A newbies impression of the 109 and spit

[bongodriver]

Originally Posted by CaptainDoggles

Is it your favorite aircraft or something? I've stated nothing but facts and you're calling me biased.

I don't aim the claim at you per se, but the general feeling on these topics are mainly led by bias, my favourite aircraft.....late mark perhaps....but not a fan of early spits, couldn't say a particular favourite but I am a secret lover of the cessna 150/152 believe it or not..bloody fantastic little aircraft.

Originally Posted by CaptainDoggles

I never said it was a problem. I just said the spitfire is not statically stable.

then why was it brought up in the first place?

Originally Posted by CaptainDoggles

CG shift has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

No, but it was a response to your claim stability is not a capability of an aircraft, if it can be changed then it is a variable, which if used to advantage is a capability, now try denying that some aircraft can shift C of G to their benefit.

[CaptainDoggles]

then why was it brought up in the first place?

Because people throw terms like "stable" around without really knowing what it means, and think that because an RAF pilot said the Spitfire was "easy to fly" that it must therefore mean the Spitfire was a very stable aircraft.

No, but it was a response to your claim stability is not a capability of an aircraft

Never mind. Linguistic difference. I was just pointing out that you don't say "The P-51 is capable of static stability." You say "The P-51 is statically stable." An aircraft is designed to be stable under a particular set of conditions. If you change the conditions then the aircraft might not be stable under those conditions, but you aren't changing the aircraft.

if it can be changed then it is a variable, which if used to advantage is a capability, now try denying that some aircraft can shift C of G to their benefit.

Why on earth would I deny that and why is it relevant to the Spitfire?

[bongodriver]

Originally Posted by CaptainDoggles

Because people throw terms like "stable" around without really knowing what it means, and think that because an RAF pilot said the Spitfire was "easy to fly" that it must therefore mean the Spitfire was a very stable aircraft.?

Nonsense, people interpret it for exactly what it means, the spitfire was easy to fly, nobody mentioned stability until someone wanted to deride the spitfire.

Originally Posted by CaptainDoggles

Never mind. Linguistic difference. I was just pointing out that you don't say "The P-51 is capable of static stability." You say "The P-51 is statically stable." An aircraft is designed to be stable under a particular set of conditions. If you change the conditions then the aircraft might not be stable under those conditions, but you aren't changing the aircraft.

Where did I say anything about the spitfire being 'capable of stability'? I will say it again it was a response to your 'black and white' statement 'Stability isn't something that an aircraft is "capable of".'

Originally Posted by CaptainDoggles

Why on earth would I deny that and why is it relevant to the Spitfire?

Where did I claim it was?

[CaptainDoggles]

Originally Posted by bongodriver

Nonsense, people interpret it for exactly what it means, the spitfire was easy to fly, nobody mentioned stability until someone wanted to deride the spitfire.

This is my point. Aircraft stability and aircraft flying qualities are two different things. The spitfire had good flying qualities but was not statically stable.

Where did I say anything about the spitfire being 'capable of stability'? I will say it again it was a response to your 'black and white' statement 'Stability isn't something that an aircraft is "capable of".'

Like I said. Never mind. It would take too much energy to explain.

Where did I claim it was?

You brought it up.

[bongodriver]

Originally Posted by CaptainDoggles

This is my point. Aircraft stability and aircraft flying qualities are two different things. The spitfire had good flying qualities but was not statically stable..

the sentence should end at 'easy to fly'....static stability is just not something to consider in this case, if something is easy to fly then it has no appreciable stabiltiy issues.

Originally Posted by CaptainDoggles

Like I said. Never mind. It would take too much energy to explain..

You brought it up

Originally Posted by CaptainDoggles

You brought it up .

I'm not too lazy to explain so I'll do it again, response to your odd statement.

[CaptainDoggles]

[Al Schlageter]

'Stability isn't something that an aircraft is "capable of".'

However do free flight models fly then?

http://smallflyingarts.com/category/model-showcase/

[bongodriver]

Originally Posted by Al Schlageter

However do free flight models fly then?

http://smallflyingarts.com/category/model-showcase/

Amazing isn't it, doggles claims he was setting the record straight for all the 'ignorants' that don't understand stability but forgot it was Kurfurst that raised the stability issue in the first place.

[CaptainDoggles]

I don't care who raised the issue. Not every f***ing thing on these forums has to be about taking sides. Just because I have a 109 in my sig doesn't mean I am biased toward a guy who runs a 109 website. I don't care who raised the issue.
Facts are facts.

However do free flight models fly then?

It was a linguistics thing. Never mind.

[bongodriver]

oooooohhhh! who's tired