A newbies impression of the 109 and spit

[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.

[bongodriver]

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

I don't claim the spitfire had dynamic stability, I say it is neutral, which simply means it does not try to return to it's original condition, as opposed to dynamic instability where the aircraft would increase it's amplitude of error, enough proof against dynamic instability is the fact the aircraft was not notorious for PIO (pilot induced oscilation) incidents, neutral stability is a desireable quality for an aircraft built purpousely to be agile/manouverable......seems Mitchel designed it just right.

I attached a scan from Kermodes 'Mechanics of flight' and have highlighted in red the 3 conditions, perhaps there are differences in our understanding but I feel it explains where I'm coming from.

[CaptainDoggles]

Kermode's terminology is a bit dated, I think. What's the publication date?

Most textbooks and the industry people I know prefer the following breakdown:

• Dynamic Stability:
  • Positive
  • Negative
  • Neutral
• Static Stability:
  • Positive
  • Negative
  • Neutral