Spitfire I K-9787 & K-9788 were tested by A. & A.E.E. and a report issued in June 1939 on Fuel consumption tests, handling and diving trials.

Longitudinal stability was measured and records attached to the report: Fig 3. Stability Records

Regarding stability:

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/S...87-pg18-ii.jpg

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/S...7-pg18-iii.jpg

Control and stability at the stall was tested in accordance with standards stipulated in A.D.M.293. The Spitfire I handling was found satisfactory and the aircraft deemed fit for service use. Of particular note it was concluded that during acrobatics: "Loops, half rolls off loops, and slow rolls have been done. These manoeuvres are easy to make and the aeroplane behaves quite normally in all of them."

Thanks for posting, Lane.

So at normal CG, the A&AEE concludes that the aircraft is longitudinally unstable. I'm sure certain characters will try to wriggle out of this one, but it seems open-and-shut to me. I'm sure we will be deluded with marginally-relevant allusions to British aerodynamics pioneers, and pilot quotes saying that the Spitfire was a dream to fly. Nobody's saying it wasn't a good aircraft.

Seeing people describe this thread as a "character assassination" has been amusing.

So assume for a moment that the Spit was as unstable as some would have us belive..

Than ask yourself.. How did such an unstable plane that was outnumbered win BoB?

At which point your BS meter should be pegged in the red! ;)

You mean like the British Aeroplane & Armament Experimental Establishment?

It's the pilot, not the plane.

Appart from ACE there, can you quote 'anybody' that said the Spit was not unstable?

No I didn't think so, in fact nobody is denying it, the instability is 'not' the apparent problem that Crumpp is trying to emphasise, the Mustang was longitudinaly unstable, heres an example where you needed to take your own advice and pay attention to what people write.

ACE the Spitfire was unstable....it just wasn't a problem, it was easy to fly

the question should really be how did rookie pilots with barely any experience on type (lets face it even the experienced Spitfire pilots didn't have much time on type at the time of BoB) manage to fly it if it was so 'dangerous' to handle?

In fact, yes I can.

Here:

--

Foot in mouth, etc.

Now let's stop this silly derailment of this thread and stay on topic :)

Sorry no cigar, only NZTyphoons quotes actually mentions stability and even then it is more emphasis on the dangerous to fly part, which clearly the Spitfire was not dangerous to fly...at all.

So with a full tank, trimmed for level flight, pulling back on the stick then releasing to neutral would return the aircraft to level flight.

With a half full tank in the same conditions, pulling back on the stick would need a push on the stick to return to normal flight, and a bigger push when the tank is near empty.

That's my simplistic understanding of longitudinal stability or not as the case may be.

All modern military aircraft are designed with inherent instability which requires a computer to control. Instability is necessary for manoeuvrability.

I totally fail to see the point in this thread, other than to ask the devs to model a changing CofG and longitudinal stability according to fuel load. Is that the point?

Here's a simple example from the game: Right now, to hold a turn in the spit you have to hold the stick back a significant amount.

In reality, after initiating the turn I believe it was necessary to relax your pressure on the stick (move it closer to center). Otherwise, the aircraft could tighten its turn, and if you are above corner speed that means it would be easy to inadvertently exceed the G limits and damage the airframe.

There's a quote I remember reading from a pilot who said he actually had to push the stick almost all the way forward to hold a turn, because the aircraft kept wanting to tighten up.

--

I also think that the very light stick forces and (lack of) control harmonization should be modeled.