Quote:
Originally Posted by Crumpp
Feel free to point out where the manual states a fighter should be unstable.
|
I feel "standards" can be misleading. How should a fighter be?
Standards are used to hold down the aircraft characteristics with an "ideal one" in mind.
But as Tomcat says "It's a matter of philosophy from the manufacturer and the air forces using it."
So the longitudinal instability of an airplane can be required by some airforces (more or less instability) and totally avoided by other.
One can produce an highly dangerous airplane that is really effective (look at the Tempest) while other can design a safer plane that influences greatly the pilot's range of manoeuvre.
In my opionion this thread demostrate that Spitfire had some characterics who actually were dangerous if the pilot was not experienced... the ability to reach a great amount AoA in so little time (given the low stick forces) CAN BE dangerous if the pilot is not really well trained. Above all if the manoeuvres were made by sharp actions on the stick. The pre-stall warning could easily alerts the pilot if he was entering in the turn smoothly, but since it raised only a pair of mph over the stall speed I really don't think that it could be recognizable during a sharp turn that could easily end in a violent stall.
Because of this there were pilots afraid to turn tightly.
It's like the drifting capability of a car: some capable pilots can recognize the limit and containing a loose car from spinning but an average pilot will not always succeed in it and will find himself with the car pointed at the wrong way.
Then we can talk of "aiming" in a longitudinal unstable aircraft...