Seems more like the anti-Spitfire/Anti-British fan club can't find any real blemishes.

The anti-Spitfire/Anti-British fan club struck out on the 100 octane fuel and now have struck out on the Spitfire. One more strike out on the Hurricane to come. They are batting 0.0.

Then there is the question why the OP picks the Hurricane and not the Bf109 for his next topic.

Really?.....I suppose you know.

if the Spitfire was anything like the portrayal being attempted by the OP then History would need to be re-written because no Spitfire would ever have claimed a 109.

When the term 'easy to fly' and 'a pilot's dream' were coined about the Spitfire it was not aimed at pilots who just wanted to cruise cross country wearing ray-bans, it was for the pilots with some testosterone (including the ladies) who wanted to point it around the sky and have a blast, an aircraft that is likely to spin out is never going to get that reputation, the fact some spitfires ended up spinning out in combat is 'not' indicative of a propensity to do so, combat is a stressfull enviroment that can force you beyond the limits because your mind is often overloaded with more to worry about than limits in the pilots notes.

Now, please come back with some pilots reports indicating a tendency to spin unexpectedly etc and help me to change my mind.

He stated that it was an excellent fighter, he did not say it was totally uncontrollable.

That's the problem? I can't talk for him (as I disagree that Spitfires were prohibited from spinning) but he only stated it has an issue who usually is not remembered because "it was easy to fly".

See, I'm not an Anti-Spitfire (or worser, Anti-British... pure crap and shame on who states that)... but I can really say that I'm an Anti-"Easy to fly = Tie Fighter" as many here think.

It's probably that many other airplane had similar issues, and there's no wrong in focusing on those. But why many need to be so defensive about this plane? Why can't they separates the RL plane from the Myth?

I know it's not easy if many STILL think that the best plane is the more manouvrable (look at my sig).

Easy to fly... sure it was easy to takeoff/land easy in turning, climbing and diving... nowhere it's written it was easy to push at limits. Or why should be RAF pilots be outturned by a poor 109?

I did already some pages behind: but "the fact some spitfires ended up spinning out in combat is 'not' indicative of a propensity to do so"...

So why should lose time in doing it?
:-)

Just answer me: how can a 109 outturn a Spitfire like it happened in those tests?

He said it was an excellent fighter and the rest of his thread was a big 'BUT it was totally uncontrollable and broke up in spins' and many other variations on an attempt to discredit the Spitfire.

only he and a few merry followers say it had an 'issue', history does not reflect those oppinions, for some reason he clings to a NACA report on the wrong variant as his proof and wants to make it stick to the entire Spitfire family.

Yes I can agree that you are not the Anti British type and I thank you for that rare quality, but I would add that labeling anyone who defends the Spitfire as having a 'tie fighter' agenda is ignorant.

Sadly there is a need to be defensive on this issue because there are an element that seek to fabricate alternate myths and are of the anti british nature, but I'd like to know exactly what the real Myths are about the Spitfire, it's got to be famous for a reason better than 'it was British and we were on the winning side in the war', personally I believe it was famous because it was one of the best fighters, to be in that category it had to have qualities above others, this thread is an attempt to take away any redeeming qualities.

Now youre being ridiculous, most aircraft were easy to fly in that sense, the Hurricane was even easier in that sense, it has to be it's qualities in combat that made it famous, nowhere is it written that it was difficult to push to it's limits.

Not sure what you mean, but the Spitfire was generally better at turning than the 109....not 100% that really depended on who was flying, but certainly for the most part, which includes while in the hands of some of the less skilled RAF pilots.

Really? you think that because those RAAF pilots underestimated the turning capabilities of the Jap planes and ended up in spins because they got caught in turning engagements was proof the Spitfire was prone? almost any aircraft would have spun out if it was turning with a zero.

I don't understand what you mean here?

are there no tests showing the Spitfire out turning the 109?

This is only your spin on crumpp's posts, i haven't read that, or could you please quote what i've missed.

It's hardly surprising now is it.....

I actually totally agree with you 100%, there there, it can happen. In the same way the P47 wasn't dangerous to spin, neither was the Spitfire.

Its probably fair to say that the Pilots notes were on the side of caution

We're losing sight of the "measurable and definable" aspect of things, here.

Not really..

We have measured and defined that having 'adopted' stability and control standards or not, it seems everybody made aircraft with quirks, maybe it's because everybody was using British engineers theories for the basis?

We have defined the desireable qualities of the Spitfires maneuverability and controlability, and I might add i'd like to see more sensitivity in pitch with better rate of turn modelled in game.

We have defined the spinning characteristics of the Spitfire were not alarming and did not result in airframe failure.

We have defined that the RAF had a 'blanket' ban on intentionally spinning operational aircraft for some rather obvious reasons, nothing to do with imminent failure of the aircraft but more to do with preventing hot headed fighter pilots 'mucking about' with expensive and desperately needed combat aircraft, this has no bearing on the use of spinning in combat as an evasion technique, if your choice is get shot down and die or spin which would you chose?

Totally uncontrollable? come one...

Could it reach the airframe limit in turn? Of course, many planes had that problem: above all the ones with oversensitive elevators... look at the doc: Spitfire had oversensitive elevators according to NACA.

This only means that pilots should be aware of that more than the ones flying a plane with heavy stick forces... heavy stick forces were a required at highspeed (of course "high" is not a measure)

It's often been said that one of the greatest virtues of the Spitfire was that the plane's behaviour didn't changed after every modification... IIRC the Griffon Spitfires lose most of those virtues.

Or is it a Myth?

Those who actually think that "easy to fly" mean that pilot could have full control of the plane in every condition, knowing that the Spitfire is an war machine and not a touring plane... those are the ones with an "tie fighter" agenda... I'm not claiming that everyone who defends this plane is one of those.

But you know, in forums is always the same thing: black or white, nuthuggers vs haters., syndrome of sorting people by their current idea.

Any redeeming quality? Come on... don't be so extremist.
It's a NACA document about longitudinal stability and control quality.

These are my opinions about the best Spitfire's qualities
1) the RR Merlin.
2) receptive airframe (modifications didn't changed the behaviour)
3) Hispano cannons

Acrobatic skills and turn rate are not there: not really important in a fighter of the WW2, just see the design of the new fighters... so many elliptical wings...

But for that is famous the most? this last one...

Then of course the planes of the winner side (above all those beautiful like the Spitfire and the P51) are most be remembered as symbol of that win... it's dishonest not to admit it at least partially... but at least the P51 (my favourite plane even if too much wordhipped by the american history) had a real advantage in range. The turn rate is still so overrated by many warbirds' fans.

So, IMO, it was one of the best, not THE best... it has issues as any other plane. Perfection does not exist.

The Hurricane was not so easy to fly with that stick friction... in landing configuration from the 100mhp to 150mhp it was not the nicest plane.
But please... enough with "made it famous"... M.Jackson was famous to be a pedophile, but was he really? Pavarotti was a famous benefactor but in reality he was f*****g tax evader.

Look at the airplane for that it is, and not for that it's been told of.

About the "easy to fly => easily push to the limit" read below.

But it was easy to fly... how can them not be able to outturn a crap plane like a captured 109E.
Those pilot should be really low skilled to not push the plane at his limits, since it was easy.

No. The one about the Norwegian guy pulling up and turning left only to spin and not recover since its engine stopped.
I just ask... why did many pilots spin? Wasn't the prestall warning enought to plan that? Why didn't they adverted it and continued the turn?

"the pilot found himself stuck in an increasingly narrow corner of the flight envelope, until any attempt to pull G would result in an instant high speed stall."

I can speculate that the oversensitive stick control was a reason for that. Those planes were not fully controllable, that's different from totally uncontrollable as no one here stated expect yourself.

"the fact some spitfires ended up spinning out in combat is 'not' indicative of a propensity to do so".
So you don't care about reports... why should I find for them.. I doubt to find a number big enough to be indicative.

:-) <= it should be the little blu one but I don't remember the code.