[taildraggernut]

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

One only has to look at the bigger picture the chap is painting to realise it, by carefull examination you will see he is suggesting 'extreme care' must be taken to fly it, the penalties for not doing so range from complete loss of control to airframe failure, so even though the specific words were not used the ultimate impression Crumpp is giving is of a 'dangerous' aircraft.

Well, none of this evidence said different from crumpps documents

and thats the craziest part, it's only Crumpps own interpretation of those documents that paint such a dire picture, the most noteable instance has been the graphs showing the various stability tests, all of which show an aircraft with a very gentle divergent amplitude which is in technical terms 'unstable' but not to any degree as to be of concern, so Crumpp's own evidence works against him.

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

the same airframe with a different engine and all up weight, given that there were apparent differences between the MkI and MkII how can it be so?

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

Seek and ye shall find....

http://history.nasa.gov/monograph12/ch4.htm

Now, that is pure blandishing.

I fail to see where I am flattering you?

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

Yes, I can go with that

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

Lucky all those chaps with 10 hours on type and 0 combat experience were very careful

Me also.

I have a feeling we are in for a long wait