Quote:
|
Yep, this is why i hate the war stories as technical or performance "evidence". Interesting stories, but nothing more Best example is the maneuverability. Both sides said they're all turned better than the other side. Ok, but what were the circumstances of the situation? That is very little read, and one of the most important thing in the pre-battle situation.
|
Exactly. Conditions mean everything and without them, it is useless to draw general conclusions.
Quote:
I think the point is, that in a spit, during a stall-recovery, it is extraordinarily easy to exceed the stick movement necessary to overload the airframe.
Much more easy as in the comparable planes, which needed more stick-travel and force.
|
Right, the majority of the warnings in the Spitfire Operating Notes are in relation to the unacceptable longitudinal dynamic stability.
How would this effect your game?
It compresses the turn performance differences especially for large angle of bank turns. The Spitfire is harder to control precisely in that condition and the stall is extremely rough and will result in a spin.
It is like that punk skateboarder kid. He can do some really cool tricks but when he makes a mistake, it is a whooper.
The Bf-109 on the otherhand has those LE slats on a flat top polar. It is like a a racing bicycle with training wheels.
Read the stall behaviors:
http://kurfurst.org/Tactical_trials/...ls/Morgan.html
It has yaw-wise stability issues but stall behavior is typical for an aircraft equipped with LE slats. It simply stops flying and begins to descend. No violent behaviors and no tendency to spin at all. LE slats are a typical anti-spin device if you want to spin-proof an airplane. They really are like training wheels.
Both airplanes have excellent stall warning with adequet control and can be flown in a partially stalled condition. The Bf-109's stall is a non-event and the Spitfires is a the begining of wild ride.
It is no wonder you read anecdotes of Bf-109 pilots who swore the airplane would outturn the Spitfire.