Sowhat exactly is the point of this thread? Crumpp certainly seems to be saying that and you are avidly defending him.

As far as I'm concerned, the point of this thread is to provide a measurable definition of the spitfire's handling characteristics, and hopefully to assemble something that the developers can put in game.

Something more concrete than a pilot saying "the spitfire was easy to fly" because you can't measure that, which means you can't code it.

People think I'm here to neuter the spitfire because I have a Bf 109 in my signature. If they have the data and want to run the 109 through the same process I will accept any conclusion that the data supports.

He should've stopped there, for all this thread's been worth.

I really don't think we will get that far, ACE is probably right and Crumpp will magically get bored of the idea of educating us all as soon as he is satisfied the Spit is well and truly jaffa, I see no reason he couldn't be running concurrent threads covering both aircraft....call me cynical but I have been watching Crumpp at work for a while.

I am sorry to remind it to some but the Hurri won BoB statically.

[OT_Mode=ON]
The fact that the airframe reached his limitation and she was pull out of air to air action after BoB does not allow you to negate this fact in favor of the Spit.

Also one thing that made the Hurri more stable is her thicker and more robust wings. The flexibility of the Spit was not the most suitable characteristic to put guns. I guess that the new wing design that came latter was also made to improve this.
[OT_Mode=OFF]

Is longitudinal instability suitable for a fighter ?
There is different philosophy here. It would be too long to be discussed here but basically if you want a fighter to be fast and fly longer you'll make it stable. Pilot input are draggy (ailerons, elevators, rudder and most notable oscillation around the desired velocity vector). Power was low at the time. Speed being of utmost importance during WWII, basically, it would have been a bad choice to go for such a design philosophy.

So, if some plane had some problem with instability it is more probable that these were unpredictable results sourcing from modification of the airframe, added equipment or bad predictions. For example the rear tank in latter Spits was seldom used and the Mustang was not allowed to fight with the rear tank not emptied. We all know that.

The fact that the MkV was stretched forward of the CG might have been a way to reduce this problem.

Anyway if you re-read the Spit MkII manual that was posted earlier (not the one on SptPerfdotCOM), it's clearly stated that there was a prob here.

So I don't know what are all this debate for. Crumpp work (because it is obvious that this has taken time to compile for us) shld inspire at least some respect and being debated with arguments and not feelings.

May I remind here that the Spitfire legacy is not privately owned by some individuals but belong to every one?

The RAF won the BoB, the Hurricane just shot down more enemy aircraft, this is statistically logical considering there were more of them and they concentrated on bombers, I don't think the outcome would have been quite the same if britain had only hurricanes...even if it meant more Hurricanes, the Spit was needed to tackle the 109.

it is if the design philosophy is geared toward manouverability.

Heres the thing, despite what we know of inherent problems with stability there never was any appreciable recorded issue with most of the aircraft at the time, and many of them were longitudinally unstable.

The fact the issue only got a 'stop-gap' remedy with the MkV shows that there probably was no problem of any pressing urgency.

Yes it's clear that the Spitfire has become a 'labour of love' for Crumpp.

Thanks for the context winny! Here is some more "context":

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/ba-1640-1.jpg

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/ba-1640-33.jpg

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/AAEE-me109-pg1.jpg

Bingo!

Just as I was saying.. Fighters, than and now, intentionally design an alittle instability to make them more maneuverable!

So I can understand how some modern civ pilots..

Who are already blinded by their agenda

Could fool themselves into thinking a fighter that does not have the same stability attributes of their putt-putt cessna is a failure.

For anyone who would like to read the full RAE evaluation of the 109 it's here in PDF.

It's 14 Mb and should open in your browser, you can then save it if you wish.

Just for the record - they are very very different indeed. Hurricane is much lazier in the climb and it flies ('feels') much heavier than the Spitfire, especially when the speed builds up. elevator feels different, the rudder is different and the rollrate is just horrendous. It does not retain it's energy nearly as good, if simply feels completely unique to the Spitfire and not only because of the obvious lack of speed. I can get into more details if you wish...

Other than that, I agree with what you're saying, there are many problems with the FM, but I wouldn't call them generic where plane A turns better and plane B climbs better, but I understand what you're saying.