A newbies impression of the 109 and spit

[CaptainDoggles]

Guys, aircraft stability is not something that's subject to interpretation. Either an aircraft is stable about a particular axis or it is not.

Even NACA agrees that the Spitfire V did not have positive longitudinal stability.

...yet neither of these famous aircraft had the specified levels of the most basic stability of them all, static longitudinal stability...

"Stability" is a quantifiable property, not a subjective classification. An aircraft that is not statically stable can still have good flying qualities. To say that the Spitfire was not statically stable is not to say that all the pilots praising the Spit's handling qualities were wrong.

You guys are getting so caught up in your quest to prove Crumpp wrong that you're losing sight of the facts.

[bongodriver]

Even NACA agrees that the Spitfire V did not have positive longitudinal stability.

Maybe so but this isn't any indication of the 'dangerous instability' crumpp is pushing.
all it means is the spitfire was agile....a desireable quality in a fighter non?

[CaptainDoggles]

Originally Posted by bongodriver

Maybe so but this isn't any indication of the 'dangerous instability' crumpp is pushing.
all it means is the spitfire was agile....a desireable quality in a fighter non?

No, not "maybe so".

The Spit V had zero stability, this is fact.

[bongodriver]

Originally Posted by CaptainDoggles

No, not "maybe so".

The Spit V had zero stability, this is fact.

So how were mere humans able to fly them? total instability is the realms of 5th generation fighter jets that need computers to fly them.

Sorry but you guys are blowing it out your asses if you claim the spitfire had 'no' stability.

[JtD]

Neutral static longitudinal stability doesn't mean no stability at all.

[CaptainDoggles]

Originally Posted by bongodriver

So how were mere humans able to fly them? total instability is the realms of 5th generation fighter jets that need computers to fly them.

Sorry but you guys are blowing it out your asses if you claim the spitfire had 'no' stability.

I think maybe you should go learn about aircraft stability before you tell me I'm "blowing it out my ass" because you are incorrect.

There are three classifications of static stability: positive, negative, and neutral (or zero).

Don't be so hostile.

[bongodriver]

Originally Posted by CaptainDoggles

I think maybe you should go learn about aircraft stability before you tell me I'm "blowing it out my ass" because you are incorrect.

There are three classifications of stability: positive, negative, and neutral (or zero).

Don't be so hostile.

actually theres static and dynaminc, I don't need to learn anything from people claiming the spitfire was 'unstable', and believe me static (or neutral) stability is by no means unstable.

Sorry if I sound hostile, no intention but I understand.

[CaptainDoggles]

Originally Posted by bongodriver

actually theres static and dynaminc

Edited my post, as I was typing too fast. There are three conditions of static or dynamic stability: Positive, Negative, and Neutral. The spitfire had neutral (when i was in school we used the term "zero") static longitudinal stability. An aircraft can only be said to be statically stable if it has positive stability.

I don't need to learn anything from people claiming the spitfire was 'unstable', and believe me static (or neutral) stability is by no means unstable.

It's not my fault if you're misusing the accepted terminology. I've provided a reference from the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics that supports my case.

Go look up a reference that proves me wrong, showing the spitfire had positive static stability.