Updated RAF FMs in 1.07.18301

[bongodriver]

There is nothing to argue about. The stability and control characteristics are well documented and measured.

The only arguments stem from those who do not understand the measurements and conclusions.

Quite, hence why you always seem to end up in arguments, BTW have you figured out how to use the ignore function yet?

You have an inabillity to put things together. Relate to us your wealth of experience flying early marque Spitfires. Oh yeah, you cannot and I know your Dad's logbook does not reflect any Spitfire time either. In fact, nobody can fly a Spitfire without the bob weights today legally.

Only the Mk5 ever had bob weights, and all the other airworthy marks which are as original and flying around don't seem to be attracting any 'legal' issues, My late fathers gliding logbook certainly won't have any Spitfire time in it, care to show us your extensively logged warbird time?

"Light controls" is desireable. However, you must have some resistance to gauge the feel of the aircraft so forces that are too light are not desirable.

As you like to say....Baloney

Combined with very small stick movements that created large changes in angle of attack, it is unacceptable when the aircraft is neutrally stable. With positive stability, it would not be unacceptable.

yet you can see Spitfires at airshows doing high energy turns at low level all the time....oh I guess that's because the FAA and NACA have had a word with the spitfires and told them all to behave themselves.

Very light stick forces on the longitudinal axis coupled with neutral stability, small stick position changes producing large angle of attack changes, a very harsh stall/spin, and stick force imbalance on the lateral axis is why the Spitfire did not pass quantifiable stability and control standards.

Let me guess.....NACA.....again, the only source for all that is right and holy in this world eh?