[robtek]

Originally Posted by taildraggernut

No, he presents documents and interprets them to an extreme, with Crumpp this apparent instability is 'total' and should render the Spitfire dangerous to fly, simply not true.

I still have to find crumpps claim that the Spitfire is dangerous to fly, failed so far.

Funny how despite a similar weight of documented evidence is labeled aas 'claims' when on the other side.

Well, none of this evidence said different from crumpps documents

in the MkV which had a different engine, all up weight etc.....oh and was about to go into service with the US air force....who apparently heard it was a bit 'unstable'

Yes, the MK Va with the same flying characteristics as the Mk I / II as the airframe is identical apart from small changes.

Yes, as my link to the NACA report showed 'desirably light'

I haven't found your link, but i found that in the NACA report:

In turns with speeds high enough to prevent reaching
maximum lift coefficient because of the excessive accelerations
involved, the small static longitudinal stability
of the Spitfire caused undue sensitivity of the normal
acceleration to small movements of the stick. As shown
by the time histories of high-speed turns (figs. 15 to 1,
it was necessary for the pilot to pull back the stick and
then ease it forward almost to its original position in
order to enter a turn rapidly without overshooting the desired
normal acceleration. Although this procedure appears
to come naturally to a skillful pilot, flight records
from other airplanes show, that a turn may be entered rapidly
and the desired normal acceleration may be held constant
by a single rearward motion of the stick, provided
the static stability of an airplane is sufficiently large.
By careful flying, the pilot was able to make smooth turns
at high speed, as shown by figures 17 and 18. Ordinarily,
however, small movements of the stick caused appreciable
variations in the normal acceleration, as shown in figures
15 and 20.

as a real life pilot I can say that sounds like a perfect situation, who wouldn't like a responsive ride?

Now, that is pure blandishing.

I must be using a different game, it certainly isn't a hands off aircraft in game, but I sure would like some more of that responsiveness.

Yes, more in the elevators, much less in the ailerons.

Which is quite true of any aircraft, luckyly the Spitfire was so responsive that a pilot barely needed any effort to take the aircraft out of the buffet.

As it barely didn't need any effort to get into the buffet if not careful flown.

Yes, I agree, I am really looking forward to the promised 109 topic.

Me also.