Leading Edge Slats on the Me-109

[robtek]

As usual the answer is only refering with evidence that is supporting the posters opinion and hair-splitting.
1. Did the 109 recover from a high speedstall with only minimal control input? The RAE report says so. Hardly a uncontrolled flight situation then, i'd say.
2. Did the early Spitfire depart from controlled flight in a high speed stall with a flip over and a following spin? Afaik all sides so far have admitted that.

There is no dispute that the controlled stall in the Spitfire was not hard to manage, but then, that was not asked for.

[taildraggernut]

Originally Posted by robtek

As usual the answer is only refering with evidence that is supporting the posters opinion and hair-splitting.
1. Did the 109 recover from a high speedstall with only minimal control input? The RAE report says so. Hardly a uncontrolled flight situation then, i'd say.
2. Did the early Spitfire depart from controlled flight in a high speed stall with a flip over and a following spin? Afaik all sides so far have admitted that.

There is no dispute that the controlled stall in the Spitfire was not hard to manage, but then, that was not asked for.

Please, can I respectfully ask that you don't descend into this mad poo flinging fest that arises every time someone simply has a different oppinion and shows evidence to back up why they have that oppinion.

I merely reminded of the good qualities of the Spitfire handling after you had basically claimed otherwise..

Originally Posted by robtek

If you reduce it to that, the key point is that the 109 is controlable all the time, even in a high speed stall, and its adversaries aren't, which is a great achievement by itself and should be represented in game.

1. Did the 109 recover from a high speedstall with only minimal control input? The RAE report says so. Hardly a uncontrolled flight situation then, i'd say.

Both the 109 and Spitfire had this quality.

2. Did the early Spitfire depart from controlled flight in a high speed stall with a flip over and a following spin? Afaik all sides so far have admitted that.

I don't admit to this, as far as I'm concrned the MkV was the worst Spitfire for longitudinal stability, earlier Spits by default will have had better qualities.

[ACE-OF-ACES]

I am still waiting on Crump's to tell us what he tells his so called students..

As in what does he tell them the purpose of leading edge slats are..

1) The purpose of leading edge slats is to reduce the chance of a stall
2) The purpose of leading edge slats is to reduce the chance of a spin

I think most agree the purpose of leading edge slats is to reduce the chance of a stall

Where as it appears that Crump is saying the purpose of leading edge slats is to reduce the chance of a spin

I think it would be interesting, and telling, to have Crump explain this line of reasoning..

Especially in light of the fact that there are many accounts of how leading edge slats CAUSED spins!!

Where, for what ever reason, the leading edge slats did not deploy evenly and thus induces (CAUSE) the plane to spin..

Not to mention the accounts of the leading edge slats POPPING out suddenly such that they 'changed' the aerodynamics such that the pilot had to quickly adjust his controls.. In essence startling the pilot such that he may have over compensated and CAUSE the plane to stall or even spin

In summary

It appears this is another cause of Crump cherry picking Luftwaffe attribute..

Where here only talks about the PROS of a certain attribute and totally ignores the CONS of a certain attribute

[TomcatViP]

AoA with such a name you shld know that it is both. And then with logics in mind it's the 2nd arguments tht is the most valid

In the absurd an anti spin decice IS a device reducing the chance of a spin to occur

You know, flight manuals are full of such simplification. A pilot is not a always a Phd holder in physics. It can eitherbe a carpenter, a greedy politicians or a nightclub hotess!

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Originally Posted by TomcatViP

AoA with such a name you shld know that it is both. And then with logics in mind it's the 2nd arguments tht is the most valid

In the absurd an anti spin decice IS a device reducing the chance of a spin to occur

You know, flight manuals are full of such simplification. A pilot is not a always a Phd holder in physics. It can eitherbe a carpenter, a greedy politicians or a nightclub hotess!

So using your logic..

The purpose of the breaks in my car are NOT to stop my car..

The purpose of the breaks in my car are to prevent me from getting speeding tickets..

Hmmm..

Sorry but no sale!

Ill stick with the intended purpose of the breaks in my car and not the multitude of what if's purposes the breaks in my car can be associated with to try and make a point..

Nice try though! You and Crump get a gold star for effort!

[robtek]

Sorry AoA, but with such arguments you are soo far out, that you will find it hard to see the objective, imo, of course.

And Taildraggernut, you are promoting the theory that the Spitfire didn't flip over and started a spin if pulled too hard in a high speed turn?? Really???
Afaik this was used by experienced pilots as a last ditch maneuvre to escape from a 109 on their tail.

[taildraggernut]

Originally Posted by robtek

Sorry AoA, but with such arguments you are soo far out, that you will find it hard to see the objective, imo, of course.

And Taildraggernut, you are promoting the theory that the Spitfire didn't flip over and started a spin if pulled too hard in a high speed turn?? Really???
Afaik this was used by experienced pilots as a last ditch maneuvre to escape from a 109 on their tail.

Are you suggesting that Spitfire pilots had to exploit a lateral instability as opposed to deliberately entering the spin by actually making pro-spin inputs? really?

putting an aircraft into a spin is a technique available to any pilot in any aircraft as a deliberate manouver.

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Originally Posted by robtek

Sorry AoA, but with such arguments you are soo far out, that you will find it hard to see the objective, imo, of course.

Don't be sorry

In that I fully expected you and yours standard off topic reply in an attempt to take the focus off what I said..

Not to mention how you and yours totally ignored the points I brought up about the historic accounts of the Bf109 slats causing more spin issues than they solved..

[*Buzzsaw*]

Originally Posted by robtek

As usual the answer is only refering with evidence that is supporting the posters opinion and hair-splitting.
1. Did the 109 recover from a high speedstall with only minimal control input? The RAE report says so. Hardly a uncontrolled flight situation then, i'd say.
2. Did the early Spitfire depart from controlled flight in a high speed stall with a flip over and a following spin? Afaik all sides so far have admitted that.

There is no dispute that the controlled stall in the Spitfire was not hard to manage, but then, that was not asked for.

As has been mentioned several times on this board, the Spitfire's stall was very easy to read and anticipate. Even rookie pilots were capable of learning this, and even in a high speed situation:

From FIRST LIGHT, by Geoffrey Wellum

"I start to black out. Must be pulling 6 G's. Lean forward, raise my feet on to the rudder pedal extensions; God, they're heavy.
The Spit judders, a high speed stall. You can hold a Spitfire on this judder if you're good. Hold on, Geoff! Hold onto this turn. Fly her like hell.

I reckon I'm just a little above, just a fraction, and therefore gaining.

The German pilot is trying to tighten his turn still more to keep up with me and I'm sure I see the 109 flick. I can see the shape of his head quite clearly and even the dark shape of his oxygen mask. Yet again, I imagine that the 109 gives a distinct flick, on the point of a high speed stall. He has to ease his turn a fraction. The Spitfire gains slowly.

I can quote quite a number of other examples.

The Spitfire's 'judder' or shudder or buffet happened before the stall, and it was quite possible to ride this edge for maximum turn rate.

Only those who were ham-handed or completely inexperienced would not know how to use this indicator.

Yes, if pushed beyond this, the Spitfire would flick over on its back and spin, but given the fact its stall speed was lower than the 109's, and it turn circumference was smaller, there was no need to for a pilot to take it that far.

Notice also in this description the 109 'flick' referred to. This is mentioned in many combat accounts, and tells us clearly that in an accelerated stall condition, there was the potential for a wing drop on the 109 if the stall indications are ignored and controls continue to be over-applied.