Updated RAF FMs in 1.07.18301

[DC338]

When the Me.109 was following the Hurricane or Spitfire, it was found that our aircraft turned inside the Me.109 without difficulty when flown by determined pilots who were not afraid to pull their aircraft round hard in a tight turn. In a surprisingly large number of cases, however, the Me. 109 succeeded in keeping on the tail of the Spitfire or Hurricane during these turning tests, merely because our Pilots would not tighten up the turn suficiently from fear of stalling and spinning

Well that is hardly an answer that the 109 could turn with a spitfire.

I reckon I could out turn some people in an A380 that doesn't mean that the 380 can turn well.

[klem]

Originally Posted by DC338

Well that is hardly an answer that the 109 could turn with a spitfire.

I reckon I could out turn some people in an A380 that doesn't mean that the 380 can turn well.

Its not scientific but its anecdotal of the time. Pierre Clostermann said in his autobiograohy that the Spitfire could "outturn the 109 at high speed (but not at low speed)". Guess we need to start searching for historical turn data for each aircraft and compare.

[6S.Manu]

Originally Posted by DC338

Well that is hardly an answer that the 109 could turn with a spitfire.

I reckon I could out turn some people in an A380 that doesn't mean that the 380 can turn well.

But a plane does not turn by itself: it's the pilot who manages the controls.

All your turning rate tests are made by pilots... of course every planes has limits over which it can't be flown: but how do you know if the tester reached those limits? Tehre could be many variables here that simply are not taken in account.

Do you really want to know the REAL max turning rate of a plane? put a robot in it and make it turn until the complete stall... robots should not been afraid to die, and they all have the same skill/strenght.
But I don't know if the plane's owner would be happy to see those tests.

[Crumpp]

But a plane does not turn by itself: it's the pilot who manages the controls.

All your turning rate tests are made by pilots... of course every planes has limits over which it can't be flown: but how do you know if the tester reached those limits?

Exactly.

The stability and control characteristics of the designs are significant to their relative dogfighting ability.

[bongodriver]

[QUOTE=6S.Manu;443101]But a plane does not turn by itself: it's the pilot who manages the controls.QUOTE]


And this is exactly why there is no reason to question the Spitfires superior turning ability, whenever there is a report of a 109 out turning a Spit the 109 was probably being flown by a skilled pilot against an average Spit pilot.

Spitfire had neutral stability in pitch with light elevators, this means the pilot could hold it in a high rate of turn with little more than 2 fingers on the stick while the 109 driver was using much more effort, the 109's slats may have given it some benign stall characteristics, the Spit was pretty benign too despite the stability, but being able to reach a higher 'alpha' is by no means a guarantee of a high turn rate, in fact holding an aircraft close to the stall is quite bad for turn rate, the 109 has a relatively high wing loading compared to the Spit another diasadvantage for turn rate.

[DC338]

Stalls and spins are nothing to be afraid of for a well trained pilot. I bet they would have given it more of a pull if it had a Swastika on it and Tracers coming out. Probably didn't want to look stupid.

There is a fan plot somewhere of a spit v 109.

[Crumpp]

Spit was pretty benign too despite the stability,

Baloney.

I suppose the NACA, the RAE, the Operating Notes, and Gates are all wrong.

You however must be correct. You can submitt your Dad's logbook as proof.

Spitfire had neutral stability in pitch with light elevators, this means the pilot could hold it in a high rate of turn with little more than 2 fingers

Sure, an experienced pilot could do it who had lots of practice. In fact, in the Spitfire Mk V when the stability and control was addressed with bob-weights, there were pilots who did not like it.

However, the very light stick forces combined with very small amount of stick travel required to use up the available angle of attack would make for an aircraft that is difficult to precisely manoeuver. This is why the POH advises the pilot to brace himself against the cockpit. Small stick movements make for large aceleration changes in the Spitfire.

The stick force imbalance between the longitudinal and lateral axis contributes to the slow rate of roll the pilot is able to apply at high speed. He is fighting a very sensitive elevator with high lateral control pressure. It makes for an aircraft that is difficult to change the direction of the lift axis.

The RAE had no measureable standards for stability and control. It was all based on opinion. However, when the early marque Spitfire was subjected to measureable and definative standards, it was unacceptable.

Who cares if a pilot cruising along with 2 fingers on the stick in the pattern felt it was "easy to fly".

The stability and control of the design effected its ability as a dogfighter and gun platform as noted by the NACA, Operating Notes, and every measurable standard.

[Crumpp]

Stalls and spins are nothing to be afraid of for a well trained pilot.

Only when you need room to recover and you don't have it.

Or when the aircraft will not recover at all.

There is a reason why the Spitfire was placarded against spinning.

[bongodriver]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

Only when you need room to recover and you don't have it.

Or when the aircraft will not recover at all.

There is a reason why the Spitfire was placarded against spinning.

Another reason to doubt your claims to be a pilot, for those of us who do fly recognise the airframes shudders and buffets as 'warnings' of impending stalls and are able to react to them by simply unloading, which in an aircraft with light elevator controls is much easier.

[Glider]

Originally Posted by bongodriver

Another reason to doubt your claims to be a pilot, for those of us who do fly recognise the airframes shudders and buffets as 'warnings' of impending stalls and are able to react to them by simply unloading, which in an aircraft with light elevator controls is much easier.

Have to agree with this 100%. In a glider in a stack you fly all the time with your eyes out of the cockpit. As a result and you rely on touch and sound to get the best out of your glider and overtake the other gliders and learning to fly to the warning signs is critical.

Its also a fairly easy thing to teach, it gives the student far more confidence in their abilities and makes it safer for other pilots.

To pretend that its the portent of doom is far from the truth.

As an aside people who highlight that because a high speed stall is loud, that things bang and it can if taken too far cause problems with the structure is only a feature of a Spitfire clearly have no experience of a high speed stall. Guess what, it happens in all aircraft even gliders and all aircraft with have structural failure if pushed too far.

We taught high speed stalls before people were allowed to go solo and it always gets peoples attention. I had an B52 gunner of many years service who thought that his world had come to an end when he first experienced one. However you also teach how to recognise one and avoid it.
In case your interested he brought his pilot along a few weeks later and he was taught how to really fly by another instructor. He got a kick out of going solo before his pilot.