Stability and Control characteristics of the Early Mark Spitfires

[Glider]

I hate saying this Crumpp but when are you going to read the evidence you put forward?

K5054 is the prototype and the report did say what you said it did for the movement of the elevators.

K9787 is the very first aircraft delivered for the RAF and in this report to do wth the elevators it says:-
The gearing of the elevator control and elevator trimmers which were considered too high in the prototype are satisfactory in this aeroplane.

ie Elevators fixed for production aircraft

While you are at it can I have your test pilot reports that support your statement or is this it?

[robtek]

There is also still no evidence in form of provable data that the data presented by crumpp is not correct.

[Glider]

Originally Posted by robtek

There is also still no evidence in form of provable data that the data presented by crumpp is not correct.

On one side we have the views of the German, American and British test facilities, as well as the pilots who flew them that the SPitfire is easy to fly. Nowhere in any of these does it say that is was difficult or uncomfortable to fly.

Everyone agrees that there was a slight instability but either it wasn't noticable or it was easily dealt with.

On the other side we have Crumpp's view that because there is a slight instability that it was difficult/uncomfortable to fly. He also said that he had the reports from the test establishments and test pilots to support that view.

He has been asked many times to supply these reports from the establishments/pilots which he has failed to do. When he does supply something it turns out that the first is on the prototype and the second confirms that the issue on the prototype has been solved in the first production aircraft. So far there is nothing else submitted.

Its worth remembering that no one forced him to say that he had this supporting evidence, it was Crumpps statement.

I am afraid that I am starting to believe one of three options:-

a) He never had the supporting evidence and tried to bluff his way out of a problem
b) He does have the reports and they don't say what he wants them to say, so he isn't posting them
c) He has the reports, they say what he want but for some reason he will not submit them

Of the three options C is looking more and more unlikely. I truly hope that I am wrong and that he does have support as A and B are not good options