The 'Great Debate' - Spitfire vs BF109

[Crumpp]

By 'you', do you mean Mr. Wellum

Let's not turn it into something it is not. Apply some common sense please.

Winny posted that single remark out of context is the subject. Winny, who quoted Mr Wellum, does not understand that CG's move and aircraft change condition of flight.

I am sure Mr Wellum was absolutely right for the condition he is referring too. Just as I am sure the RAE, Operating Notes, NACA, and test pilots are correct for the conditions they measured.

All that proves is that you can have some longitudinal instability and still be faultless in a turn as well as easy to take off and land.

It also says that the Spit wasn't a very steady gun platform

Well the Germans did not take any measurements so it is just opinion.

IIRC, at normal and aft CG the aircraft is longitudinally unstable. Depending on the speed and by careful application, neutral stability could also produce "faultless turns" by careful flying.

[Glider]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

Well the Germans did not take any measurements so it is just opinion.

Yes it is an opinion, but its the opinion of one of the best German pilots of the time, someone who clearly doesn't have any pro RAF bias.
The German and British test establishments do not disagree with him and neither does as far as I am aware, any of the thousands of pilots of many nations who also flew it, including newly and at times poorly trained pilots.

I have asked a number of times for any examples from you of pilots who thought it difficult or unpleasent aircraft to fly, with no response.

Without any support your theory is just that, an unsupported theory.

[Crumpp]

Without any support your theory is just that, an unsupported theory.

What theory??

You mean the measured results? The Operating Note warnings? The Test Pilot confirmation?

[Crumpp]

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/k9788-stability.jpg

[taildraggernut]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/k9788-stability.jpg

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpos...&postcount=303

[Crumpp]

The graphs show a slight instability, if you cant cope with that level of divergence in 3 minutes then my guess is you'd either be paralysed or in a coma.

Wow....

In 10 seconds the aircraft changed speed by 40 mph.....

After 3 minutes, left to its own devices, the aircraft was changing speed 110 mph and on it way to self destruction.

The oscillation grew larger by 20mph to 40mph each cycle.

[taildraggernut]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

Wow....

In 10 seconds the aircraft changed speed by 40 mph.....

After 3 minutes, left to its own devices, the aircraft was changing speed 110 mph and on it way to self destruction.

The oscillation grew larger by 20mph to 40mph each cycle.

A cessna 152 will change that much in about as much time, luckily most people wouldn't be doing 'nothing' after 3 minutes.

[Glider]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

What theory??

You mean the measured results? The Operating Note warnings? The Test Pilot confirmation?

Still waiting for the test pilot confirmation

[NZtyphoon]

Originally Posted by Glider

Still waiting for the test pilot confirmation

Except Jeffrey Quill and Alex Henshaw, who don't count because they did not have Crumpp's vast experience in aerodynamics and engineering.

[Glider]

Originally Posted by NZtyphoon

Except Jeffrey Quill and Alex Henshaw, who don't count because they did not have Crumpp's vast experience in aerodynamics and engineering.

Don't forget Molders, Galland and the German test establishment. After all JQ and AH might be seen as biased

Crumpp
I believe the ball as they say is firmly in your court.