The 'Great Debate' - Spitfire vs BF109

[Crumpp]

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

BALONEY.

It will dampen the oscillation and the speed change will be non-existent in ~ ONE MINUTE.

[taildraggernut]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

BALONEY.

It will dampen the oscillation and the speed change will be non-existent in ~ ONE MINUTE.

Yes a cessna will stabilise quick, you missed my point, we are talking about the Spitfire here, the oscilations that your graphs show are really not vicious, while the cessna is in the process of stabilising I have seen speed fliuctuations of a similar magnitude, of course they are decreasing but a 40mph change in 10 seconds is miniscule, a half dead monkey with no flying training could catch it even if the amplitude was increasing.

[Crumpp]

Yes a cessna will stabilise quick, you missed my point,

You missed the point.

The Spitfire will not stabilize, it will get worse.

That means constant correction and pilot attention is required to fly the plane.

As for the other contention, only the paraniod pointy tin foil hat crowd see this as some kind of attempt to "pork" their favorite gameshape.

The results are measured. I find it very amusing that and quite telling the individuals who cannot accept the results for what they are but insist upon some sort of reassurance to calm their fears.

[taildraggernut]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

You missed the point.

The Spitfire will not stabilize, it will get worse.

That means constant correction and pilot attention is required to fly the plane.

As for the other contention, only the paraniod pointy tin foil hat crowd see this as some kind of attempt to "pork" their favorite gameshape.

The results are measured. I find it very amusing that and quite telling the individuals who cannot accept the results for what they are but insist upon some sort of reassurance to calm their fears.

You missed the point again, I already said I know the amplitude is divergent, I'm saying that the rates of divergence on the graphs you gave are miniscule, mild instability is easy to catch and correct, in terms of emotional reaction I think it is you who seems to react the worst to a difference of oppinion with all these bizarre accusations you keep throwing around.

[Crumpp]

I'm saying that the rates of divergence on the graphs you gave are miniscule

Again, Argue with the NACA, RAE, and Operating Notes....

The rates were significant enough to prompt a narrowing of the CG limits unless a bob-weight was installed.

Must not have been so insignificant, huh???

[taildraggernut]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

Again, Argue with the NACA, RAE, and Operating Notes....

The rates were significant enough to prompt a narrowing of the CG limits unless a bob-weight was installed.

Must not have been so insignificant, huh???

Nothing to argue, the RAE NACA and notes say it's slightly unstable and the graphs show it, and slight instability is just plain and simly 'no big deal'.

MkI's and MkII's did 'not' have the bob weight or a CoG revision, why they bothered in the MkV is debateable.