The 'Great Debate' - Spitfire vs BF109

[robtek]

Bad loosers always switch to attack the person or the persons reputation instead staying with the facts.

[NZtyphoon]

Originally Posted by robtek

Bad loosers always switch to attack the person or the persons reputation instead staying with the facts.

Originally Posted by Crumpp

Now, Holtzuage....

I would love to have this conversation with you. Should be a wonderful and refreshing change given your claims to be an engineer.

Originally Posted by Crumpp

NzTyphoon,

The longitudinal stability and control characteristics of the early mark Spitfires is very well documented. It is used as an example in many college and university programs.

Yet another unsubstantiated claim; if the Spitfire's longitudinal and stability characteristics are the subject of so many college and university programs then some documented evidence from such programs would be absolutely ideal for a proposed bugtracker report. Examples and documented evidence of such college and university programs please

[Crumpp]

http://www.cambridge.org/aus/series/....asp?code=CAES

About the third book down, NzTyphoon, is the one quoted.

[14] Airplane Stability and Control

A History of the Technologies that Made Aviation Possible
2nd Edition
Malcolm J. Abzug, E. Eugene Larrabee
Hardback | Published December 2002
Available, despatch within 3-4 weeks | AUD$187.95 | Add to basket

[NZtyphoon]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

http://www.cambridge.org/aus/series/....asp?code=CAES

About the third book down, NzTyphoon, is the one quoted.

Oh goody, one of "many" - can we see some more of the many? And well done, Crumpp has just contradicted himself - again - with his comments on the DC-3...

Originally Posted by Crumpp

The DC-3 was unstable in cruise flight only at it's most rearward CG limit. That limit was moved forward.

Originally Posted by Crumpp

Yes, only at the rearward CG limit was the aircraft unstable and only below 120IAS. Above 160IAS, and trimmed out at the rearward CG limit, it was "almost neutral".

And here's another interesting fact; both the Typhoon and Tempest Pilot's Notes say that they were longitudinally unstable, and neither were as manœvreable as the Spitfire, while Alex Henshaw says that the so-called unstable gun platform of the Spitfire was a myth, so Crumpp can quote from as many books as he likes, there are other opinions.

[Crumpp]

NzTyphoon,

Do you need the DC-3 report from the NACA?

Nothing in the college text, NACA report, or what I have said is contradictory.

[NZtyphoon]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

http://www.cambridge.org/aus/series/....asp?code=CAES

About the third book down, NzTyphoon, is the one quoted.

What this does show is a second-hand report on tests conducted by NACA, proving that the authors have read the same reports as presented in this, and other threads. In fact, the way Crumpp has quoted extensively from from this one book shows that most of his information on aerodynamics comes from here which can also be found (minus some pages) on googlebooks.

Nor is it an unimpeachable source, as witness the comments on the longitudinal stability of the Typhoon and Tempest, both of which have Pilot's Notes stating they were longitudinally unstable.