case in point ^^

His error was to totally miss the point of what you were saying, probably in yet another herculean effort to show us how clever he is and how thick we all are.

There was only 16 squadrons of Spitfires that used 12lb boost and 100 octane fuel during the BoB.

Because I think we should model the aircraft accurately in all aspects and this is not what Tagert wants, I missed his point?

No, I disagree with it. Disagreement is not the same thing as not understanding nor has any mistake been made.

If you are going to simulate an airplane, then do it accurately. What is wrong with my statement?

Nothing is wrong with that statement, the problem lies with your interpretation of accurate, which in essence translates to what Crumpp wants.

Baloney.

I am not making any outlandish claims and everything I have ever said is backed up by the science, documents, and the facts.

Prove your accusation, bongodriver.

You are just pissed because I called you out a couple of times on some really basic information.

I don't need to prove anything, inevitably as these threads draw out it becomes quite evident what I claim is true, and you have called me out on nothing but one error of grammar, everything you claim is backed up by your own interpretation of documents science and facts, which time and time again have been shown to be agenda led.

You've made the outlandish claim that the Hurricane was a hands off aircraft and not backed this up with anything. Your list in fact contained a whole lot of aircraft and you have not shown any evidence for even one. We're in a stability topic here, feel free to provide your evidence here. You can limit yourself to evidence of stability in phugoid and spiral modes, I'd be more than interested. After all, your contradicting NACA's leading WW2 aerodynamics test engineer.

Point that out.

I said the Hurricane was stable gun platform with near perfect stability and control. That is a true statement. Sir Sydney Camm did a great job at giving England the right aircraft at the right time. One built with estabilished technology and easy to fly. He designed a workhorse that got the job done.

I have not bothered to continue any discussion's on stability and control because there is no point to it. Why have a discussion on it when the facts will just be subverted by a small vocal part of the community.

Good lord, guy....he makes general statements with nothing specific to the Spitfire. I never contradicted him, I contradicted members of the forum who use those generalities as specifics.

Read the documents NzTyphoon keeps posting in all the stability and control threads. They have nothing to do with the Spitfire and are not in anyway associated with any of the claims he presents. The members of the community do not understand the subject, see the picture of the Spitfire, and read what NzTyphoon writes. CLASSIC!!!! :cool:

:rolleyes:

Every airplane has it fans and it is not my job to convince fanatics there might be flaws in there favorite.

Of course not, you just make unfounded accusations and then scurry to the dark corners when asked to prove it.

:rolleyes: