Stupid question time….

Janie

Damn, I’m envious! I’ve still not seen one of these things up close yet!!

:rolleyes:

Daz

I sat in the Supermarine Spitfire Mk26 yesterday at the Fly! exhibition at Earls Court and got chatting to guy who builds them in North Yorkshire.

The printed specification sheet they were handing out said:
“Height 1850mm (6’9”). There was no indication as to which point that was measured to.

Maybe someone less lazy than myself can tell you if 1850mm equates to 6 foot 9 inches. What I can tell you, without any doubt in my mind, that no part of that aircraft was 6′ 9″. (I had a 6’4″ friend with me as a benchmark!) The top of the nose was lower and the top of the propeller was higher. I asked the two guys on the stand and they could not answer. Not good.

They also said it was a two-seat aircraft, but there was barely room for a baby in the back, and there was no seat, no provision for a seat and no room for a seat!

Neat looking aeroplane, but I’d be concerned about buying from guys who cannot get their facts right.

Long live ‘PY

sed Ewen.

Any ideas how the paint job is going? Not going to get over again until the 23rd I fear.

JC

I agree with John C. What is the point in knowing the hight of an a/c in the flying attitude – unless you are flying under low bridges :rolleyes:

Is it useful to know that when flying at 2000′ hight, the tip of the fin is at 2005′ ?? 😀 (or something like that, depending where the pitot head is located) :confused:

Long live ‘PY 🙂

the height is usually stated clearly in the flight and or maint manual. As a general rule of thumb though, it will be the highest point of the aircraft in a level or ‘flying’ position. TC

Logically, the only reason for quoting a height would be to ensure all of the aeroplane will fit into the hangar without embarrasing “crunch” noises.

And maintaining separation from other aircraft, of course. 😀

Daz here’s something else to add to your bewilderment. Sometimes there are two measurements given (with tail draggers) one with the aircraft in parked configuration and one for height in flying attitude. Now let me see,what else can I add to confuse you even more? 😀

My drawings, in general, show the published height :confused: as the highest point on the airframe (not propellor) with the tail wheel on the ground. However I also have drawings that show the height with the fuselage datum horizontal.

Thanks for the explanation, Archer. I never was sure about how this was measured :confused:

Logically, the only reason for quoting a height would be to ensure all of the aeroplane will fit into the hangar without embarrasing “crunch” noises. So in my opinion, I’d be looking for the highest point when on level ground at rest, with no load (fuel, pilots etc) at minimum oleo compression (max extension).

JC

Height is usually to the highest point when parked, but the conditions should always be specified!
A proper diagram should look something like this:

If not specified I would assume that the gear is shown in the position ‘on ground’ for nominal oleo-extension. If a taildragger is drawn in ‘flying attitude’ then the oleos will probably be drawn fully extended.

So… depends on the drawing and the purpose thereof I would say! Figures in a book can therefore be confusing since the diagram that should accompany the figures is usually missing.

Daz, there is logic in your deduction, but, quite frankly, if it does not specify the datum points, don’t trust it.

Besides, if the oleos were down when it was measured … !

Right, I’m guessing from this link that the height is referring to the tips of the prop blades.

http://www.aviation-history.com/supermarine/spitfire.html

Right, will do my homework and find something a bit more consistent on the web (as my books are at home and I’m Glasgow-bound this afternoon).

Right, confusing as **** now!! Looking at the Squadron/Signal Spitfire, it states the Mk1’s height as 12′ 7.75″, but the MkV is 9′ 11″.

I’m guessing the former is to the top of the prop, and the latter the top of the rudder?? :confused:

No Spitfire rudder is 9ft 11in! 12ft 7 3/4in seems very high too. Even for a prop. I might be wrong but those measurements seem a bit off.

I wouldn’t trust Squadron/Signal. Have you got another book for verification?

I have, but I’m off for beauty sleep right now. Will report back later, if someone doesn’t beat me to it.

Right, confusing as **** now!! Looking at the Squadron/Signal Spitfire, it states the Mk1’s height as 12′ 7.75″, but the MkV is 9′ 11″.

I’m guessing the former is to the top of the prop, and the latter the top of the rudder?? :confused:

Well, it depends. Here is an example:

In Harry van der Meer’s book Dutch Spitfires – A Technical Study, the height of a Vickers-Armstongs (Supermarine) Spitfire L.F. Mk IXc is listed as:

Height to top of propeller 11ft 8in
Height to centre of propeller 6ft 31/2 in
Height to wingtips 5ft 4 in

So it really does depend upon what you are reading.

Well, ANY aircraft!!

I can’t really recall ever reading what it specifies in a book – any book – so that’s why I asked, really. :rolleyes:

There should be a diagram to confirm. It may vary depending upon what you read. It should clarify it in the book.

Is there a particular aircraft you have in mind?