Yes, it ran it's course a while ago....anyway looking forward to the 109 debate, is is coming soon?

For a MK V

The question is whether the increase in workload caused by the Spitfire's longitudinal stability actually amounted to very much at all. Crumpp has been unable to show that it did and the lack of pilot accounts that even mention longitudinal stability suggests that there was no great problem, even for low-hours pilots. I suspect this is partly because the frequency of the pitch oscillations resulting from the instability was quite low. It's hard to see where this discussion can go given these facts.

Further, I really can't see how pitch sensitivity or instability could in any case be modelled in a flight sim where players use short, spring-centred joysticks with response curves. The situation is made worse in CoD because there is no turbulence or weather in the game (or at least I can't recall any from when I had it installed, but that was many months ago).

I think you forgot this part

I published reports on the Hawker Hurricane (April 1942) (ref. 4.5) followed shortly by one on the Spitfire. The data obtained in these tests served to confirm most of the requirements previously proposed by Gilruth. Other reports followed comparing these results with published data on the German fighter Me109 and with U.S. fighter airplanes. During the war, pilots' lives depended on small differences in performance between the first-line fighters, and continual detailed improvements were made in these fighters. Several research studies were made on improvements, usually on control systems, and close contact was kept with the manufacturers through conferences and preliminary reports.

I think you also forgot this part posted earlier

FIGURE 4.5. Supermarine Spitfire airplane. A high-performance fighter noted for its role in the Battle of Britain and throughout WW II, the Spitfire had desirably light elevator control forces in maneuvers and near neutral longitudinal stability. Its greatest deficiency from the combat standpoint was heavy aileron forces and sluggish roll response at high speeds.

Crumpp
Dyou remember saying this

well the person who wrote the paper starts it with

My career to the present has covered 58 years, all at Langley Research Center in Hampton, Virginia. At the start of my work, the center was called the Langley Memorial Aeronautical Laboratory of the NACA (National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics).

So we can take it that you will read and accept the paper, as it is written by someone who has vast experience in this field, in a place you acknowledge as being (in your words) the NACA was the worlds leading organization.

You also said this

So why can you cannot find any examples of Test Pilots who say that it was difficult to fly? Its a fair question

Yes you can read the NACA report and the results are measured.

You seemed to include a bit too much text so I edited your quote to what it should have been.

For a Mk V..

What, no "standards", just a basis? Developed DURING World War 2 because the pace of aeronautical development was such that it was impossible to develop a fixed set of standards -

I am sorry to disgree with you but the counterpoints, are requests for the Test Pilot reports that you said you had, to support statements, that you made.

Your inability to do so speaks volumes