Spitfire supposed to dive better than the 109?

[winny]

Originally Posted by Glider

Winny
One thing that struck me about that posting is how measured the results were, the pressure that had to be applied, the point at which the weasurments were taken, the time taken to bank at a set speed and so on. Clearly they were not just relying on the pilots opinions.
Excellent posting and that Gloster looks as if it would have been well able to take care of itself, what a roll rate.

Thanks, it's just a page from the 109 tests at the RAE.

If anyone would like a copy of it let me know and i'll put it on Dropbox.

[SiThSpAwN]

Originally Posted by winny

Thanks, it's just a page from the 109 tests at the RAE.

If anyone would like a copy of it let me know and i'll put it on Dropbox.

I would love a copy

[winny]

Originally Posted by SiThSpAwN

I would love a copy

Ok, it's available HERE to download.

It's a 40 page PDF scan of the original. 14mb ish.

It's Dropbox so dunno how fast it is...

Maybe I should say what it is! It's the 109 vs Spitfire combat/performance trials report.

[NZtyphoon]

Originally Posted by winny

Ok, it's available HERE to download.

It's a 40 page PDF scan of the original. 14mb ish.

It's Dropbox so dunno how fast it is...

Maybe I should say what it is! It's the 109 vs Spitfire combat/performance trials report.

Thanks for that winny - seeing the full report cf the abbreviated version so often cited is interesting.

[Osprey]

Yes thank you Winny.

[winny]

Originally Posted by NZtyphoon

Thanks for that winny - seeing the full report cf the abbreviated version so often cited is interesting.

No problem, I'll leave it in my dropbox for a week or so in case anyone else wants it.

[JG52Krupi]

Isn't that the report which was full of utter BS as they didn't fly the 109 properly?

[IvanK]

Originally Posted by JG52Krupi

Isn't that the report which was full of utter BS as they didn't fly the 109 properly?

What do you mean ? I mean whats the background to that idea ?

[winny]

Originally Posted by JG52Krupi

Isn't that the report which was full of utter BS as they didn't fly the 109 properly?

Harsh evaluation, some truth in it though. Depends which side of the fence you are on. They didn't test above 18,500 feet because the 109 didn't have oxygen. The 109 is also a little suspect performance wise, it's the same machine they did the Hurricane performance trials with, if you look at the results from that report the 109 performed better. The Spitfire comparison was done 6 months after the Hurri one and there were 2 forced landings in between.

To dismiss it as BS is harsh, it's far from a " The Spitfire is wonderful the 109 is rubbish" report.

Read it. It is slightly biased in some sections, particularly the pilot's thoughts, but the actual data is sound, and I didn't see a problem with the method, accepting the altitude issue, in my opinion if they'd have tested the 109 at it's peak fighting altitude then it would have thrown up some interesting results, and probably wouldn't be subjected to being called BS.

It is what it is, performance trials upto 18,500, because that's what they did.

If you read it there's a description of the combat tests they performed, maybe you could highlight where you think they were 'flying it wrong'.

For me none of these discussions come down to Spit vs 109. The history is there anyone can make their own judgement/ preference. I don't care which was 'better' I simply posted it because it was relevant.