Why don't read the report about figures 17 and 18?

Here, I will post it once again....

http://img198.imageshack.us/img198/8...res17and18.jpg

Now, Holtzuage....

I would love to have this conversation with you. Should be a wonderful and refreshing change given your claims to be an engineer.

I wait with baited breath for your measured and definable evidence showing the early Mark Spitfire to have acceptable longitudinal stability by any modern definition. Feel free to use the RAE post war standards, NACA, R-1815A, SF119A, MIL-F-8785, FAR, JAR....

You pick!!

Looking forward to it. :grin:

Personally I am waiting for you to supply examples of any WW2 fighter that met modern standards

We know that the Spit didn't but we also know it wasn't a problem. We also know that the DC3 didn't meet the standards and can only assume that the people still flying these aircraft 70+ years after they were designed don't realise that they are so unstable.

We are still waiting for a load of information that you said you had that supported your case.

PS don't claim to have the training or qualifications that you claim to have but IIRC, MIL-F-8785 was mainly short period damping regarding roll, not the longitudinal stability of an aircraft

I have already answered your question. It is in the thread and it is specific to you about this same question.

I am not going to continue to post the information so that you can ignore it when convenient.

That must be when the negative comment was on the Prototype Spit and the second paper on the first production spit, confirmed that the problem was fixed.

Be fair, I did ask at the time if that was all you had and you didn't add anything to it.

So to sum up you have no examples (apart from the above) from any pilot or any test establishment of any nation to support the view that the Spitfire was difficult or uncomfortable or dangerous to fly.
Thank you for that

The DC-3 was unstable in cruise flight only at it's most rearward CG limit. That limit was moved forward.

You can of course prove that statement ?

I would post the NACA report but it is too big even zipped.

Yes, only at the rearward CG limit was the aircraft unstable and only below 120IAS. Above 160IAS, and trimmed out at the rearward CG limit, it was "almost neutral".

No, I gave you a list of examples. You did not bother to read them.

Actually I did and I have checked what you have said. Unfortunately what you have said and what so far I have checked don't tally. For example the Me109 certainly doesn't fit your criteria, without a rudder trim then eventually the aircraft will need manual input. It is also stated in the Zero report that constant attention is needed on the rudder. The Fw190 has almost no trimming tabs on the controls and in my limited experience of powered aircraft without trimming tabs you cannot be hands off and always have to stay in control

It is a similar story when you gave me a list of books that said that the Me109 could turn with the Spitfire, I have checked two of them out and they don't seem to say what you said they say. I did ask where they did agree with your statement, but there was no reply.

I have asked for a list of the flight tests or reports from test establishents/test pilots that say that the SPit was difficult or dangerous or uncomfortable to fly. You stated that you had these but as we have discovered it only referred to the prototype and that was fixed in first production.

You have a habit of being very very selective over what you state and often don't read the papers in their entirity before forming a picture, I can give a number of examples if you so wish.

Take the regs you just quoted. I am pretty sure that MIL-F-8785 is to do with the rolling of an aircraft so what has this to do with longatudinal stability?
I could be wrong on this so if you could confirm this I would appreciate it. However it again from memory it calculated the characteristics of five different types of aircraft from transports to fighters defining what was acceptable for each.
However I cannot help suspect that you are trying to impress and blind us with a list of regs rather than concentrate on what is correct.

Like the 100 octane threads, Crumpp has struck out again.