BALONEY.

It will dampen the oscillation and the speed change will be non-existent in ~ ONE MINUTE.

Yes a cessna will stabilise quick, you missed my point, we are talking about the Spitfire here, the oscilations that your graphs show are really not vicious, while the cessna is in the process of stabilising I have seen speed fliuctuations of a similar magnitude, of course they are decreasing but a 40mph change in 10 seconds is miniscule, a half dead monkey with no flying training could catch it even if the amplitude was increasing.

You missed the point.

The Spitfire will not stabilize, it will get worse.

That means constant correction and pilot attention is required to fly the plane.

As for the other contention, only the paraniod pointy tin foil hat crowd see this as some kind of attempt to "pork" their favorite gameshape.

The results are measured. I find it very amusing that and quite telling the individuals who cannot accept the results for what they are but insist upon some sort of reassurance to calm their fears.

You missed the point again, I already said I know the amplitude is divergent, I'm saying that the rates of divergence on the graphs you gave are miniscule, mild instability is easy to catch and correct, in terms of emotional reaction I think it is you who seems to react the worst to a difference of oppinion with all these bizarre accusations you keep throwing around.

Again, Argue with the NACA, RAE, and Operating Notes....

The rates were significant enough to prompt a narrowing of the CG limits unless a bob-weight was installed.

Must not have been so insignificant, huh???

:rolleyes:

Nothing to argue, the RAE NACA and notes say it's slightly unstable and the graphs show it, and slight instability is just plain and simly 'no big deal'.

MkI's and MkII's did 'not' have the bob weight or a CoG revision, why they bothered in the MkV is debateable.

:rolleyes:

How the hell is it 'out of context'?
It's a standalone quote from a Spitfire pilot.

Are you saying Wellum is wrong?

And I do understand CG, I also understand that all your NACA data relates to a MK V. Which had a different CG, modified wings, different engine, different AUW and over 300 modifications from a Mk I.

I could also provide quotes from Brian Lane where he intentionally spins a Spitfire, or intentionally stalls one. Both things you have repeatedly said were forbidden. I'm sick of your by the book attitude, for someone who claims to be ex special forces you seem to fail to grasp the context of young men fighting for their lives and what they will do in order not to die.

Anybody who ignores pilot accounts is an idiot. As far as I know they are the only record of what happened when these aircraft were used for what they were designed for, combat.

Your dismissal of Wellum is offensive to me, and disrespectfully to him. Who the hell are you? Nobody.

Edit: I'll give you some more 'context' the preceding 2 sentences and the one after the quote I used...

If you want to shake someone off your tail you have to fly your Spitfire to its limits. In a tight turn you increase the G loading to such an extent that the wings can no longer support the weight and the plane stalls, with momentary loss of control...
...A 109 can't stay with you.

:rolleyes:

Save your indignity for somebody that cares.

I dismissed you not Mr. Wellum.

They measured a Mk V but the issue existed in all the Spitfire Marks up to the Mk V. It was fixed with the addition of bob weights.

Here is the Mk I and the instructions for the bob-weights to fix the longitudinal instability.

Get a clue. That document is a hack. It is not a Spitfire I loading and C.G. diagram. A.P. 1565E corresponds to Spitfire V documentation. A cursory examination of the text will confirm that to anyone who knows what they are looking at. The 'IA' and 'IB' in the title block are obviously photo-shopped. You should be ashamed, but won’t be I’m certain.