Maybe we should substitute the word 'manoeuvrability' for a graph demonstrating degrees of deviation per ounce of pilot effort in all axes at a given airspeed, followed by a graph showing time taken to return to normal flight following a release of the controls at a given airspeed (if at all), followed by some really patronising :rolleyes: emoticons.

Maybe then he'd get it. Then again, maybe not.

Wrong, once again: the RAE did indeed have standards and supplied these to the aviation industry:
http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k3...arpe/001-1.jpg

http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k3...harpe/009a.jpg

During WW2, however, the demands of production testing thousands of aircraft meant that each factory adopted its own techniques, designed to test aircraft to an acceptable standard, as quickly as possible, before delivery: this did not mean that there wasn't a standard set by the RAE, simply a divergence of ways in which it was done at a production level. The same thing happened in the 'States, each factory adopted a testing regime broadly following the NACA guidelines.

I feel "standards" can be misleading. How should a fighter be?

Standards are used to hold down the aircraft characteristics with an "ideal one" in mind.

But as Tomcat says "It's a matter of philosophy from the manufacturer and the air forces using it."

So the longitudinal instability of an airplane can be required by some airforces (more or less instability) and totally avoided by other.

One can produce an highly dangerous airplane that is really effective (look at the Tempest) while other can design a safer plane that influences greatly the pilot's range of manoeuvre.

In my opionion this thread demostrate that Spitfire had some characterics who actually were dangerous if the pilot was not experienced... the ability to reach a great amount AoA in so little time (given the low stick forces) CAN BE dangerous if the pilot is not really well trained. Above all if the manoeuvres were made by sharp actions on the stick. The pre-stall warning could easily alerts the pilot if he was entering in the turn smoothly, but since it raised only a pair of mph over the stall speed I really don't think that it could be recognizable during a sharp turn that could easily end in a violent stall.

Because of this there were pilots afraid to turn tightly.

It's like the drifting capability of a car: some capable pilots can recognize the limit and containing a loose car from spinning but an average pilot will not always succeed in it and will find himself with the car pointed at the wrong way.

Then we can talk of "aiming" in a longitudinal unstable aircraft...

Like I said before... Now all we need is for some data for the actual in game aircraft, instead of a MK I that is too early and a MK V which is too late...

:rolleyes:

It's Ok to have an oppinnion, my oppinion is that the stability was not a problem given the actual pilots who were flying the aircraft at the time had the bare minimum time on type and weren't ripping the wings off the aircraft, just my oppinion but the Spitfire was not famed for being an aircraft 'only experts' could fly.....quite the opposite in fact.

About stability, the best one could have in a fighter is neither stable or instable but neutral stability, afaik.

It is of course no problem to fly the Spitfire, with it's quirks, safely, especially when you have the tactile feedback that we are missing in game.
But that doesn't change the facts that only about 19mm stick travel were needed to pull 3 g, and that the stick had to be released immediatly after to hold 3g and not further increase the g-load.
For the ailerons instead a much larger stick travel was needed to gain similar results.
The missing harmony must be reflected in game, regardless about that, that many will be gaming the game and correct the joystick profiles accordingly.

Nice find NZtyphoon!

You do have a point there winny...

I've not said it could be only flown by experts: I'm saying that only experts could fly it at its limits. It was a easy plane to fly below those limits.

As this is true for any plane, IMO it's easier to gain confidence in a plane who actually doesn't allow you to fly it in a wrong way than a plane who does not put limits to the pilot's input.

But involuntary spins actually happened, and some pilots were so afraid of it that they could not outturn a 109 flown by a RAF pilot (enough confident in his new ride but, imo, not as the pilots who were flying it all the time).