Spit IIa is now so much more inferior to the 109

[Crumpp]

Yep it is also interesting

I thought something like this might be discovered when I saw the 1937 instructions for boost cut out in the RAF Training Manual......

[41Sqn_Banks]

Actually this is not the emergency power rating, these are the results from the power test to determine to performance of the engine.
As +12 boost has a FTH of 10,000 feet this is the power achieved with throttle valve fully open.

[Crumpp]

As +12 boost has a FTH of 10,000 feet this is the power achieved with throttle valve fully open.

Two possibilities.....

If our FTH is at 10,000 feet and our boost is 12lbs then by 12,500 it will be reduced and 10.55lbs is certainly in the ballpark.

OR

12,500 ft was the FTH at 10.55lbs on 87 Octane.

It warrants more investigation.

Actually this is not the emergency power rating

That is exactly what it says and the 1937 RAF Training Manual talks about boost cut out and emergency ratings on RAF aircraft under the general definitions. It revises the old definitions of "Normal rpm" and Maximum Permissible rpm".

[41Sqn_Banks]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

That is exactly what it says and the 1937 RAF Training Manual talks about boost cut out and emergency ratings on RAF aircraft under the general definitions. It revises the old definitions of "Normal rpm" and Maximum Permissible rpm".

Do you mean this one: Air Publication A.P.129 Royal Air Force Flying Training Manual Part I - Landplanes?

I will look it up, thanks for the info.

[FS~Phat]

Here's an interesting doco on the subject from discovery channel.
Probably a little biased but its still interesting just the same.
Sounds to me like it had more to do with pilot experience since the maximum performance windows of each aircraft were so very close.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ugBpA...eature=related

[Crumpp]

Probably a little biased

Yes there are some details that make one raise an eyebrow. "Smaller and weaker wings", the canopy is jettisoned on the 109, the lack of stall warning on the 109.....

I would not say it was bias so much as just not knowing. The discovery channel says, "weaker wings". The RAF veteran is asked to go off what he sees and he does just that.

The lack of stall warning is also the Discovery Channel narrator. LE slats by their very nature give excellent stall warning and are an anti-spin device. It is a very silly thing to say.

The handling reports, especially the RAF detailed report on the Bf-109E is exactly what one would expect from an LE slat equipped aircraft.
From ~83mph to 75mph, the aircraft must be controlled with both aileron and rudder to keep it on a commanded flight path. It wants to go wings level. In a level flight stall, the left wing would drop just 10 degrees at the break.

There was never any tendency to spin under any flight condition.

The RAE's pilots opinion was the Bf-109 was too Longitudinally stable. Of course, the RAE did not have any defined stability and control characteristics at the time.

It is interesting to note their complaint about dive recovery!!

when diving at 400 m.p.h. a pilot, pulling with all his strength, cannot put on enough g to black himself out if trimmed in the dive.

The RLM did have defined stability and control characteristics and the Bf-109 had to meet those requirements.

http://kurfurst.org/Tactical_trials/...ls/Morgan.html