I insulted your family in PM?.....you mean when I got a bizarre picture of some guy in fatigues holding a baby from you, and I said 'the baby looks beautifull but I don't want your life story just a picture of your license'?

The aircraft I owned never had a transponder as it was classed as an Ultralight, and there is no requirement to have one because ultralights are excluded from operating in controlled airpace full stop.

p.s. in the same series of PM's you were given the benefit of knowing about my father, you were not so sorry to hear the news then and managed to make another reference today....way to go Einstein.

Here you go. I'm not really expecting to see any evidence, in particular now where this topic has clearly gone down the drain. :(

Which is Crumpps goal.. When caught in a msitake.. Do something to get it locked.. SOP for him

Yep, all I asked for was some proof he had a pilots license just like I did, all I got was hostility and evasion, if I was Crumpp I'd try to get the thread locked PDQ.

Those aircraft all have acceptable stability and control characteristics. What is the issue or what is it you think I am claiming?

You do understand that every aircraft with an issue meant a solution was implemented.

When something is broken, it gets fixed. The Spitfire was fixed by the addition of an inertial elevator. That did not happen though until after the Battle of Britain!!

You were asked to name an aircraft that could be flown hands off (after you were (correctly) stating the Spitfire wasn't one), and you came up with that list. It's not about "acceptable stability", it's about hands off qualities. I'm suggesting you provide evidence for your statement, in particular stability in the phugoid and spiral mode.

Well that post is about acceptable stability and control characteristics.

The post you quote is a reply to Glider when he made a claim that the norm for fighters in WWII was to have unacceptable stability and control characteristics.

That is not true.

No, that is not true.andYour answer was the linked list. It is not possible to determine that a reply to a quoted question is actually just a list with random planes that in no way relate to the question as asked, which is what you are claiming now.

So to be clear - are you now saying that none of the planes on that list were hands off aircraft and this is a misunderstanding? Or are you going to provide evidence as you claim to provide for all your statements?

JtD,

There is no such thing as a "hands off aircraft". There is such a thing as a speed stable aircraft.

All of the aircraft in that list were speed stable.

That means they all moved to trim speed and stayed there unless acted upon by an outside force. The airplane does not care about its relationship to the horizon, altitude, or where the pilots hands are at. It cares about the relative wind and the dynamic pressure. A speed stable aircraft will maintain its orientation to the relative wind and keep the dynamic pressure constant.

This is not something the early Mark Spitfires did. If you look at the stability characteristics as measured by the RAE and the NACA, the Spitfire INCREASED speed away from trim.

Each oscillation, the speed would increase or stay the same where neutral stability existed.

That is a fact. There is no putting on rose colored glasses or claims of "it was normal for an aircraft".

The Spitfire was outstanding in its early instability. That is why they fixed it with the addition of an inertial elevator.

It was not because it was normal, or good, or super maneuverable. It was because it had some dangerous characteristics and made the aircraft more difficult to precisely control for the average pilot.

End of story.

It was not dangerous, most of fighter command at the time were average to below average in terms of skills, thankfully the Spit was eay to fly in combat due to its high manouverability and controllability.....end of story