[taildraggernut]

Could it reach the airframe limit in turn? Of course, many planes had that problem: above all the ones with oversensitive elevators... look at the doc: Spitfire had oversensitive elevators according to NACA.

No sorry wrong, it had 'desireably' light controls

This only means that pilots should be aware of that more than the ones flying a plane with heavy stick forces... heavy stick forces were a required at highspeed

No sorry wrong, heavy stick forces were a penalty for high speed and extensive research was put into remedying the problem, an aircraft with heavy controls is more difficult to control.

It's often been said that one of the greatest virtues of the Spitfire was that the plane's behaviour didn't changed after every modification... IIRC the Griffon Spitfires lose most of those virtues.

Or is it a Myth?

Hard to say, the Griffon Spits were almost a different aircraft but given the eliptical wing and general planform of the aircraft were unchanged, and it's very much the physical shape of the aircraft that defined alot of its flying qualities, then perhaps it's not a Myth, but a Griffon Spit is not the topic here.

Those who actually think that "easy to fly" mean that pilot could have full control of the plane in every condition, knowing that the Spitfire is an war machine and not a touring plane... those are the ones with an "tie fighter" agenda... I'm not claiming that everyone who defends this plane is one of those.

But you know, in forums is always the same thing: black or white, nuthuggers vs haters., syndrome of sorting people by their current idea.

and which conditions do you have evidence for that made the Spitfire particularily difficult? given that NACA said it's biggest shortcoming in combat terms was 'heavy' ailerons at very high speed, so you think the Spitfire was famous for being a 'touring' machine?
at least you realise there is an element of the anti-british/anti-spitfire going on here.....I wonder who it is?

Any redeeming quality? Come on... don't be so extremist.
It's a NACA document about longitudinal stability and control quality.

These are my opinions about the best Spitfire's qualities
1) the RR Merlin.
2) receptive airframe (modifications didn't changed the behaviour)
3) Hispano cannons

Acrobatic skills and turn rate are not there: not really important in a fighter of the WW2, just see the design of the new fighters... so many elliptical wings...

But for that is famous the most? this last one...

Then of course the planes of the winner side (above all those beautiful like the Spitfire and the P51) are most be remembered as symbol of that win... it's dishonest not to admit it at least partially... but at least the P51 had a real advantage in range. The turn rate is still so overrated by many warbirds' fans.

So, IMO, it was one of the best, not THE best... it has issues as any other plane. Perfection does not exist.

Who said 'THE' best?

The RR merlin was not a unique quality...
Receptive airframe? you have a strange set of rules
Hispano cannons are guns not aircraft, what good is a hispano if it's nailed to a cessna 152?

Aerobatics are useless, aerobatic ability is very usefull, if the aircraft can't cope with aerobatics then it hasn't got a hope in hell of being a fighter....like a PA-28

You make it sound like the Allies have tried to erase all memory of the Germans, if just being the winners was the main influencing factor in aircraft favouriteism then why are there so many LW fans?

The Hurricane was not so easy to fly with that stick friction... in landing configuration from the 100mhp to 150mhp it was not the nicest plane.
But please... enough with "made it famous"... M.Jackson was famous to be a pedophile, but was he really? Pavarotti was a famous benefactor but in reality he was f*****g tax evader.

are you saying that 'fame' only comes from bad qualities?

Look at the airplane for that it is, and not for that it's been told of.

About the "easy to fly => easily push to the limit" read below.

Huh?

But it was easy to fly... how can them not be able to outturn a plane crap plane like a capture 109E.
Those pilot should be really low skilled to not push the plane at his limits, since it was easy.

But the 109 wasn't crap....what medication are you taking?

No. The one about the Norwegian guy pulling up and turning left only to spin and not recover since it's engine stopped.
I just ask... why did many pilots spin? Wasn't the prestall warning enought to plan that? Why didn't they adverted it and continued the turn?

Because in combat you can end up spinning because you just couldnt' hold on to the edge forever and somebody is trying to kill you or the other way around, nothing to do with propensity to spin, or are you saying the Spitfire was the only aircraft that spun in hard turns?

"the pilot found himself stuck in an increasingly narrow corner of the flight envelope, until any attempt to pull G would result in an instant high speed stall."

I can speculate that the oversensitive stick control was a reason for that. Those planes were not fully controllable, that's different from totally uncontrollable.

I guess that is really what you are saying....

"the fact some spitfires ended up spinning out in combat is 'not' indicative of a propensity to do so".
So you don't care about reports... why should I find for them.. I doubt to find a number big enough to be indicative.

So if I found a report of a 109 spinning I could claim the 109 was unduly prone to it?

<= it should be the little blu one but I don't remember the code.

ah the punchline for the Lufwhiners.....I mean the unbiassed truthmongers who have nothing but the best interests of historic realism at heart.