Stability and Control characteristics of the Early Mark Spitfires

[taildraggernut]

Originally Posted by winny

For anyone who would like to read the full RAE evaluation of the 109 it's here in PDF.

It's 14 Mb and should open in your browser, you can then save it if you wish.

I hope an RAE evaluation is admissable, don't forget the British had no concept of stability and control

[TomcatViP]

Stability and Control characteristics of the Early Mark Spitfires

That is the name of the thread.

Seems once again you didn't read it. Why you guys don't open a new one ?

[NZtyphoon]

Originally Posted by CaptainDoggles

If you don't want other people jumping in, then take it to PM. This is a public forum, not a dueling arena.

I furthermore don't think that wanting to stay on topic is "starting a riot". This thread is cluttered enough as is, and I hope the moderators come and remove some of the clutter.

You do realise that Crumpp has made lots of assertions in his first posting which do, in fact, make them part of this thread and a matter for legitimate debate? His claims about the so-called lack of stability and control standards for all countries apart from the good ol US of A and Germany are ridiculous and call into question his neutrality in this thread.

As for the Spitfire - of course it wasn't perfect, and I have never tried to make out that it was; however, the NACA report makes it quite clear that there was some doubt about the correct cg position as measured by NACA, and that should be sufficient reason to question its conclusions.

Also, as a fighter, it was in good in good company:





most pilots reported that the F8F was an excellent aircraft to fly and fight in, yet there was a certain amount of longitudinal instability. It would seem that a well designed fighter could exhibit some longitudinal instability as long as it could be controlled.

[6S.Manu]

Originally Posted by taildraggernut

I hope an RAE evaluation is admissable, don't forget the British had no concept of stability and control

Since they state that a captured 109 is inferior to the Hurricane as fighter, then I wonder what are the mandatory characteristics of an airplane they want to call it "fighter".

No problem... British still drive on the left side of the road.. it's a matter of preference.

[taildraggernut]

Originally Posted by 6S.Manu

Since they state that a captured 109 is inferior to the Hurricane as fighter, then I wonder what are the mandatory characteristics of an airplane they want to call it "fighter".

No problem... British still drive on the left side of the road.. it's a matter of preference.

But they didn't really say that did they, they just say the 109 is less manouverable.....a reasonable handicap as a dogfighter.

we drive on the left for a historic reason not really preference or because we have 2 heads and 6 fingers on each hand

[CaptainDoggles]

You guys should put the 109 stuff in a separate thread.

[ATAG_Dutch]

Originally Posted by taildraggernut

we drive on the left for a historic reason not really preference or because we have 2 heads and 6 fingers on each hand

And so do the Japanese. My car is a grey import from Japan. Great car too.

[Crumpp]

The Bf-109 is another thread.

This one is about the measured flying qualities of the early mark Spitfire. That means the ones in the game.

[Crumpp]

The British did not have Stability and Control Standards during World War II. Only the United States and Germany had them in place.

To determine flying qualities, the RAE relied upon the individual talent of the design firm and the opinion of its test pilots.

[CaptainDoggles]

Originally Posted by ACE-OF-ACES

Just as I was saying.. Fighters, than and now, intentionally design an alittle instability to make them more maneuverable!

I just want to point something out here: Adding instability does not necessarily make the aircraft more maneuverable.

Perfect example is the B-2 Spirit. Extremely unstable, but not particularly maneuverable.