No it's not. It is a hypothesis, which is the early stage of a theory.

point taken

Well, I see blue side planes on the signatures, is that a poor indicator? Sorry if you feel offended.

Actually I'm asking why you, regardless your color, are demanding that the longitudal stability and elevator control of the early Spitfire's after the worst case scenario?

The worst case scenario means here a Rotol propeller and CoG behind the aft limit for that configuration, like in the NACA tested Spitfire.

Note that typical pre war or BoB service CoG for a Spitfire with DeHavilland propeller ok even for the Spitfires flying today. Actually even the CoG NACA used for a Rotol propelled variant is ok with the DeHavilland prop... but not with the Rotol prop.

And the manual containing control reversal warnings is for the Rotol propelled variant.

Of course it's real but if you question pilots comments, you should also apply the same standard for all the data, including that report:

1. They did not know the CoG for military load.
2. They tested just one CoG position.
3. The CoG they used, 31.4" behind leading edge at the root is 7.8" aft datum. The rear limit for the same configuration is 7.5".

Actually you should, and more precisely, put things on right contex. Yes, there is plenty of documentation posted, including critics on NACA test (even wartime critics by RAE).

:rolleyes:

31.4%....MAC

:rolleyes:

:rolleyes:

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/k9787-fuel.html

Not with the longitudinal instability......

No problems: a reasonable starting point can be found on this site:
http://www.spitfireart.com/merlin_engines.html

Some valuable articles can be downloaded from Flight Global:
eg: http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchi...42 - 0449.html
http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchi...42 - 2609.html
or
http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchi...0-%200164.html

or for the Griffon

You can download a Merlin 61 Maintenance Manual Here (via DepositFiles)

One really good source for books is the Rolls-Royce Heritage Trust

Hope this helps.

Instead of just being smart and making rolleyes how about proving, with documentation, that this statement is incorrect. Prove that you are not making a worst-case scenario out of just two documents: Prove that the Spitfire had such bad longitudinal stability characteristics that it affected its abilities in general flight and in combat and, above all PROVE that this can be replicated in a flight sim made for PCs.

This is the second or third time in this same thread the same argument has arisen.

The instability existed in all early mark Spitfires at normal and aft CG until it was fixed with the inertial weights.

It is a function of the tail design and elevator, static margin, and fuselage length.

The Operating Notes are full of warnings about it. It was not limited to one propeller or a specific load.

It was at NORMAL and AFT cg.

NORMAL....

Noun: The usual, average, or typical state or condition.

Your whole premise of the Constant Speed Propellers being the "most adverse condition" is just plain wrong.

Which do you think is heavier? A three bladed CSP or a two blade fixed pitch wooden propeller? The correct answer is the CSP.

What do you think happens to the CG when you add weight to the front of the aircraft? Do you think it shifts forward or back?