.imageshack.us/g.php?h=155&i=spit23kf0.jpg)

All the Best,

Crumpp

R_Target
07-27-2008, 07:26 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
Were the JFC planes all so lightened, with guns, etc removed? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No. There are data sheets in the back of the book that show the loading, as well as photos of the planes.

R_Target
07-27-2008, 07:41 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HayateAce:
I put less credence in the JFC with each passing day..... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

There's nothing wrong with the report itself. People just don't seem to realize that it's basically Army pilots flying Navy planes, Navy pilots flying Army planes, and writing down what they think.

Kettenhunde
07-27-2008, 07:47 AM
Hop,

I don't think you understand what I meant when I said:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">It is highly likely that the technique to reach the stall is a factor in this case, too. The control input at the stall point makes a huge difference. It can vary the stall speed in any aircraft greatly.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Here is the stall range recorded at the JFC.

Our stall speed can be considerably influenced by the method and techniques the pilot uses to fly the stall point.

http://img71.imageshack.us/img71/9413/stallrangejfcad3.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
http://img71.imageshack.us/img71/9413/stallrangejfcad3.6798b286c3.jpg (http://g.imageshack.us/g.php?h=71&i=stallrangejfcad3.jpg)

That being said, anyway it is analyzed aerodynamically, the JFC Seafire comes out lighter than a Royal Navy service variant. The photographic evidence without cannon provides some complelling physical evidence of this conclusion.

I just noticed this:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Fuel - 100 lbs.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is 16 gallons of fuel Hop. That won't hardly start the engine or get you down the taxiway in a WWII fighter.

All the best,

Crumpp

hop2002
07-27-2008, 08:25 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I don't think that Corkey had the gear and flaps down in landing configuration. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think he did. The figure he quotes for the Hellcat, 85 mph, is for flaps and gear down. It makes sense to give a flaps and gear down figure for the Seafire, too.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The aircraft Mr Meyers flew was certainly far below the weight of a standard fighter in RN service. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, I don't think so.

As we can see from similar Spitfires, stall speeds:

V - 64 mph @ 6,400 lbs
IX - 69 - 76 mph @ 7,150

The Seafire III weighed 7,224 lbs fully equipped. You are unlikely to conduct a stall test in that configuration because you need fuel to take off and fly around.

That means the maximum weight Meyer could have tested the stall at is about 7,100 lbs. We can see from the Spitfire IX that could result in a stall speed as low as 69 mph.

The minimum weight Meyer could have achieved in a fully equipped Seafire III would be about 6,600 lbs. That would be towards the end of his flight, with say 15 gallons of fuel left. For a pilot conducting a test flight close to base, that's hardly an inadequate fuel reserve.

With a Spitfire V stalling at 64 mph at 6,400 lbs, I don't see a "66 mph" figure as being too low for 6,600 lbs in a Seafire III.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Fuel - 100 lbs.



That is 16 gallons of fuel Hop. That won't hardly start the engine or get you down the taxiway in a WWII fighter. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Of course it won't. But it's ample fuel to have left at the end of a test flight, isn't it?

hop2002
07-27-2008, 08:26 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">No. There are data sheets in the back of the book that show the loading, as well as photos of the planes. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What does it give for the Seafire III?

Kettenhunde
07-27-2008, 08:28 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">What does it give for the Seafire III? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Unfortunately there is not one provided on the Seafire, otherwise it would have been posted long ago.

All the best,

Crumpp

Kettenhunde
07-27-2008, 09:51 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">With a Spitfire V stalling at 64 mph at 6,400 lbs, I don't see a "66 mph" figure as being too low for 6,600 lbs in a Seafire III.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is the Pilot Notes for the Seafire III I posted.

I don't think it is too low either provided the Seafire was in landing configuration with 60 degrees of flap and gear down.

However Corkey Meyers does not relate that he configured the aircraft as such nor do I get the impression that he suddenly put the aircraft in landing configuration on his joy ride.

If the aircraft had gear and flaps up as Corkey's anecodte implies, then the weight has to be much lighter than service condition.

If we take into account the range of stall speeds recorded at the JFC, there is little choice. The most probable explaination is the military load was removed.

I am interested in how you explain the physical evidence of the missing cannon and still hold the aircraft's performance as representative of a service aircraft?

All the best,

Crumpp

Kettenhunde
07-27-2008, 10:17 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The figure he quotes for the Hellcat, 85 mph, is for flaps and gear down. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Does he specifically state that the Hellcat was tested gear and flaps down?

Why does he use MPH when the Hellcat airspeed indicator is in Knots?

If you can give me the details, I can compare what the F6F manual says for stall speeds to the weight and loadout sheets at the JFC.

The F6F-5 POH lists 62 Knots as the Vs1 in clean configuration power on. That is 71.3 mph but was determined at a lower gross weight that the one flown at the JFC.

All the best,

Crumpp

Xiolablu3
07-27-2008, 10:39 AM
Didnt Jeff Ethel say that the SPitfire XIV he was flying stalled at 65 knotts?

EDIT, just looked back :-

'The aircraft stalls like a Piper Cub. Though a wing tends to drop, there isn't the slightest mean streak in it unless you cob the power, which produces a very violent torque roll. Power off, gear and flaps down, main fuel tanks full, it stalls at 65 kts, which is ridiculously slow. Add a slight bit of power and that drops to 60 kts. With that enormous snout, I try to make a curving approach to landing at about 100 kts in order to keep the runway in sight as long as possible. By the time I'm rolling out across the field boundary, if at max landing weight, I should be no faster than 85 kts with power and 95 kts in a glide. At lighter weights these speeds can be reduced by 5 kts.'

However its not just about WHEN they stall, its about the WARNING and what happens AFTER a stall which is so crucial.

Kettenhunde
07-27-2008, 10:46 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Didnt Jeff Ethel say that the SPitfire XIV he was flying stalled at 65 knotts? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


That is definative proof the aircraft was in no way comparible to a service Spitfire Mk XIV.

M_Gunz
07-27-2008, 11:32 AM
Knots being close to 15% more than mph, 65 kts is about 75 mph.

Kettenhunde
07-27-2008, 12:45 PM
http://img71.imageshack.us/img71/9203/spit16lc2.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
http://img71.imageshack.us/img71/9203/spit16lc2.21b58d9f6a.jpg (http://g.imageshack.us/g.php?h=71&i=spit16lc2.jpg)

stathem
07-27-2008, 02:07 PM
Commander R.M Crosley, "They Gave me a Seafire" (ISBN 0905-778-68-5)

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
The Seafire LIII now had 200 more horsepower at 3000 feet than the Spitfire IX. It's fuselage was lighter by 200 pounds. It was further lightened in 3 Wing by removing half the gun ammunition and taking away the two outboard 0.303s altogether </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Kettenhunde
07-27-2008, 03:09 PM
Interesting Stathem.

I have the weight and balance sheets for the Seafire Mk III. It confirms the normal armament is 2 20 mm Hispano's and 2 .303 Brownings.

I knew it was lighter in weight but did not know it had more power than the Spitfire Mk IX. Does it say which variant of the Spitfire Mk IX series Commander Crosley is referencing? I would hazard a guess to the Merlin 61 series.

Thanks for posting that!

All the best,

Crumpp

stathem
07-27-2008, 04:05 PM
No, sorry Crumpp, he doesn't. He's a real dyed-in-the-wool sailor type.

SterlingX
07-28-2008, 01:12 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ploughman:
Which Spit[s] did Corky fly? He does seem rather enamored. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Seafire. He got to test it during a carrier fighter competition for the USN (if I recall correctly).