A newbies impression of the 109 and spit

[CaptainDoggles]

Originally Posted by bongodriver

So how were mere humans able to fly them? total instability is the realms of 5th generation fighter jets that need computers to fly them.

Sorry but you guys are blowing it out your asses if you claim the spitfire had 'no' stability.

I think maybe you should go learn about aircraft stability before you tell me I'm "blowing it out my ass" because you are incorrect.

There are three classifications of static stability: positive, negative, and neutral (or zero).

Don't be so hostile.

[bongodriver]

Originally Posted by CaptainDoggles

I think maybe you should go learn about aircraft stability before you tell me I'm "blowing it out my ass" because you are incorrect.

There are three classifications of stability: positive, negative, and neutral (or zero).

Don't be so hostile.

actually theres static and dynaminc, I don't need to learn anything from people claiming the spitfire was 'unstable', and believe me static (or neutral) stability is by no means unstable.

Sorry if I sound hostile, no intention but I understand.

[CaptainDoggles]

Originally Posted by bongodriver

actually theres static and dynaminc

Edited my post, as I was typing too fast. There are three conditions of static or dynamic stability: Positive, Negative, and Neutral. The spitfire had neutral (when i was in school we used the term "zero") static longitudinal stability. An aircraft can only be said to be statically stable if it has positive stability.

I don't need to learn anything from people claiming the spitfire was 'unstable', and believe me static (or neutral) stability is by no means unstable.

It's not my fault if you're misusing the accepted terminology. I've provided a reference from the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics that supports my case.

Go look up a reference that proves me wrong, showing the spitfire had positive static stability.

[bongodriver]

Go look up a reference that proves me wrong, showing the spitfire had positive static stability.

I don't claim the spitfire had dynamic stability, I say it is neutral, which simply means it does not try to return to it's original condition, as opposed to dynamic instability where the aircraft would increase it's amplitude of error, enough proof against dynamic instability is the fact the aircraft was not notorious for PIO (pilot induced oscilation) incidents, neutral stability is a desireable quality for an aircraft built purpousely to be agile/manouverable......seems Mitchel designed it just right.

I attached a scan from Kermodes 'Mechanics of flight' and have highlighted in red the 3 conditions, perhaps there are differences in our understanding but I feel it explains where I'm coming from.

[CaptainDoggles]

Kermode's terminology is a bit dated, I think. What's the publication date?

Most textbooks and the industry people I know prefer the following breakdown:

• Dynamic Stability:
  • Positive
  • Negative
  • Neutral
• Static Stability:
  • Positive
  • Negative
  • Neutral

[bongodriver]

Originally Posted by CaptainDoggles

Kermode's terminology is a bit dated, I think. What's the publication date?

Most textbooks and the industry people I know prefer the following breakdown:

• Dynamic Stability:
  • Positive
  • Negative
  • Neutral
• Static Stability:
  • Positive
  • Negative
  • Neutral

can you scan or point me to a source for this, seems a bit odd th have these distinctions......what's the difference between neutral dynamic stability and neutral static stability?

[CaptainDoggles]

I'll see if I can provide you a scan later today, but in the interim have a look at the Centennial of Flight website which is run by NASA, so I'd say it's a reasonably authoritative source.

http://www.centennialofflight.gov/es...ility/TH26.htm

Edit: You can also have a look at this textbook, an earlier edition of which I used in school. Stengel's Flight Dynamics