A newbies impression of the 109 and spit

[Glider]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

Sure, in an aircraft with acceptable stability and control characteristics...

If you don't have that then the pilot can kill himself and turn the aircraft to aluminum confetti as the Spitfire Operating Notes tells you.

You push any aircraft past its limits and failure may happen. However it is a rare case. What I find intersting is that you don't take note of the comments from the German pilots who flew the Spitfire and said that it was easier to fly than the 109, or the Jugoslav pilots who flew the Hurricane and Me109. Why do you just ignore that?

Does anyone have the pilots notes for the 109, I am confident that if they are to the same scope then they will have their won warnings.

[Kurfürst]

Originally Posted by Glider

What I find intersting is that you don't take note of the comments from the German pilots who flew the Spitfire and said that it was easier to fly than the 109, or the Jugoslav pilots who flew the Hurricane and Me109. Why do you just ignore that?

Because you haven't shown any...? I believe Moelders stated that the Spitfire and Hurricane are easier to land than the 109. He also added that they are otherwise miserable as fighter aircraft.

Does anyone have the pilots notes for the 109, I am confident that if they are to the same scope then they will have their won warnings.

Yes I have. It doesn't have any of the longitudal stability references as the Spitfire pilot's notes, however. There are a few similarities - both manuals warn the pilot against the dangers of using the ailerons too hard in dives, as there is a danger of structural failure (twisting forces).

[Osprey]

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

Because you haven't shown any...? I believe Moelders stated that the Spitfire and Hurricane are easier to land than the 109. He also added that they are otherwise miserable as fighter aircraft.

Molders:
"It was very interesting to carry out the flight trials at Rechlin with the Spitfire and the Hurricane. Both types are very simple to fly compared to our aircraft, and childishly easy to take-off and land

The Spitfire is one class better. It handles well, is light on the controls, faultless in the turn and has a performance approaching that of the Bf 109......"

And he only had an 87 octane 2 stage prop aeroplane to test which is why he goes on to criticise it a little. I guess he changed his mind after the Battle of Britain lol

[Kurfürst]

Originally Posted by Osprey

Molders:
"It was very interesting to carry out the flight trials at Rechlin with the Spitfire and the Hurricane. Both types are very simple to fly compared to our aircraft, and childishly easy to take-off and land

The Spitfire is one class better. It handles well, is light on the controls, faultless in the turn and has a performance approaching that of the Bf 109......"

Full quote instead of the usual selective quoting:

"It was very interesting to carry out the flight trials at Rechlin with the Spitfire and the Hurricane. Both types are very simple to fly compared to our aircraft, and childishly easy to take-off and land. The Hurricane is good-natured and turns well, but its performance is decidedly inferior to that of the Me 109. It has strong stick forces and is "lazy" on the ailerons.

The Spitfire is one class better. It handles well, is light on the controls, faultless in the turn and has a performance approaching that of the Bf 109. As a fighting aircraft, however, it is miserable. A sudden push forward on the stick will cause the Motor to cut; and because the propeller has only two pitch settings (take-off and cruise), in a rapidly changing air combat situation the motor is either overspeeding or else is not being used to the full."

So he though the Spitfire is not quite the same performance as the 109, and otherwise it's 'miserable'. I guess that concludes the story.

And he only had an 87 octane 2 stage prop aeroplane to test which is why he goes on to criticise it a little. I guess he changed his mind after the Battle of Britain lol

Source please to 87 octane fuel only. Why would the Germans test an aircraft on 87 octane fuel, when supposedly all Spitfires were running on 100 octane, and would be captured in such state..? Hmm?

[Osprey]

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

Full quote instead of the usual selective quoting:

Yeah I did that one purpose because you already had, thus exposing your hypocracy. The model he had did not use 12lbs nor CSP - that is why it approaches the performance rather than exceeds it. An emergency bunt and run is a defensive move in a dogfight, very useful but not as a killing tactic.

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

Source please to 87 octane fuel only. Why would the Germans test an aircraft on 87 octane fuel, when supposedly all Spitfires were running on 100 octane, and would be captured in such state..? Hmm?

Now why would exactly would they fuel it with 100 octane then Kurfurst? I though you said the RAF weren't using it. Prove to me that they put 100 in it - that's your claim not mine.

Sensible people can use deduction and logic anyway. The very fact that it is a 2 stage Spitfire means that it has a Merlin II and was in operation during the Battle of France, and that a Merlin II required conversion to accept 100 octane fuel and make use of 12lbs of boost in the first place. Then there is the fact that Molders doesn't mention use of the ABC which he would have had to use in order to get over 6.25lbs anyway.

So, either the LW decided to fuel an aircraft with a fuel that would destroy the engine or the RAF had all their fighters converted by the Fall of France but then decided to stop using it and convert them back again when the BoB started. Yeah, right.........just stop being so silly would you.

[Kurfürst]

Originally Posted by Osprey

Yeah I did that one purpose because you already had, thus exposing your hypocracy.

You selectively quoted on purpose to expose my hyporcracy.

Brilliant.

Now why would exactly would they fuel it with 100 octane then Kurfurst? I though you said the RAF weren't using it.

Nope I've said that only select squadrons have used it.

Originally Posted by Osprey

Prove to me that they put 100 in it - that's your claim not mine.

Originally Posted by Osprey

And he only had an 87 octane 2 stage prop aeroplane to test which is why he goes on to criticise it a little.

No comment.

Sensible people can use deduction and logic anyway. ...

Osprey pulls out a shotgun with a big grin...

... The very fact that it is a 2 stage Spitfire means that it has a Merlin II and was in operation during the Battle of France, and that a Merlin II required conversion to accept 100 octane fuel and make use of 12lbs of boost in the first place. Then there is the fact that Molders doesn't mention use of the ABC which he would have had to use in order to get over 6.25lbs anyway.

... then shoots himself in the leg, twice, and finally falls into a punji. The crowd is absolutely blasted by the show.

[Crumpp]

And he only had an 87 octane 2 stage prop aeroplane to test which is why he goes on to criticise it a little.

Wasn't the claim 100 Octane was used in the Battle of France made in that thread?

[NZtyphoon]

I note here that one of the sources listed is;
1 - Quoted from Page 61 - Osprey's Aircraft of the Aces - 'Spitfire Mk.I/II Aces' by Dr. Alfred Price.
ISBN 84-8372-207-0

Sic - it is on page 90, so not even that is right. Dr Price goes on to state

Interestingly the Luftwaffe test centre at Rechlin also carried out comparative fighting trials between Bf 109s and a captured Bf 109....The two sets of trials showed that the 'home team' possessed the superior fighter type. Given the naivety with which the trials were conducted any other finding would probably have been regarded as 'politically incorrect'....the Mark I and Mark II Spitfires were roughly equal to the Bf 109 in capability. In the fleeting air combats that were the norm, tactical initiative counted for more than the relatively small performance differences that existed between the opposing fighter types.