The Fw190 had a nasty tendency to do a crazy maneuver when in a banked turn that was very dangerous to the pilot, especially the low time pilot and Germany had many, many of these. It didn't matter if the turn was to port or starboard, the a/c always ended up going to starboard.

No doubt we will hear that this was caused by incorrectly adjusted ailerons.

Wrong again, Lanchester's work on aerodynamics, as well as other British academics, provided a basis for the adopted measurable standards for stability & control worldwide - the British did indeed have such standards, and adopted them well before NACA; to claim that only the Americans and Germans had such standards is farcical. Read the articles and do some historical research of your own before making such claims. What work, for example, did the National Physical Laboratory in Britain do during WW1? http://www.npl.co.uk/about/history/

IMO, the difference between a MkII and a MkV is much less than the difference between a 109F and a 109G.

My understanding is that a MkV is basically just a MkI but with a Merlin 45. True?

By contrast, the 109F is drastically different, structurally speaking, from the 109E. Different wings, different tail empennage, lack of wing guns, different engine cowling, etc.

If we were talking about, say, Fw 190A variants it might be a different story.

in very basic terms yes, but there were relatively significant differences, the bob weight, but even an engine change makes it a different beast, it performs differently it is loaded differently, the pilot's notes between the 2 reflect that, so I don't think it's a fair comparison at all.

It's essentially a MK I airframe, yes. There are differences though.
The airframes were strengthened (I must admit I don't know what this involved)
The radiator scoop under the wing is bigger, and there was a difference in weight .
MK V's had the inertia weight fitted into the elevator system as well. There's also a difference between early V's and late V's, they got heavier as more mods were added.

It's all a bit confusing, I've got Crumpp saying that the stall is horrid and yet I've got a NACA report on the Spitfire stall that says that it has the best stall characteristics of any fighter they had tested and that they were 'desirable'

The other problem I have with this whole argument is that there is no data for the same tests on any of the other a/c in the game (AFAIK). How many WW2 aircraft would have also been considered unstable by NACA?

winny it is all about making an Olympus Mons out of a mole hill.

:lol:

Read the NACA report.

Stall warning is NOT buffet effect on turn performance.

Accelerated stall is NOT a 1G wings level stall.

Spitfire Mk I Operating Notes, July 1940.

What do you think the "violent shudder" is.....hint....PRE-STALL BUFFET.

http://img607.imageshack.us/img607/2471/page15j.th.jpg

Great!! A basis is not an adopted standard, Capeesh??

There were several British pioneers of stability and control. In fact, Gates is the one who came up with Aerodynamic Center and Stability Margin.

It made Center of Pressure theory obsolete and was integral part of Gilruths work. Like I said earlier, Gilruth and Gates were good friends.

That does nothing to change the fact the Air Ministry had no measurable standard in place until after the war.

Your link is a meaningless and has no bearing on stability and control standards.