A newbies impression of the 109 and spit

[CaptainDoggles]

Originally Posted by bongodriver

Kermode may be 'dated' by todays standards but given we are talking 1930/40's aircraft then it covers everything applicable for the time, the new deffinitions of stability you give really have come about since the advent of aircraft capable of all these different states.

The laws of physics haven't changed since the war. Stability isn't something that an aircraft is "capable of".

Originally Posted by bongodriver

if the Spitfire was dynamically unstable as I believe the Spit bashers are claiming

I don't think anyone here is claiming the spit was dynamically unstable, nor would I say anyone here is a "Spit basher".

It's not "bashing" the spitfire to say it was not statically stable. Facts are facts. If you're going to get emotionally invested in this discussion then I'd rather not engage with you.

[bongodriver]

Originally Posted by CaptainDoggles

I don't think anyone here is claiming the spit was dynamically unstable, nor would I say anyone here is a "Spit basher".

Well a 'spit basher' would say that, no point admitting to it if you hope to keep under the bias radar and hide the emotional investment in it's counterpart, ok glad we cleared the dynamic stability issue though as thats the only real stability issue which would cause significant problems.

Originally Posted by CaptainDoggles

It's not "bashing" the spitfire to say it was not statically stable. Facts are facts. If you're going to get emotionally invested in this discussion then I'd rather not engage with you.

it is 'spit bashing' if that characteristic is being used as an example of a stability problem, I don't mind if you don't wish to engage with me, please don't be under the impression I need it.

Originally Posted by CaptainDoggles

The laws of physics haven't changed since the war. Stability isn't something that an aircraft is "capable of".

understanding of physics has however, stability is an inherrent capability of an aircraft, you must realise that a Cof G shift can cause a change in stability.

[CaptainDoggles]

Originally Posted by bongodriver

Well a 'spit basher' would say that, no point admitting to it if you hope to keep under the bias radar and hide the emotional investment in it's counterpart, ok glad we cleared the dynamic stability issue though as thats the only real stability issue which would cause significant problems.

Is it your favorite aircraft or something? I've stated nothing but facts and you're calling me biased.

it is 'spit bashing' if that characteristic is being used as an example of a stability problem, I don't mind if you don't wish to engage with me, please don't be under the impression I need it.

I never said it was a problem. I just said the spitfire is not statically stable.

understanding of physics has however, stability is an inherrent capability of an aircraft, you must realise that a Cof G shift can cause a change in stability.

CG shift has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

[bongodriver]

Originally Posted by CaptainDoggles

Is it your favorite aircraft or something? I've stated nothing but facts and you're calling me biased.

I don't aim the claim at you per se, but the general feeling on these topics are mainly led by bias, my favourite aircraft.....late mark perhaps....but not a fan of early spits, couldn't say a particular favourite but I am a secret lover of the cessna 150/152 believe it or not..bloody fantastic little aircraft.

Originally Posted by CaptainDoggles

I never said it was a problem. I just said the spitfire is not statically stable.

then why was it brought up in the first place?

Originally Posted by CaptainDoggles

CG shift has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

No, but it was a response to your claim stability is not a capability of an aircraft, if it can be changed then it is a variable, which if used to advantage is a capability, now try denying that some aircraft can shift C of G to their benefit.

[CaptainDoggles]

then why was it brought up in the first place?

Because people throw terms like "stable" around without really knowing what it means, and think that because an RAF pilot said the Spitfire was "easy to fly" that it must therefore mean the Spitfire was a very stable aircraft.

No, but it was a response to your claim stability is not a capability of an aircraft

Never mind. Linguistic difference. I was just pointing out that you don't say "The P-51 is capable of static stability." You say "The P-51 is statically stable." An aircraft is designed to be stable under a particular set of conditions. If you change the conditions then the aircraft might not be stable under those conditions, but you aren't changing the aircraft.

if it can be changed then it is a variable, which if used to advantage is a capability, now try denying that some aircraft can shift C of G to their benefit.

Why on earth would I deny that and why is it relevant to the Spitfire?

[bongodriver]

Originally Posted by CaptainDoggles

Because people throw terms like "stable" around without really knowing what it means, and think that because an RAF pilot said the Spitfire was "easy to fly" that it must therefore mean the Spitfire was a very stable aircraft.?

Nonsense, people interpret it for exactly what it means, the spitfire was easy to fly, nobody mentioned stability until someone wanted to deride the spitfire.

Originally Posted by CaptainDoggles

Never mind. Linguistic difference. I was just pointing out that you don't say "The P-51 is capable of static stability." You say "The P-51 is statically stable." An aircraft is designed to be stable under a particular set of conditions. If you change the conditions then the aircraft might not be stable under those conditions, but you aren't changing the aircraft.

Where did I say anything about the spitfire being 'capable of stability'? I will say it again it was a response to your 'black and white' statement 'Stability isn't something that an aircraft is "capable of".'

Originally Posted by CaptainDoggles

Why on earth would I deny that and why is it relevant to the Spitfire?

Where did I claim it was?

[CaptainDoggles]

Originally Posted by bongodriver

Nonsense, people interpret it for exactly what it means, the spitfire was easy to fly, nobody mentioned stability until someone wanted to deride the spitfire.

This is my point. Aircraft stability and aircraft flying qualities are two different things. The spitfire had good flying qualities but was not statically stable.

Where did I say anything about the spitfire being 'capable of stability'? I will say it again it was a response to your 'black and white' statement 'Stability isn't something that an aircraft is "capable of".'

Like I said. Never mind. It would take too much energy to explain.

Where did I claim it was?

You brought it up.