Stability and Control characteristics of the Early Mark Spitfires

[CaptainDoggles]

Originally Posted by fruitbat

see you didn't get past the first line then.

Just like Sandstone pointed out above: Everyone thinks that maneuverability requires instability. That is false, and even the US Navy says so.

Otherwise, they would not have described the T-45 as "very stable yet fully maneuverable". A child can understand this.

[fruitbat]

Originally Posted by CaptainDoggles

Just like Sandstone pointed out above: Everyone thinks that maneuverability requires instability. That is false, and even the US Navy says so.

Otherwise, they would not have described the T-45 as "very stable yet fully maneuverable". A child can understand this.

A child would be able to read to paragraph 5, unlike yourself it appears.

[CaptainDoggles]

Originally Posted by fruitbat

A child would be able to read to paragraph 5, unlike yourself it appears.

I read the entire article. Are you denying that a stable aircraft can be maneuverable?

[fruitbat]

Originally Posted by CaptainDoggles

I read the entire article. Are you denying that a stable aircraft can be maneuverable?

no, not at all, but i agree with the US Navy when they say in paragraph 5,

In a word, the relationship of longitudinal stability to maneuverability is inverse. As one increases, the other decreases and vice versa.

are you denying them?

[CaptainDoggles]

Originally Posted by fruitbat

no, not at all

Cool, glad we agree that a maneuverable aircraft does not require negative stability.

[fruitbat]

I'll ask again Doggles,

In a word, the relationship of longitudinal stability to maneuverability is inverse. As one increases, the other decreases and vice versa.

are you denying them?

[CaptainDoggles]

Originally Posted by fruitbat

I'll ask again Doggles

You're in bongodriver's squad, right? Nope, I won't be debating with you.

If someone else wants to ask me that question I'll maybe discuss things with that person.

Have a nice day!

[winny]

Originally Posted by CaptainDoggles

I read the entire article. Are you denying that a stable aircraft can be maneuverable?

This is a bit of a loaded statement. It ignores half of the argument.

The question is: Is a stable aircraft more or less maneuverable than an unstable one. Of course you can have a maneuverable stable aircraft but, are unstable aircraft more maneuverable than that?

The other big question is how detrimental to the Spitfires performance was the instability?

[fruitbat]

Originally Posted by winny

This is a bit of a loaded statement. It ignores half of the argument.

The question is: Is a stable aircraft more or less maneuverable than an unstable one. Of course you can have a maneuverable stable aircraft but, are unstable aircraft more maneuverable than that?

exactly.

[Al Schlageter]

Originally Posted by CaptainDoggles

Just like Sandstone pointed out above: Everyone thinks that maneuverability requires instability. That is false, and even the US Navy says so.

Otherwise, they would not have described the T-45 as "very stable yet fully maneuverable". A child can understand this.

Sure it has to able to maneuver. It is not a V1 and flies one direction only.