A newbies impression of the 109 and spit

[NZtyphoon]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

It would help if you understood everything that report says instead of select phrases out of context. If you can't do that , it is practically impossible to hold a discussion.

Some were worse than others and it is a fact the early mark Spitfires exhibited a dangerous longitudinal instability. It was an infant science when they were developed.

Nonsense Crumpp - you are the one who is taking things out of context - note what the report said about the cg calculations cf the A&AEE report on the same aircraft type - the possibility was that the Spitfire flown by NACA was slightly tail heavy.

Not forgetting also what Quill had to say about the early Spitfires - "In general configuration the Mk I and Mk II production aeroplanes were almost identical to the prototype and so there was no problem with their stability. (231-232)" I'll take his word over yours any day.

As for having a "discussion" with you Crumpp - not interested because I know you'll turn it into a loooong, tedious thread, arguing over minute detail, while sticking to your opinion that the Spitfire was "dangerously unstable" no matter what. I don't care what you think because I know you're not interested in any one else's opinion, except when they agree with you.

[Kurfürst]

Originally Posted by NZtyphoon

Nonsense Crumpp - you are the one who is taking things out of context - note what the report said about the cg calculations cf the A&AEE report on the same aircraft type - the possibility was that the Spitfire flown by NACA was slightly tail heavy.

Every report ever written on the Spitfire has apparently flawed because they were always have been made on a 'rogue' plane or a single example that proves nothing etc.

How boring.

Not forgetting also what Quill had to say about the early Spitfires - "In general configuration the Mk I and Mk II production aeroplanes were almost identical to the prototype and so there was no problem with their stability. (231-232)" I'll take his word over yours any day.

Except that everyone knows that Quill is khmm... the most outspoken priest of the Spitfire ever. If you ask Quill, the thing had no faults, and they were also immediately and complete fixed. Over and over again. Which is why he is liked to be quoted so much, as if his word was some kind of ultimate judgement which overwrites detailed reports. Quill may have an opinion, but these reports have the hard facts.

Personally I find Henshaw far, far more objective. At least he doesn't try to make it like how everything was made just perfect, despite some very obscene hiccups in the development (fabric ailerons being one of them)

As for having a "discussion" with you Crumpp - not interested because I know you'll turn it into a loooong, tedious thread, arguing over minute detail, while sticking to your opinion that the Spitfire was "dangerously unstable" no matter what. I don't care what you think because I know you're not interested in any one else's opinion, except when they agree with you.

That's pretty much the very best self-description I have ever read. I mean you keep playing the know-it-better smartass everytime, and then make it like as if the 'a loooong, tedious thread' its someone else fault, and then comes the usual yada-yada about your precious time and how you will put everyone on ignore.

Problem is, you've only registered here to carry over some feuds from other places, and you have made almost as many posts in 2 months as Crumpp or I did in 4 years.

Nope, arguing over minute details is exactly what you like to do. At least don't blame it on others.

[Al Schlageter]

Quill is to the Spitfire as Barbi is to the Bf109.

[Osprey]

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

Except that everyone knows that Quill is khmm... the most outspoken priest of the Spitfire ever. If you ask Quill, the thing had no faults

I find it a bit of a failure in job description that a test pilot would not report any faults because he thought it was perfect. Get real Kurfurst.

[fruitbat]

I just find it pure comedy gold that Kurfursts arrogance and general hatred of the Spit is such that he genuinely believes that he knows more about Spits that Quill did.

says everything you need to know.

[Crumpp]

A violent spin if you push past the boundary is again nothing to worry about,

Sure, in an aircraft with acceptable stability and control characteristics...

If you don't have that then the pilot can kill himself and turn the aircraft to aluminum confetti as the Spitfire Operating Notes tells you.

[Crumpp]

Quill

Keep in mind that pilots in the 1930's and 1940's were not the technical experts found in today's aviation world.

They were practical pilots who got there mostly on their courage. It was felt that it was beyond the pilots comprehension to delve too deeply into the science of flight.

Pilots were given a rudimentary knowledge of aerodynamics at best and strict left/right limits required to operate the aircraft.

[NZtyphoon]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

Keep in mind that pilots in the 1930's and 1940's were not the technical experts found in today's aviation world.

They were practical pilots who got there mostly on their courage. It was felt that it was beyond the pilots comprehension to delve too deeply into the science of flight.

Pilots were given a rudimentary knowledge of aerodynamics at best and strict left/right limits required to operate the aircraft.

ie: Quill was a no nothing pilot who just operated the controls and hoped for the best - yeah right! Interesting how Barbi and Crumpp now attack one of the most highly regarded test plots of his generation because they don't like what he wrote about the Spitfire...way to go guys!

[Glider]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

Keep in mind that pilots in the 1930's and 1940's were not the technical experts found in today's aviation world.

They were practical pilots who got there mostly on their courage. It was felt that it was beyond the pilots comprehension to delve too deeply into the science of flight.

Pilots were given a rudimentary knowledge of aerodynamics at best and strict left/right limits required to operate the aircraft.

Partly true, however the UK were the first to train test pilots in the 40's Germany and the USA didn't.

[Glider]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

Sure, in an aircraft with acceptable stability and control characteristics...

If you don't have that then the pilot can kill himself and turn the aircraft to aluminum confetti as the Spitfire Operating Notes tells you.

You push any aircraft past its limits and failure may happen. However it is a rare case. What I find intersting is that you don't take note of the comments from the German pilots who flew the Spitfire and said that it was easier to fly than the 109, or the Jugoslav pilots who flew the Hurricane and Me109. Why do you just ignore that?

Does anyone have the pilots notes for the 109, I am confident that if they are to the same scope then they will have their won warnings.