The subject of this thread is directly related to the Spitfire's flight qualities, so pointing out that at high speed it could outmanœvre one of the most manœverable fighters of its generation is perfectly reasonable in the context of the discussion, so take your own advice and do this in a mature way.

Once again there are no forum rules stopping anyone from posting comments on the flight qualities of German, Japanese or Italian aircraft.

only if you decide to ignore the warning and 'not' wear the safety glasses.

Sorry fot the OT Crumpp, but I think that there's nothing more to talk about in this threat.

Are you planning to open a new one for the 109? I'm really interested about it!

Employers?

Who said anything about a poll?....there you go making bizarre statements again, I'm just saying it's no coincidence that the issue started with the Spitfire and I gave the reasons why.

easy to say

Lets see, it has to be so unstable that only very skilled pilots can fly it, it must break up if you do a hard manouver, it must have very dangerous stall/spin characteristics, it must have bad turning characteristics against a 109.....all of this has had evidence to show it's not true but because of one guy and his NACA report on a different variant everybody thinks it was written by god?

Whaa?

I still find the statement offensive...please remove it, at least I'm being 'grown up' about it and giving the opportunity....not a courtesy extended to myself very often.

Constant accusations of having a red v blue agenda are apparently trolling.....unless it's an accusation coming from the blue side apparently.

I think you are right. I will get the bugtracker posted. Been busy at work.

I would like to the do the Hurricane next but will leave it open to what the community wants to do.

Granted, the Hurricane will probably be a short thread as it does not have the emotional response of the Spitfire and its stability and control is not so dramatic as the Spitfire's.

@Bongo: I'll reply by PM ;-)

I hope it to be about the 109, so that everybody is going be satisfied.

That would be the natural choice, so one has to wonder why another British a/c.;)

Reply to what?......still nothing received.

don't hold your breath hoping, Crumpp will never make a 109 thread, by the time the Hurri one is done he will say it's all not worth the effort because of red fanboys etc etc....

p.s. still waiting for you to remove the comment.

Why not a thread on the deadly stability and control issues of the Me109?

.

It is not a limited investigation on only 121 accidents... a small sample of course
Please read the posting again. These were all the accidents from the beginning of 1941 until the end of the war.

There were 121 Spitfire crash investigations between 1941 and May 1945 involving serious structural failure:
22 aileron instability #
46 pilot overstressed airframe
20 pilot error in cloud
13 misuse of oxygen system- pilot error #
3 pilot blacked out #
17 engine failure/fire #

Those marked # cannot be blamed on the airframe
Which leaves 66 where the airframe was a factor out of 23,000+ built during the war and millions of flights
Of those 66 a number would have been when the aircraft were in training units number unknown. I am confident that you would be hard pushed to find a lower accident rate of any front line fighter of any Air Force

The number of 121 matches the losses in Morgan and Shacklady recognised book on the subject so we have two different sources. Also note that the author worked in the accident branch which is independent form the RAF

If you wish to state that I have incorrect figures you had better support that comment.



I certainly agree that it should be a mature debate, with evidence to support any statement. So I await with some interest your explanation of how you determined that this was a small sample.