A newbies impression of the 109 and spit

[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?

[Al Schlageter]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

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

Hurricanes in France did.

[Kurfürst]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

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

I think you confuse it with the one about 'poor Jerries reliedin the BoB entirely on British 100 octane stock captured in France'-thread.

And this one is the 'yet they could not figure out how to put these captured stuff in Spitfires which were all supposed to run on the stuff by this time'-thread.

[Glider]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

The Spitfire has unique stability and control characteristics.

The most outstanding issue is the Longitudinal Stability and Control of the early marks.

This was corrected in later variants.

But everyone said that it was easy to fly, were all the pilots stupid of every nation. Or could it be that the training and the pilots notes did what they should do, warn and enable the pilots to get used to it.

All aircraft have their own unique feature, old and new. To pretend that only the Spitfire had its own problems is foolish pilots notes are not the be all and end all. Most planes have a warning that intentional spins should be avoided but they get spun. The notes are a warning, no more no less

[Kurfürst]

Define easy to fly.

[Crumpp]

Most planes have a warning that intentional spins should be avoided but they get spun.

This is just not true. Spinning an aircraft that is not approved is just plain stupid. The only people that do it are those who do not understand the aerodynamics.

There is a good reason it is not approved to spin. Reason's like it does not recover for example.

Even aerobatic aircraft that must pass spin testing can enter unrecoverable conditions.

"Mayday mayday mayday Pitts 260DB in an unrecoverable flat spin at 3,500 feet."

The airplane crashed in the Everglades, coming to rest partially inverted and nearly vertical in several feet of water. The canopy, which had been jettisoned in flight, was several hundred feet away. The bodies of the pilots were closer by the wreckage; both had bailed out, but there had not been time for their parachutes to open.

Why did this aerobatic aircraft enter an unrecoverable condition in a spin?

Only one aft limit for the CG is specified, but it assumes the maximum acrobatic weight; excessive weight exaggerates the effect of an aft CG position on spin recovery.

The pilot failed to adhere to the Operating Limits as listed in the Pilots Manual. He violated the airworthiness of the design. The aft CG flattened the spin until the dirt barrier stopped it.

http://www.flyingmag.com/safety/acci...overable-spins

Easy to fly doing what? A few circuits of the field, cross country cruise, rolls or loop or two? Sure it was easy to fly.

Easy to fly is very subjective. Longitudinal stability and control measurements and characteristics are not subjective. They are quantifiable characteristics with definitive limits.

[von Brühl]

You're arguing with non-engineers...

[CaptainDoggles]

Originally Posted by von Brühl

You're arguing with non-engineers...

Evidently.

[winny]

I thought I'd provide Molders full quote.

"it was very interesting to carry out the flight trials at Rechlin with the Spitfire and 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 it's 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 Me 109. As a fighting aircraft it is miserable. A sudden push of the stick will cause the engine to cut, and because the propeller has only 2 pitch settings ( take off and cruise ), in a rapidly changing air combat situation the engine is either over-speeding or else not being used to the full."

It's a pretty fair assessment of the 2 pitch Spit.

And a few lines from the actual trials at Rechlin.

Before turning fights with the Me 109E, it must be noted that in every case, that all three ( Spitfire, Hurricane, Curtiss ) foreign planes have significantly smaller turning circles and turning times. An attack on the opponent as well as a disengagement can only be accomplished on the basis of existing superiority in performance.

What is interesting about the A&AEE trials is that the Spitfire used was using 100 octane and CSP. In May 1940. Which goes some way to explaing the difference between the British and German trials results.

I'm happy to concede that there was an issue with the 109 used. It was the same aircraft that was trailed against the Hurricane in France and if you compare the 2 trials there's a definite decline in the 109's performance between the 2 trials. There was a forced landing made between the 2 dates (about 2 months apart) which probably contributed to this.

I don't think either the Rechlin or A&AEE trails can be considered as 100% accurate. They are what they are! Tests of aircraft on both sides that were not particularly good examples of their types.