Originally posted by mw
More comments from AFDU on the 109F not previously mentioned: “As a result of the heaviness of the elevators at speeds over 400 m.p.h., violent evasion is not possible, and the aircraft would present a simple target to a following Spitfire. Similarly, a Spitfire attacked by a ME.109F from above, should have no difficulty in evading if he turns sharply towards the direction of attack. It is considered that recovery from a high speed dive near the ground would be difficult, as the loss of height entailed is considerable. This may account for occasional reports of Me.109F’s being seen to dive straight into the ground without apparently being fired at.”
[/B]
Interesting. The NACA report has to say the following on Spitfire VA elevators:
"In turns at speeds ihgh enough to prevent reaching maximum lift coefficient because of the excessive accelerations involved, the small static longitudal stability of the Spitfire caused undue sensitivity of the normal acceleration to small movements of stick. As shown by the time histories of high-speed turns (Figs 15 to 18) it was neccesary for the pilot to pull back and then ease forward almost to its original position in order to enter a turn rapidly without overshooting the desired normal acceleration."And here`s the reason:
i"The small elevator travel required to reach maximum lift coeff. was evident in turns as well as in pull ups... Only 3 degrees of elevator movement was required to go from level flight at a lift coefficient of about 0.3 to the first sign of stall. This movement corresponds to a stick deflection of 3/4 inch. This degree of stability is far lower than the 4 inches of rearward stick movement required in reference 1."
It`s seems the 109`s and Spits control was the exact opposite. A 109 pilot had to deal with heavy
elevator control forces, similiar to the Mustang, tough light enough to pull 4Gs with one hand even at 520kph, whereas a Spit pilot was forced not to pull more than a mere 3/4 inch on stick, otherwise the plane would stall out, and was forced to make milimeter movements aft and fore during turns for the same reason.
Rudder again the opposite, very light on the 109, moderately heavy on the Spit.
Ailerons favour the 109, the ailerons were "very good and positive" (Mark Hanna`s description of a Buchon) "moderately light" (Eric Brown`s on a gunpod wielding G-6).
Compared to the Spitfire, rolling required less force and was greater at high speeds: Paul Coggan described it as 20 lbs stick force was required for a 360 roll at 460 kph (300mph), completed in 4-4.5seconds (=80-90 degree roll rate). This agrees very closely to German tests, which state "approx. 4.5secs" for 360 degree roll at 450 kph.
The Spitfire`s ailerons were very heavy on the other hand. Early Marks like the MkI were just plain catasptrophic as was seen, introducing of metal ailerons imporved it to an acceptable, though still poor quality.
The NACA`s report on Spitfire MkVA (with metal ailerons) metions that the pilot was limited to 40 lbs stickforce (same as on the 109, there control forces were light). The report metions that in high speed flight, the aileron forces were "considered excessive". With 30 pounds stickforce, full deflection was only possible up to 110 mph, and even with 40 lbs no more than 130 mph. At 6000 ft, 230mph IAS, 59 deg/sec was possible with 30 lbs stickforce. According to the roll rate chart, at 300mph, where the 109G developed 80-90 degree roll rate with only 20lbs stickforce, the Spitfire MkVA pilot straining himself for 30 lbs could only make about 54 degrees. Of course, it should be noted that the report refers to a Spit VA, of out only about 80 were made, all the following MkVs, IXs etc. had additional weight installed in the wings in the forms of Hispano cannons, reducing roll rate further.
BTW, regarding your site, it`s interesting to see how carefully the presented reports are picked, and only shown partially, ie:
-SpitV speed vs. 109F : That is, a prototype Spitfire V, admittedly "not operationally loaded", running considerable faster than production planes, compared to a RAE test (or more like estimation?) of a 109F-2 that runs some 30 mph slower than it does in all other, German or Soviet tests, or the F1/2 Kennblatt itself.
-The (in)famous ADFU trials presented on the page, compared to a "Me 109G", only forgotting to tell that it was a Wilde Sau 109G-6, with the additional weight of gunpods, not even running at maximum allowed boost or using the standard 1944/45 methanol booster, and was flown by inexperienced pilots who were so much unfamiliar with the working of leading edge slats, that they eased back on the stick as they opened, meaning they never nearly fully exploited the turning abilities of the plane
-there`s also the example of presenting test results for a stripped Spit XIV, with as little information avaiable (only results), used in a single test with a boost rate it was never approved for in operational service
You also argued that 1.42ata is irrevelant for the DB601E as there was a limitation to another engine between June 1942-June 1943... I am inclined to believe that there`s more than just honest errors here.
