Stability and Control characteristics of the Early Mark Spitfires

[taildraggernut]

Heres a couple of links that clearly show the relationship between stability and maneuverability i.e. the relationship is inverse, this is what USN student pilots are being taught, I am fairly sure the USN currently are using 'adopted' standards

http://navyflightmanuals.tpub.com/P-1231/P-12310068.htm

http://navyflightmanuals.tpub.com/P-1231/P-12310031.htm

So lets get all this in perspective, longitudinal instability does 'not' mean the aircraft is difficult to control, and it 'does' mean the aircraft is more manouverable, it's all about how far on the scale you go, and the Spitfire just sits on the slightly unstable end, the 109 would sit slightly on the stable end.

I will just quote Crumpp again so you can draw your own conclusions wether he really knows what he is talking about or just has a sinister agenda.

Originally Posted by Crumpp

Exactly. Instability does not do anything except make the aircraft harder to control.

It is a myth that instability has positive effects on maneuverability. In fact, it narrows the maneuvering envelope because the pilot cannot precisely control the aircraft.

[CaptainDoggles]

Originally Posted by taildraggernut

Heres a couple of links that clearly show the relationship between stability and maneuverability i.e. the relationship is inverse, this is what USN student pilots are being taught, I am fairly sure the USN currently are using 'adopted' standards

http://navyflightmanuals.tpub.com/P-1231/P-12310068.htm

http://navyflightmanuals.tpub.com/P-1231/P-12310031.htm

So lets get all this in perspective, longitudinal instability does 'not' mean the aircraft is difficult to control, and it 'does' mean the aircraft is more manouverable, it's all about how far on the scale you go, and the Spitfire just sits on the slightly unstable end, the 109 would sit slightly on the stable end.

I will just quote Crumpp again so you can draw your own conclusions wether he really knows what he is talking about or just has a sinister agenda.

The very first line from the very first link you posted says the following:

The T-45 is a very stable aircraft yet is fully maneuverable

My eyes hurt from rolling so hard.

[fruitbat]

see you didn't get past the first line then.

[CaptainDoggles]

Originally Posted by fruitbat

see you didn't get past the first line then.

Just like Sandstone pointed out above: Everyone thinks that maneuverability requires instability. That is false, and even the US Navy says so.

Otherwise, they would not have described the T-45 as "very stable yet fully maneuverable". A child can understand this.

[fruitbat]

Originally Posted by CaptainDoggles

Just like Sandstone pointed out above: Everyone thinks that maneuverability requires instability. That is false, and even the US Navy says so.

Otherwise, they would not have described the T-45 as "very stable yet fully maneuverable". A child can understand this.

A child would be able to read to paragraph 5, unlike yourself it appears.

[CaptainDoggles]

Originally Posted by fruitbat

A child would be able to read to paragraph 5, unlike yourself it appears.

I read the entire article. Are you denying that a stable aircraft can be maneuverable?

[fruitbat]

Originally Posted by CaptainDoggles

I read the entire article. Are you denying that a stable aircraft can be maneuverable?

no, not at all, but i agree with the US Navy when they say in paragraph 5,

In a word, the relationship of longitudinal stability to maneuverability is inverse. As one increases, the other decreases and vice versa.

are you denying them?

[winny]

Originally Posted by CaptainDoggles

I read the entire article. Are you denying that a stable aircraft can be maneuverable?

This is a bit of a loaded statement. It ignores half of the argument.

The question is: Is a stable aircraft more or less maneuverable than an unstable one. Of course you can have a maneuverable stable aircraft but, are unstable aircraft more maneuverable than that?

The other big question is how detrimental to the Spitfires performance was the instability?

[Al Schlageter]

Originally Posted by CaptainDoggles

Just like Sandstone pointed out above: Everyone thinks that maneuverability requires instability. That is false, and even the US Navy says so.

Otherwise, they would not have described the T-45 as "very stable yet fully maneuverable". A child can understand this.

Sure it has to able to maneuver. It is not a V1 and flies one direction only.