Why did RAF keep using its own Pilot's Notes/manuals when better ones available?

[RCnoob]

Originally Posted by Bill Walker

I think your example from the Hurricane POH shows why the RAF made its own documents for US aircraft. The references to the RAF Training Manual (which probably contains the "more details about how to get out of a spin") would be useful information to anyone who had gone through RAF training, but would not be present in a US manual. The Hurricane quote provides extra information unique to the type, but the Training Manual also needs to be understood to fully operate the Hurricane. The description of the Hurricane's spin recovery may appear dry, but it is quite factual, and would be understood by anyone used to reading such manuals.

You may be interested to know that the RCAF wrote its own pilot's notes for new aircraft types, even when both US and RAF manuals were available. They did this in part because of the need to use terms familiar to RCAF trained pilots, and to provide necessary information relevant to Canadian operations - cold weather usage, interfacing with visiting aircraft servicing at RCAF fields, etc. The RAF would have had similar needs not filled by the US manuals.

As for the US "cartoony" style versus the RAF style, I think this may reflect the expected educational background of the readers. The RAF (and RCAF) required candidate pilots to have a university degree early in the war, the US draftees may have had less previous exposure to high level documents.

I agree with #2 and 3, but the first point seems off to me. All pilots had practiced spinning in training. Now they are in a very new, much higher performance, aircraft, and the question is "what's different about getting out of spins in the Hurricane?" It's single seat - nobody can take you up and show you.
What did they get? A reference to a very generic training manual that they may not even have in their "kit". Why not just reprint that paragraph here? Then it says the mystery paragraph "should be amplified in light of the foregoing remarks." But those "foregoing remarks just amount to saying "all kinds of things can go wrong when you recover from a spin, such as flicking into a new spin in the other direction."
Finally, what does it mean that the paragraph "should be amplified in light of the foregoing remarks." Amplified = ?

I will try to attach the relevant two pages so you can make your own judgment. My interpretation is that the test pilots had not done their job - they had not come up with useful information about how spinning and getting out of a spin in a Hurricane is different, other than to say "you will lose LOTS of altitude."

By the way, regarding "required to have a university degree," Boy Wellum was accepted in 1938 or 39 at 18, right out of his boarding school, and as I recall that was true of others. Also the RAF had plenty of sergeants as pilots, at least in bombers. My impression is that the RAF's manual writers did have elitist attitude about "cartoons," but it may not have been rational.

All in all, their documentation effort seems to have been weak. I just received 2 books edited by Sarkar with a variety of Hurricane and Spitfire material - it is mostly amateurish compared with what the Americans had.

thanks for further thoughts,
Roger

[Bill Walker]

Originally Posted by RCnoob

Finally, what does it mean that the paragraph "should be amplified in light of the foregoing remarks." Amplified = ?

Amplified means add this information to what is in the basic manual. It would be most interesting to see what was in the spin section of the RAF Training Manual of the day. The additional information appears to me to be in two parts:
- you will loose a lot of altitude in the recovery
- after the initial "per the Manual" recovery the aircraft may still be stalled, leading to a tendency to enter a secondary spin

I suspect that the standard per the book spin recovery of the time emphasized breaking the yaw, whereas today we emphasize break the yaw AND move the stick forward to break the stall. Many low wing loading aircraft of today, or aircraft with limited nose up elevator power, will break the stall (and therefore the spin) themselves if you simply relax the stick back pressure: in fact constant stick back pressure is required to maintain the spin in many aircraft. The Hurricane may have been one of the first RAF aircraft where this was not true.

My interpretation is that the test pilots had not done their job - they had not come up with useful information about how spinning and getting out of a spin in a Hurricane is different, other than to say "you will lose LOTS of altitude."

Maybe it is because I have spent many decades testing aircraft, writing test reports, and writing flight manuals, but I found the statements you quoted (plus what I assume was in the RAF Training Manual of the day) tells me EVERYTHING I need to know to recover from a spin in a Hurricane. If they don't talk further about what is different in a Hurricane (compared to the training manual information) it is very possible that nothing further is different.

My impression is that the RAF's manual writers did have elitist attitude about "cartoons," but it may not have been rational.

I agree that they didn't use cartoons, but it is a big leap to call this elitist. They did what they thought would work, for their audience at the time.