Spitfire Mk IX - stability issues

[Nashwan]

AVIA 6 / 10126.

Is that in answer to my request for a source to this statement:

Hmm, hmm, the 109 had about half the stickforce required on the Spit for a full stick throw. 109`s aileron forces were relatively small - 20 lbs required for a full stick throw at 300mph, resulting a roll of 80-90 deg/sec.

AVIA 6/10126 is listed as a comparison of Mustang and Spitfire, and contains no 109 information, afaik.

What is your source for the claimed 109 roll performance?

[VO101_Isegrim]

You think it`s, the 'claim' as you call it, unrealistic ?

[Nashwan]

It's a "claim" because you won't say what source it's based on.

As to whether it's realistic or not, it depends on the source, doesn't it?

Proper instrumented test or a made up figure?

Care to back it up by telling us the source?

[Angus]

From Izzy:
"Problem is, you can`t even understand your own qoute, Angie...

Where does it say engine quality?
Where does it say about the Spit having bigger cocpit?? "

My bigger spit-than-109 cockpit comes from rather plastic sources I am afraid. Many things involved. However many sources.
So, how did I get the remote idea that a Spitfire's cockpit, say alone a P51 cockpit, could possibly be roomier that the one of a Besterscmitt 109?
(in no particular order)
1. Spitfire pilot too big to fit into one (Later test pilot Neville Duke)
2. Numerous anecdotals (you luv them)
3. LW pilots commenting on it
4. My models up to scale
5. LW geeks triumphing over the lower frontal area of the 109, - i.e. the 109 being much narrower.
6. Looking at a Spit and 109 cockpit from VERY close up.
7 Looking at pilot pics of both planes while in the cocpit, knowing the size of some of the pilots really helps.
8.Realizing that there are 3 dimensions regading cockpits, height, depth and width.

This can of course be measured, if one is ever allowed to get into a cockpit of those old birds. I've been all around both planes, just not in one (Except my camera in a Spitty). But quite honestly, both cockpits are a tight fit, and IMHO the 109 cockpit is a bit tighter. The P51's cockpit is definately roomier.
BTW, I know of several cases where 2 persons rode in the Spitfires seat!
(The seat being so roomy must have lead to poorer view over the nose, right?)

I am sorry about the engine quality, got mixed up a bit, but I am not misunderstanding my own quotes.
That one was from Rall as well, just not the same source. If you want more about that, please let me know.
Notice that allied test pilots usually refer to the 190 cockpit as extremely comfortable, while it's not that much bigger than the one of the 109. However the 190 cockpit is quite cleverly designed for pilot comfort in mind.

[Angus]

Oh, about the 400 mph rolling.
Wasn't it about 400 mph where the 190 control forces started getting much heavier?
I am pretty sure that at, say, 350 Mph the 190 rules them all in the roll region.
What would it do at 500 mph.

[MiloMorai]

E. Bob, a LW 109 ace, commented that he preferred the Spitfire's cockpit over that of the 109. Much roomier and better overall vision.

[VO101_Isegrim]

Angie, I don`t see anything supporting your view than your own subjective belief. Things like "Spitfire pilot too big to fit into one" - hmm, if Tobak could fit into his G-10 being 190+cm tall, I guess anyone would.  Save particularly fat assed Spit pilots of course.I guess Churchill wouldn`t fit into either, and Goring would have problems with a P-47. If you want to prove things with "2 guys fitting into the Spits seat" - well, I have similiar stories of pilots rescuing their mates on the eastern front in the same way.

Stigler was quite clear about the Spit not having any bigger cocpit than the 109 - how would it, the early Merlin was just as narrow as the DB 60x engines, which gave the width for the fuselage. Just look at cross section - oh but why, you have the anecdotes, and your own rock solid belief.

Oh BTW, I find it funny you still can`t get over the better nose over view in the 109. Why so hard to put up with that? The 109 was a smart design, Willy was and is considered one of the best aircraft designers. And after all, there must be some reason why the 109 was so utterly successfull, unless you believe in aryan superiority. I hope you don`t.But for some, the prejudice is that the Spit must be automatically better in everything without even needing to prove it... perhaps that`s why the Spitdweeb instincts are to argue about every small detail. Ah, I think I can`t understand the need for that, but that`s what makes you happy..

[Angus]

The 109 view was markedly better above the wing forward, the nose view would be similar untill later mark spits.
A degree or two won't make much difference anyway.
The Spit has a better view down backwards down (comes with the disadvantage front.)

Yes, I am still pissed off about your nose view HYPE, for although you claimed it was a pixel error. it was easily visible to the naked eye, - in that case, mine.
Those same eyes actually found the 109 cockpit being a bit smaller than the one of the Spitfire

And this:
" The 109 was a smart design, Willy was and is considered one of the best aircraft designers. "
Agree. The 109 was a superb design. Many of the best design items however have nothing to do with sheer performance (in which although, the 109 was always a good candidate)
2 things about the 109 that absolutely stick out as superb in WW2 are manufacture and ease of maintenance.

Yet another one:
"And after all, there must be some reason why the 109 was so utterly successfull, unless you believe in aryan superiority. I hope you don`t.But for some, the prejudice is that the Spit must be automatically better in everything without even needing to prove it."

Am I stepping on your nerve when I make an conclusion of some performance parameters, or say alone, DIMENSION parameters?
The 109 was no stellar UBERPLANE. It was good, however got outperformed in many categories by several allied planes.
The German fighter pilot was no UBERMENCH either. Early LW pilots were the finest in the world, while later ones suffered from severe lack of training and combat experience.
LW tactics however were normally very very good. As well as the German army, the LW was quite successful at inflicting severe-to-crippling losses to their adversaries.
Just don't mix this all up bud.

Now, on to the cockpit again.
I know of 190's stuffing 2 people in it for emergency. Wasn't that how Rudel escaped BTW?
I read a lot of 109 Pilots tales and biographies, but I can't recall an incident of that yet.
I however know from first hand that this occured in the Spitfire. Some pilots actually got court martialled because of ferrying of that type. Is that still anecdotal-fatty-pilot-blah-blah, or is that enough as an evidence.??
Read up and post some quotes

[VO101_Isegrim]

Originally posted by Angus
The 109 view was markedly better above the wing forward, the nose view would be similar untill later mark spits.
A degree or two won't make much difference anyway.
The Spit has a better view down backwards down (comes with the disadvantage front.)

[/B]

Yeah, believe that if you want. I can remember that basically everyone there agreed with it, even Milo said the graph is about fair, so one could guess it wasn`t wrong.

And that drawing clearly showed the 109 pilot had a lot more angle down over the nose for deflection, which came from two simple facts : the nose is shorter, and downward sloping towards the front, the Spit`s nose isn`t.

Better view on the Spit "down backwards down"? Go on and prove, it`s wishful thinking, especially in the case of rear vision, in the which the Spit was extremely poor. And I 109s were even poorer with the rear armor fitted, luckily that was replaced quite early in 1943 with a transparent armor glass.

Yes, I am still pissed off about your nose view HYPE, for although you claimed it was a pixel error. it was easily visible to the naked eye, - in that case, mine.

[/B]

I didn`t claim any pixel error, that`s your own make up. You starting yelling about the sightline of the 109 was higher, despite that that was the way in 109`s cocpit, which somehow you failed to notice with your brilliant eyes.

I read a lot of 109 Pilots tales and biographies, but I can't recall an incident of that yet.
I however know from first hand that this occured in the Spitfire. Some pilots actually got court martialled because of ferrying of that type. Is that still anecdotal-fatty-pilot-blah-blah, or is that enough as an evidence.??
Read up and post some quotes [/B]

 A hungarian pilot belly landed, I think, his wingman landed his 109 on clearing in the winter (hmm - where`s that so called landing problem), got the guy into the cocpit and headed for home. Wasn`t exactly coutr martialed for it... Head for the library.I guess Punka`s "Messer" book probably mentions the case, available in English.

[MiloMorai]

I don't remember any graph. I do remeber a drawing that had the wrong Spitfire model named.

Issy, look up the word 'overall' in a dictionary.

It should be noted that Issy claims the 109 had better visibilty for the pilot to the rear than did any of the Allied bubble canopy a/c (P-51, P-47, Tempest, Typhoon, Spitfire, ....).

[Nashwan]

Isegrim, still waiting for the source for your claimed rollrate figures for the 109.

[Karnak]

Barbi,

Out of curiosity, name some features of the Spitfire that was markedly superior to the Bf109.

Angus, Nashwan, MiloMorai,

Name some features of the Bf109 that were markedly superior to the Spitfire.

[Crumpp]

Oh, about the 400 mph rolling.

I sent you the report!!  You can check it out.  

Figure 4 shows 1 roll that was over 40 lbs of stick force.  It got about 7 degrees of alerion movement for just over 40 lbs.

You can check out the chart.  The RAF test pilot clearly states that of the three 190's he has flown, this one had the stiffest ailerons.



Izzy please give me you email addy and I will send you a copy of the test.

Crumpp

[MiloMorai]

Originally posted by Karnak

Angus, Nashwan, MiloMorai,

Name some features of the Bf109 that were markedly superior to the Spitfire.

Was there any?

[VO101_Isegrim]

Originally posted by Karnak
Barbi,

Out of curiosity, name some features of the Spitfire that was markedly superior to the Bf109.

Hmm.. hard to pick. I guess most Spits until 1943 had better view form the cocpit to the rear, the mirror also helped somewhat.. were better turners of course. Simplier procedure to land and takeoff, though again Spits had their own type of faults in that field. Certainly they were aerodynamically much better than early versions of the 109. Lighter elevators, so better turn capabilites at high speeds and pullouts.. some of the specialized two staged ones usually had better climb at altitude. Really can`t think of much else. Maybe gyrogunsights in 1944, but in that time, those weren`t much better than normal ones either, if more practical at all. Factually, 109s usually introduced advanced technologies sooner and in greater numbers than with Spits, which were either copied by the brits or were greatly influental to them. The 109 was a better concept to start with, and was continously improved - not much happened with the Spits airframe in that regard after Mitchels death, Supermarine put up with reinforcing the airframe here and there, putting bigger engines, bigger radiators, more guns, and more fuel into it to make up for the lack of those improvments. But in the majority of aspects, I think the 109 was superior - say at a 3 to 1 rate.