[NZtyphoon]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

Here is a little experiment you can do at home, NzTyphoon.

Make a paper airplane. Toss it.....

See how stable it flys.

Now add a paperclip to the nose and throw it again.

Which is more stable?

Go make your own paper aeroplanes: The NACA report concentrates on one aircraft which, in spite of your claims, may not have been correctly loaded:

Tony had been test flying correctly loaded Mk Vs with us at Supermarine and he knew very well the difference between a stable and unstable aeroplane.

Supermarine's Chief test pilot knew more about flying the Spitfire and its capabilities and characteristics than NACA and took he took urgent action when he realised that there was a problem with badly loaded Mk Vs.



You can interpret documents any way you like - fact is that there are other valid opinions which show that longitudinal stability only became a real issue when the loading instructions were ignored or misunderstood at an operational level. As for the excerpts from your book

the [stable] Hurricane, Typhoon and Tempest were highly manoeuverable and were greatly superior gun platforms to the skittish Spitfire.

This also falls down as a source because quite clearly some basic research is missing because both the typhoon and Tempest PNs state they were slightly unstable longitudinally, and only the Hurricane could turn inside the Spitfire... as for gun platform:



The pilot's notes were read in conjunction with the Pilot's Notes General: Note that the PNG carry similar warnings to those in the Spitfire PNs see (ii) which applied to all aircraft



You have not demonstrated that you are not applying a worst-case interpretation to both the NACA flight trials and PNs.

Nor have you explained how you propose to alter the flight characteristics of a computer based flight sim to accurately replicate this so-called instability considering the plethora of different set-ups used by players.