I believe I was refering to the text boxed in NZtyphoons post which is the same NACA report you are refering to, it does feel good contributing to the facts.

Look again and you will see they clearly talk about 'accelerated flight'...

http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k3...-page-011a.jpg

The very very early spits and I am talking about the first two bladed version, not the mk 1a as per BOB, were tail heavy and had weights in the nose. This ws soon countered as the additional equipment and natural growth common in almost any aircraft did away with the need.

Thanks Al

It is a completely different report.

However, if you read the paragraph right below the one you highlighted, it says exactly the same thing I pointed out from the NACA measurements on flying qualities AND what is repeated in several warning found in the early mark Spitfire Operating Notes.

You want me to highlight it for you or can you find it?

So let me see if I understand you correctly..

When a spitfire experiences a high speed stall that results in a 'flick roll' it is undesirable..
When a Fw190 experiences a high speed stall that results in a 'flick roll' it is desirable..

Interesting..

Because we have all heard heard the stories of the German Fw190 pilots that used this technique to evade someone on their six, where they would intentionally cause a high speed stall (acc stall) that would cause the Fw190 to 'flick roll' onto its back to preform a fast split-s maneuver.. Which was a good (desirable) trait as far as the German Fw190 pilots were concerned..

So it appears that you have a double standard..

Spit does it it is a bad thing
Fw190 does it it is a good thing

Which IMHO sounds like you are the one who will just mix the resulting explanations as you like

No I can also see it, sounds like a real bind having to re center the stick by 3/4 inch or so, how did those RAF chaps ever manage to do it with all that vibration and shaking from the 'PRE-STALL' buffet giving ample warning?, they must have had to be real geniuses to remember to push the stick a 'bit'.

yes but it is adopted and measured and defineable.....so it's ok.

I don't understand why folks are going nuts about the Spitfires longitudinal instability, it wasn't a problem for any pilot or how NACA put it "the well know long period oscillations have no correlation with the handling qualities of an airplane". Basically, it doesn't matter.

Slightly pithy but pretty much on the nose.