If you could suggest a book that shows that the 109 could turn with a Spitfire that would also be appreciated.

one of my favourite books from bob is 'spitfire on my tail' from the German point of view, can i not read it as it has an S in the title;)

well if you cld yourself suggest a book that shows tht the 109 cld not :grin:

"Blurred" did I say ?

I dont know many testimonies that 109 out-turn Sipits, but I know this one:

http://www.virtualpilots.fi/feature/...yths/#stalling

Anyway, what was easy for young pilots in Spits, delivery very good pilots (veterans) in Bfs....

Spitfire: Portrait of a Legend by Leo McKinstry
Spitfire! The Experiences of a Battle of Britain Fighter Pilot by Brian Lane
Spitfire Pilot by Flt Lt David Crook
A large number of combat reports

Interrogation of Oberstleutnant Bar. The Spitfire is fast and very maneuverable

Gunther Rall Luftwaffe Ace and NATO General Authorised Biography

Oberleutnant Gerhard Schöpfel, Gruppenkommandeur of III./JG 26 wrote of the Me 109 E:

It was superior to the Hurricane and above 6,000 metres, faster than the Spitfire also. I believe that our armament was the better, it was located more centrally which made for more accurate shooting. On the other hand, the British fighters could turn tighter than we could.

Flight tests by both RAF and Luftwaffe pilots, In particular the tests taken in Aug 1940 at the E-Stelle Rechlin

Before turning fights with the Bf 109 E type, it must be noted in every case, that all three foreign planes have significantly smaller turning circles and turning times.
An attack on the opponent as well as disengagement can only be acomplished on the basis of existing superiority in performance.

Its also worth remembering that Molders described the Spitfire as being faultless in a turn

Both the above from Kurfursts web site

Now your contribution, I know what you feel about people making unsubstantiated claims.

Also important thing to notice that Rechlin tested Spitfire and Hurricane had only 2-stage prop pitch not constant speed propeller - so their performance was inferior to BoB time British fighters equipped with CSP unit and 100 Octan fuel - but still even with 2-stage prop pitch Bristish fighters was better in turn then 109 like Germans found.

Well once again you are picking extract here and there to build an argument. I only wonder if you did build yourself that way (I speak rudely tht way because I don't like your tone and especially the way you behave as ever tht look like to say: hummph, if you can't answer to this right now then you fail).

At first, did you notice that we are talking rather differently of slow speed turns ? All the argumentation is based on physics and pilot accounts and turn around the stall characteristic of the Spit wing.

if you take the both the 109 and the Spit at constant turning speed the SPit will always have an inferior radius as the Hurri will have with the Spit.

The prob with the SPitfire is her configuration : the thin wing, the wide chord, the low span ratio and the elliptical shape. In the order of appearance it will increase the AoA, aggravate the drag generated by the turbulence around the airfoil and aggravate the stall characteristic and makes the airflow around the wing tips unpredictable (hence the exaggerated washout).

The more you turn, the more E you loose. This E deficit is only compensated by your engine. The more excess of power you have the more time you will stay in that configuration. The Spitfire had less P/W ratio than the 109 (except perhaps in your 12lb+ dreams and what will come next in your request) and thicker wings.

You think you are a pilot so you know what come next...

The Spit will have to turn slightly nose down to compensate for the E loss generated from her draggier turn characteristic and inferior P/W and stay away from the low speed/high AoA/Split angle and bank dangerous situation. Invariably the plane with better stall behavior and superior P/W will stay longer in a turn where the speed decrease hence will loose less alt.

So either the Spit pilot will have to unleash the G before his opponent or will he start to spiral down.

In a turn fight, alt his G (you add the Gravity force to what your plane can do).

That's what the 109 pilots describe when they are talking abt their eggs shaped loop. You can also understand that if they are specifically asked about how horizontal where their turns: they never says it was perfectly horizontal.

Obviously, unless the training was complete, it will be hard to imagine a rookie turning that way (but will you yourself bank a Cessna at 90deg and start pulling on the yoke ?). So things are not that clear blurred in fog of war.
If you are reading with attention the test conditions of the turns chart, you'd understand that the test pilots enter the turn with plenty of excessive power to complete it.

But certainly there was no flat donuts turns in a dogfight. Your speed bleeds out unless you are nosing down.

In a modern dogfight, you see jets nosing down to be able to sustain their best turn rate. Why would you think it would be different in a Spit that had 1/5th of the P/W ratio of an 80's jet !

Talking about the 109 and Spits models alternatively taking the leads in the perf race is all about this: the aerodynamics and the P/W ratio. Once one get the upper hands, it felt more dynamics in a dogfight and keep that ounce of extra E to get the advantage in a high G engagement.

the fact is that the Emil model had the advantage during BoB. Just like The FW190 enjoyed before the IX was launched. (yeah I know you also believe that the 190 was the tank Oleg sold to us with the first opus of IL2)

End of arguments tonight. Feel free to bury my post under a wall of fantastical documents hammered en masse by all the Gang as ever.

A lot of words that try to hide the fact that you cannot support your statement with any published books. Its worth remembering that it was you that first suggested that we use books. You suggested that we use real books, I always do and its good advice as you can see from my reply.

I also supported my statements with quotes from official German flight tests and quotes from expert German fighter pilots. The books are quoted and the full report available on Kurfursts web site. Hardly a wall of fantastical documents hammered en masse by all the Gang all very relevent and from both sides of the conflict.

You asked me to support my statement and I did. I asked you to support yours and you didn't. Its a common pattern we have seen before.

Another habit of yours is putting words in my mouth which are not true. PLease quote where I have ever, here or anywhere, said that I consider the 190 to be anything but exceptional in 1941/2.

I should add that I do consider myself to be an experienced glider pilot. I went solo at 16 and flew for about 20 years until I had to stop about 10 years ago for medical reasons.

Also had some limited hours P2 (about 35) in powered aircraft of various types

Start with this one:

http://www.amazon.com/Luftwaffe-Figh.../dp/0804116962

then:

http://www.amazon.com/JG-26-War-Diar.../dp/1898697523

then:

http://www.schifferbooks.com/newschi...sbn=0764301756

Pretty much take your pick of any of the Luftwaffe histories.

He did support it.

Messerschmitt Me. 109 Handling and Manoeuvrability Tests
BY M. B. MORGAN, M.A. and D. E. MORRIS, B.SC.
COMMUNICATED BY THE PRINCIPAL DIRECTOR OF SCIENTIFIC RESEARC (AIR)
MINISTRY OF SUPPLY
__________________________________
Reports and Memoranda No. 2361
September 1940*

5. Fighting Qualities of the Me. 109. – 5.1. Dog-fights with Spitfire and Hurricane.

http://kurfurst.org/Tactical_trials/...ls/Morgan.html

Sorry to hear that Glider.

Excellent find Kurfurst.

Well that is hardly an answer that the 109 could turn with a spitfire.

I reckon I could out turn some people in an A380 that doesn't mean that the 380 can turn well.

Its not scientific but its anecdotal of the time. Pierre Clostermann said in his autobiograohy that the Spitfire could "outturn the 109 at high speed (but not at low speed)". Guess we need to start searching for historical turn data for each aircraft and compare.

But a plane does not turn by itself: it's the pilot who manages the controls.

All your turning rate tests are made by pilots... of course every planes has limits over which it can't be flown: but how do you know if the tester reached those limits? Tehre could be many variables here that simply are not taken in account.

Do you really want to know the REAL max turning rate of a plane? put a robot in it and make it turn until the complete stall... robots should not been afraid to die, and they all have the same skill/strenght.
But I don't know if the plane's owner would be happy to see those tests.

Exactly.

The stability and control characteristics of the designs are significant to their relative dogfighting ability.

[QUOTE=6S.Manu;443101]But a plane does not turn by itself: it's the pilot who manages the controls.QUOTE]


And this is exactly why there is no reason to question the Spitfires superior turning ability, whenever there is a report of a 109 out turning a Spit the 109 was probably being flown by a skilled pilot against an average Spit pilot.

Spitfire had neutral stability in pitch with light elevators, this means the pilot could hold it in a high rate of turn with little more than 2 fingers on the stick while the 109 driver was using much more effort, the 109's slats may have given it some benign stall characteristics, the Spit was pretty benign too despite the stability, but being able to reach a higher 'alpha' is by no means a guarantee of a high turn rate, in fact holding an aircraft close to the stall is quite bad for turn rate, the 109 has a relatively high wing loading compared to the Spit another diasadvantage for turn rate.

Stalls and spins are nothing to be afraid of for a well trained pilot. I bet they would have given it more of a pull if it had a Swastika on it and Tracers coming out. Probably didn't want to look stupid.

There is a fan plot somewhere of a spit v 109.

Baloney.

I suppose the NACA, the RAE, the Operating Notes, and Gates are all wrong.

You however must be correct. You can submitt your Dad's logbook as proof.

Sure, an experienced pilot could do it who had lots of practice. In fact, in the Spitfire Mk V when the stability and control was addressed with bob-weights, there were pilots who did not like it.

However, the very light stick forces combined with very small amount of stick travel required to use up the available angle of attack would make for an aircraft that is difficult to precisely manoeuver. This is why the POH advises the pilot to brace himself against the cockpit. Small stick movements make for large aceleration changes in the Spitfire.

The stick force imbalance between the longitudinal and lateral axis contributes to the slow rate of roll the pilot is able to apply at high speed. He is fighting a very sensitive elevator with high lateral control pressure. It makes for an aircraft that is difficult to change the direction of the lift axis.

The RAE had no measureable standards for stability and control. It was all based on opinion. However, when the early marque Spitfire was subjected to measureable and definative standards, it was unacceptable.

Who cares if a pilot cruising along with 2 fingers on the stick in the pattern felt it was "easy to fly".

The stability and control of the design effected its ability as a dogfighter and gun platform as noted by the NACA, Operating Notes, and every measurable standard.

Just some general observations.

Pilots were taught not to stall, so that must have led to an in-built reluctance to push at the flight envelope. Those that could push closer to the limit could turn faster.

Turn rate can mean several things. The fastest turn rate can be incredibly quick but the resulting loss of energy means trouble. Continuous turn rate without loss of energy is usually quite a bit higher but as energy is retained that helps further manouevres.

As an example (and from memory of something I did a long time ago) I could turn a Spit Vb 360 degrees in about 12 seconds but was then at stall speed. Turning 360 degrees at a maintained 250mph took about 20 seconds with a far wider turning circle.

If I were in a Spit maintaining 250mph in a turn I bet a 109 could turn inside, but if they missed the shot they have less energy. From memory again I think the best turn/energy ratio for a Spit was about 220mph with a turn of around 18 seconds. At the same speed a 109 took 21 seconds to do 360 degrees.

Finally, I seem to remember that the best way of turning in a 109 against a Spit is to do an elliptical turn i.e. to have a smooth curve to gain energy followed by a tight turn, kinda egg-shaped.

Or to put it more simply. All things being equal, if you're in a 109 don't turn with a Spit - there is nothing to stop a Spit pilot totally pushing the envelope as only our ego is hurt if we pull to hard and stall, we don't die.

Just ramblin'

Hood

How can a RAF pilot with a bunch of hours in the 109 be more skilled than the other RAF pilots in their usual rides?

It could be also that the ones who actually out-turned the 109 were very skilled pilots while the 109 pilot could out-turn the other average pilots...

Simply there's no answer.

We can't know the real turn-rate skill of those plane: wingarea and power are only two of the many variables how dictate the maximum turn-rate.

Anyway I still think that it's easier to reach the best turn rate in a plane that does not kill you if you push too much.
Probably the Spitfire real turn rate was better, but easily only the bravest pilot could go near it (so near that the next day they could have spinned losing their life).

Only when you need room to recover and you don't have it.

Or when the aircraft will not recover at all.

There is a reason why the Spitfire was placarded against spinning.

NACA this NACA that, baloney this baloney that

Because if he was selected to an evaluation squadron then he is likely to be regarded as one of the best available.

To be the "best" in a Spitfire does not mean he will be the best in a 109.

If you place Vettel in a McLaren do you think that after 50 laps he will have the same results of Hamilton? Above all if he can't touch the car's setup.

Or think to Vale Rossi... one of the most skilled biker of all the time that is not able to drive a Ducati correctly and it's always behind less skilled pilots with the same ride (or slower).

Boy you people really get desparate in these discussions..

Another reason to doubt your claims to be a pilot, for those of us who do fly recognise the airframes shudders and buffets as 'warnings' of impending stalls and are able to react to them by simply unloading, which in an aircraft with light elevator controls is much easier.

Must have killed a lot of Fw190 pilots with its snap roll/stall.

Infact IIRC there are not reports of 190s out-turning Spitfires... but the 190 is a totally different animal compared to the 109.

Ah, to be honest, I'm not really a 109 lover...

Absolutely.

No one is advocating creating a frankenplane Bf-109 that outturns the Spitfire in a level sustained turn at low velocity. That would be silly.

The stability and control characteristics are just as important to the relative dogfighting ability of these aircraft. Those characteristics are documented and quantifiable.

What is the point in having a gameshape that does not fly like the airplane it is suppose to represent?

There is nothing to argue about. The stability and control characteristics are well documented and measured.

The only arguments stem from those who do not understand the measurements and conclusions.

You have an inabillity to put things together. Relate to us your wealth of experience flying early marque Spitfires. Oh yeah, you cannot and I know your Dad's logbook does not reflect any Spitfire time either. In fact, nobody can fly a Spitfire without the bob weights today legally.

"Light controls" is desireable. However, you must have some resistance to gauge the feel of the aircraft so forces that are too light are not desirable.

Combined with very small stick movements that created large changes in angle of attack, it is unacceptable when the aircraft is neutrally stable. With positive stability, it would not be unacceptable.

Very light stick forces on the longitudinal axis coupled with neutral stability, small stick position changes producing large angle of attack changes, a very harsh stall/spin, and stick force imbalance on the lateral axis is why the Spitfire did not pass quantifiable stability and control standards.

Crumpp, how you get away with your personal attacks i dont know, but boy have you got sour grapes. One of the two of you flew a lear jet to italy yesterday, and it wasn't you.

Grow up.

Quite, hence why you always seem to end up in arguments, BTW have you figured out how to use the ignore function yet?

Only the Mk5 ever had bob weights, and all the other airworthy marks which are as original and flying around don't seem to be attracting any 'legal' issues, My late fathers gliding logbook certainly won't have any Spitfire time in it, care to show us your extensively logged warbird time?

As you like to say....Baloney

yet you can see Spitfires at airshows doing high energy turns at low level all the time....oh I guess that's because the FAA and NACA have had a word with the spitfires and told them all to behave themselves.

Let me guess.....NACA.....again, the only source for all that is right and holy in this world eh?

What does that have to do with me being a pilot, my experience, or education?

Really, you, bongodriver, Osprey, and a few others from that 100 Octane thread have consistantly followed me around these boards making personal attacks.

You turn every thread into a discussion on me. Why???

You want to undermine my credibility out of some misguided fear of "red vs blue" baloney that has become the community dynamics of a few. I am not into it and won't buy it.

It is boring and the constant derailment is detrimental to the community.

Who cares about me? Who cares what I do for a living. I sure as hell am not going to post any personal information on the internet. It is stupid and I don't have to prove a damn thing to you or anyone else.

Stick to the facts under the topic of the thread. If I am wrong, then produce facts to prove it.

You can't do that so your same small group resorts to emotional pleas by conducting personal attacks on me. If you can't attack the subject then attack the source of the subject, right?

Huh?......simply you are just not a pilot, no experience and education is questionable too.

Actually I just got stuck in to a discussion, but when you showed up with some bizarre claims it became more heated.

You undermine your own credibility, the only 'red v blue' baloney comes from the likes of you and Kurfurst.

Yes, please stop posting ever again.

Nobody cares about you, but you sure do seem to care what you want people to believe, I wonder what you will claim to be next, point is I backed up my claims with hard evidence.

They do indeed, yet you continue to deny them.

you keep bringing up my late father and his logbook, I didn't ask for your last reply to me so I guess it's you who doesn't want to let it go.

The bob-weights are a quick fix and an aerodynamic band aid. Of course they addressed the issue with good design in later marques.

We are not talking about later marques.

We are discussing the Spitfire MkI, Ia, and II series as found in the game.

There is nothing to argue with the stability and control characteristics. The NACA measured it.

The RAE had no quantifiable standards at the time but the Operating Notes cover the issues well.

You probably don't know it so I will forgive your ignorance, but it's pretty standard stuff in aircraft operating notes to highlight the ill effects of mis-handling an aircraft.

Story by Jeffrey Quill (Chief test pilot)

Jeffrey Kindersley Quill OBE AFC FRAeS (1 February 1913–20 February 1996) was a British Royal Air Force officer, RNVR officer and Test pilot and the second man to fly the Supermarine Spitfire after Vickers Aviation's chief test pilot, Joseph "Mutt" Summers. After succeeding Summers as Vickers' chief test pilot, Quill test-flew every mark of Spitfire, originally designed by R. J. Mitchell.


http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchi...0-%201323.html

"The impression has once or twice been given that the Spitfire was "right, from the word go." This is not strictly correct. We had our full share of troubles, headaches and frights during that period and it was all full of interest. I personally was keenly aware of the privilege of working for R. J. Mitchell. But it would need a book to record all this. One point of interest is that K.S054 was, I think, one of the first aeroplanes to be fitted with an anti-spin parachute. It had shown up badly in the spinning calculations at R.A.E. and there was thus a certain amount of gloom about the prospects for the actual spinning tests.
The cable of the anti-spin parachute was attached to the fuselage just forward of the fin; it was then led along the outside of the fuselage, secured by sticky tape, and the parachute itself stowed in the cockpit.
The idea was that, if in. trouble, one opened the canopy, seized a handful of parachute and flung it over the side-preferably the appropriate side. I well
remember the first spin, entered at 20,000 feet from a. strangely silent stall with the big two-bladed wooden airscrew ticking over very, very slowly. But eight years elapsed before I actually had to use an anti-spin parachute (in a Seafire with an experimental rudder), and it broke my leg-but that is another story. The only difficulty we ha-d with the proto* type was persuading the R.A.E. that the spin recovery characteris*tics were, in fact, perfect. It seemed they had no business to be, but they were. "


More interesting stats here> (obviously not the definitive source but still an interesting summary of the evolution of the spit from MK1 to seafire 47 with a bunch of stats)

http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchi...0-%200359.html

I read tonight somewhere in this archive there was a chart for spin recovery at various altitudes and it was 1-2 spins to 4 spins worst case and loss of 6000 feet (WORST CASE) from memory. Sorry I couldnt find it again! The spit pilots were not afraid of pulling hard as spin recovery was relatively simple. cut throttle, full opposite rudder, gently slightly forward, release rudder to neutral when slip indicator flips to other side and apply power build airspeed to 180MPH before gently pulling back. Ill try and find it again. Found another copy here.. http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spitfire-II.html

RAF turning trials:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...hurri-turn.pdf


no way the 109e can out turn a Hurricane or Spitfire, a result which Kurfurst's recent post regarding Luftwaffe turning trials confirm.

Crumpp
I like this bit. All this quote does is prove that given pilots of equal skill the Spit turned faster.
When the Me.109 was following the Hurricane or Spitfire, it was found that our aircraft turned inside the Me.109 without difficulty when flown by determined pilots who were not afraid to pull their aircraft round hard in a tight turn



Re the books quoted I have read the JG 26 war diary and it as far as I remember didn't confirm that the 109 turned inside the SPitfire. Could be wrong on that but if you find the quote that would help

Guys I fell over a post on the A2A Simulations website and it is NOT a reference to 'their' Spitfire but is an article on 'flying the Spitfire'.

What makes it interesting is that it gets away from the simplistic "mine is better than yours" attitude because as many of us know it is impossible to be sure of the circumstances of each aircraft when they meet in combat particularly regarding fuel/weight states, merge airspeeds etc.. Two aircraft as close in basic performance as the Spifire MKI and 109e could possibly reverse turn-capability claims if say under extremely different wing loading conditions and with airspeeds that favour one or other. Combat is never between the bare aircraft off the drawing board and even in compararative tests aircraft states have to be considered when drawing conclusions. Consider also whether you are talking about instantaneous turn rates to get that snap shot or sustained turn rates to wear down the angles and gain a shooting solution.

This link also gives turn rates of various aircraft. I don't know their sources but they make interesting reading and suggest that sources are available somewhere. I expect some 'reds' or 'blues' will disagree with the figures but it does at least make it clear that this is not a simplistic one-size-fits-all question and/or answer.

So here's the link, enjoy....
http://a2asimulations.com/forum/view...p?f=77&t=23909

Extracted from above link:

SPITFIRE Mk. i

Turn Performance
300mph - 1,000ft 5,000ft 10,000ft 15,000ft
One 360 - 12.2s 13.5s 14.7s -
Two 360s - 24.9s 28.2s 30.3s -

250mph
One 360 - 10.8s 12.8s 13.4s 14.1s
Two 360s - 24.4s 28.2s 29.9s 33.2s

Sustained
No Flaps - 14.8s 16.0s 17.8s 20.8s
Full Flaps - 15.1s 16.4s 18.1s 21.8s
Best Flap - none none none none
Speed/best - 125mph 125mph 125mph 120mph

Corner Speed and Radii (at 1,000ft)
Speed: 215mph
Turn Radius: 342ft

Minimum Sustained Turn Speed: 125mph
“ Turn Radius: 431ft

Corner Times 1,000ft 5,000ft 10,000ft 15,000ft
180 degrees - 5.0s 5.3s 6.0s 6.8s
360 degrees - 11.3s 11.8s 13.2s 15.2s

360º Roll Rate:
150mph: 6.9s
200mph: 5.1s
250mph: 5.7s
300mph: 7.1s
350mph: 10.4s
400mph: 14.6s

Bf-109E-4

Turn Performance
300mph - 1,000ft 5,000ft 10,000ft 15,000ft
One 360 - 12.9s 13.4s 15.4s -
Two 360s - 29.4s 31.2s 35.0s -

250mph
One 360 - 12.9s 13.7s 15.5s 16.7s
Two 360s - 31.0s 32.4s 36.5s 41.2s

Sustained
No Flaps - 18.0s 19.3s 21.2s 24.1s
Full Flaps - 19.0s 19.8s 21.7s 24.8s
Best Flap - none none none none
Speed/best - 120mph 120mph 120mph 115mph

Corner Speed and Radii (at 1,000ft)
Speed: 225mph
Radius: 367ft

Minimum Sustained Turn Speed: 120mph
“ Turn Radius: 503ft

Full Flaps Speed: 100mph
Full Flaps Radius: 442ft

Corner Times 1,000ft 5,000ft 10,000ft 15,000ft
180 degrees - 6.0s 6.4s 6.7s 7.1s
360 degrees - 13.8s 15.4s 15.8s 17.8s

360 º Roll Rate:
150mph: 4.8s
200mph: 4.3s
250mph: 4.2s
300mph: 5.5s
350mph: 7.2s
400mph: 11.9s

Hawker Hurricane Mk I

Turn Performance
300mph - 1,000ft 5,000ft 10,000ft 15,000ft
One 360 - 12.1s 12.4s 13.6s -
Two 360s - 24.2s 25.3s 30.0s -

250mph
One 360 - 10.2s 11.7s 12.9s 15.0s
Two 360s - 23.6s 26.2s 28.5s 33.2s

Sustained
No Flaps - 14.8s 16.4s 18.5s 22.1s
Full Flaps - 14.8s 16.6s 18.4s 22.2s
Best Flap - full full full full
Speed/best 105mph 105mph 100mph 100mph

Corner Speed and Radii (at 1,000ft)
Speed: 200mph
Radius: 291feet

Minimum Sustained Turn Speed: 125mph
“ Turn Radius: 436ft

Full Flaps Speed: 110mph
Full Flaps Radius: 384ft

Corner Times 1,000ft 5,000ft 10,000ft 15,000ft
180 degrees - 4.8s 5.3s 6.2s 6.4s
360 degrees - 10.8s 12.1s 13.3s 14.1s

360º Roll Rate:
150mph: 5.0s
200mph: 4.0s
250mph: 4.3s
300mph: 5.4s
350mph: 7.6s
400mph: 11.6s

Mitsubishi Zero-Sen A6M2 Reisen Model Type 21

Turn Performance
300mph - 1,000ft 5,000ft 10,000ft 15,000ft
One 360 - 11.2s 11.5s 12.5s -
Two 360s - 21.5s 23.2s 25.3s -

250mph
One 360 - 9.8s 10.4s 11.4s 12.5s
Two 360s - 21.6s 22.7s 25.7s 28.8s

Sustained
No Flaps - 13.2s 14.2s 16.7s 18.5s
Full Flaps - 13.5s 15.6s 17.3s 19.6s
Best Flap - none none none none
Speed/best - 100mph 95mph 95mph 95mph

Corner Speed and Radii (at 1,000ft):
Speed: 200mph
Radius: 291ft

Minimum Sustained Turn Speed: 110mph
“ Turn Radius: 339ft

Full Flaps Speed: 95mph
Full Flaps Radius: 299ft

Corner Times 1,000ft 5,000ft 10,000ft 15,000ft
180 degrees - 4.5s 4.7s 5.1s 5.8s
360 degrees - 9.9s 10.2s 11.7s 12.7s

360º Roll Rate:
150mph: 4.9s
200mph: 5.9s
250mph: 6.9s
300mph: 14.8s
350mph: 21.6s
400mph:

Thanks Seadog & Klem, very informative post.

Now I'm dreaming of a Mitsubishi Zero...

Patience, grasshopper...

Regards,
Sam.

Until I come with my wildcat ... :cool:

Have to agree with this 100%. In a glider in a stack you fly all the time with your eyes out of the cockpit. As a result and you rely on touch and sound to get the best out of your glider and overtake the other gliders and learning to fly to the warning signs is critical.

Its also a fairly easy thing to teach, it gives the student far more confidence in their abilities and makes it safer for other pilots.

To pretend that its the portent of doom is far from the truth.

As an aside people who highlight that because a high speed stall is loud, that things bang and it can if taken too far cause problems with the structure is only a feature of a Spitfire clearly have no experience of a high speed stall. Guess what, it happens in all aircraft even gliders and all aircraft with have structural failure if pushed too far.

We taught high speed stalls before people were allowed to go solo and it always gets peoples attention. I had an B52 gunner of many years service who thought that his world had come to an end when he first experienced one. However you also teach how to recognise one and avoid it.
In case your interested he brought his pilot along a few weeks later and he was taught how to really fly by another instructor. He got a kick out of going solo before his pilot.

I quite agree with your values Seadog (if it does interest someone)

However the Full flap recommendation with the "best Flap" tag shld be detailed as being the minimal turn radius at slow speed to avoid an obstacle or a collision during airfield operation and NOT a combat procedure.

Split flap are not quite reliable when it comes to pull G what ever your Old IL2 experience teaches you (one thing that I would like so much to stay a thing of the past and being hard coded by the devs - e.g dissimilar operation when G>[2.5; -3] is pulled)

Flaps are used in Combat, though as you correctly say not in the same way as was portrayed in IL-2 (which was the one of the faults). Far too much flap use in the sim. Full flap in a spitfire could have been used in a scissors fight as it is a radius not a rate fight. You would have to be Slow however and careful in it's employment as the speed range is small.

Good lord...

Read the NACA report and the POH.

Stall warning is not the same as stall behavior. You should know that without explaination.

You people are paraniod about your gameshapes!!

Read my first post. The physics is what it is glider. You cannot change it.

The same physics that dictates the turn rates also dictates the stability and control.

The NACA had a measurable standard.

Guys please play nice or I'll have to start dishing out infractions. :(

On another note: seems we will never know the true performance and when you read things like in this article I attached, Its not hard to see that its human nature to not want to accept the "competition" has a bigger e-peen, given our own ego's and viewpoints. (this goes to both sides of the arguments)

So we should just learn to accept we have differing opinions and present credible material and information for discussion as adults.. So can we please discuss and not attack. Remove the sarcasm, remove the snide comments. PLEASE!

This is the full quote as posted by Kurfurst:-

When the Me.109 was following the Hurricane or Spitfire, it was found that our aircraft turned inside the Me.109 without difficulty when flown by determined pilots who were not afraid to pull their aircraft round hard in a tight turn. In a surprisingly large number of cases, however, the Me. 109 succeeded in keeping on the tail of the Spitfire or Hurricane during these turning tests, merely because our Pilots would not tighten up the turn suficiently from fear of stalling and spinning. ...

It clearly has two part

a) When the Me.109 was following the Hurricane or Spitfire, it was found that our aircraft turned inside the Me.109 without difficulty when flown by determined pilots who were not afraid to pull their aircraft round hard in a tight turn. So when two deteremined pilots fly the aircraft to the full the RAF fighters easily turned inside the Me109

b) In a surprisingly large number of cases, however, the Me. 109 succeeded in keeping on the tail of the Spitfire or Hurricane during these turning tests, merely because our Pilots would not tighten up the turn suficiently from fear of stalling and spinning
Where the Me109 pilot is the most determined the Me109 can stay with the RAF fighters

From this it seems that with pilots of equal ability the RAF fighters will turn tighter.

All I am saying is read the whole quote.

The fact that pilot skill and/or tactical advantage is of paramount performance should not be a surprise. Most would agree that the Hellcat is a better fighter to a Zero, but would you fancy your chances if Saburo Saki was in the Zero?

There are some other parts of the same test report which are worth noting:-

The aircraft stalled if the turn was tightened to give more than 4 g at speeds below about 200 m.p.h. The slots opened at about ½ g before the stall, and whilst opening caused the ailerons to snatch ; this upset the pilot's sighting immediately and caused him to lose ground. When the slots were fully open the aircraft could be turned quite steadily until very near the stall. If the stick was then pulled back a little more the aircraft suddenly shuddered, and either tended to come out of the turn or dropped its wing further, oscillating meanwhile in pitch and roll and rapidly losing height ; the aircraft immediately unstalled if the stick was eased forward. Even in a very tight turn the stall was quite gentle, with no tendency for the aircraft to suddenly flick over on to its back and spin. The Spitfires and Hurricanes could follow the Me.109 round during the stalled turns without themselves showing any signs of stalling
Interesting that at very slow speeds the RAF fighters could maintain control when the Me109 was stalled. This proves that those who believe that the Me109 could turn better than the RAF fighters at slow speed are wrong.
Also that the opening of the flaps fixed with the Me109F caused the Me109E to lose ground. In a tight turning combat losing ground giving an advantage to the RAF is a serious issue. Its also worth remembering that the German Flight tests were clear when reccomending that Me109 pilots shold not get into a turning combat with the Spitfire or Hurricane

After these turns the Me.109 was put into a steep dive at full throttle with the airscrew pitch coarsened to keep the r.p.m. down. It was found that both the Hurricanes and the Spitfires could keep up with the Me.109 in the dive; the aircraft with constant speed airscrews could do this more readily than those with two-pitch airscrews. The ailerons and elevator of the Me.109 became so heavy in the dive that rapid manceuvring was impossible, while, as explained in section 4.22, banked turns could be done more readily to the right than to the left because of the absence of rudder bias.
Speed is an issue as is the lack of advantage once in a dive. Normally the 109 did have an initial advantage due to the engine cut out.

In most cases this steep climb at low airspeed was the only manceuvre whereby the Me.109 pilot could keep away from the Hurricane or Spitfire. During the general fighting which folIowed the set programme, one other feature of advantage to the Me.109 emerged. If a negative g is put on the aircraft for a short time, the engine does not cut as it is of the direct injection type; whereas on the Spitfire or Hurricane the engine immediately splutters and stops when negative g is applied, because the carburettor quickly ceases to deliver petrol under these conditions.
A steep climb at a low airspeed will work as an evasion but only if you are one to one. If there is another RAF fighter around you are a sitting target, low speed low energy.


During the general fighting, with the Me.109 chasing a Spitfire or Hurricane, some of our pilots escaped by doing a flick half-roll and then quickly pulling up out of the subsequent dive. The Me. 109 pilot found this particularly difficult to counter, for when the Me. 109 rolled after his opponent, the speed built up quickly in the steep dive which followed the half roll, and the elevator became so heavy that a quick pull out was impossible; in addition care had to be taken not to pull out quickly when the speed had decreased, because the aircraft stalled so readily under g. As a result 2,000-3,000 ft. may be lost in the manceuvre, and if a Me.109 pilot can be tempted to do this at low altitude a crash is almost inevitable. Conversation with some of the pilots who had had experience in actual combat with the Me.109 revealed that in several cases a Me.109 had, in fact, been observed to crash in this way without a shot being fired

Clearly high speed control forces is a particular issue with the Me109 as is the danger of stalling under G. Loss of height when the plane stalls is another issue.

The final summary of the turning performance is as follows:-
5.3. Comparative Turning Performance of Me.109 and Spitfire. – During the dog-fights against the Hurricane and Spitfire, it became apparent that our fighters could out-turn the Me.109 with ease when flown by determined pilots. Since the minimum radius of turn without height loss depends largely on stalling speed, and hence on wing loading, the poor turning performance of the Me.109 may be ascribed to its high wing loading, 32.2 lb./sq. ft. compared with 24.8 lb./sq. ft. on the Spitfire. It was thought of interest to go into the matter a little more deeply, and to calculate the relative performances of these aircraft in circling flight, so that the sacrifice of turning performance entailed by the Me. 109's high wing loading could be assessed qualitatively.


In a recent report on the dog-fight12 Gates gives an analysis whereby the performance of an aircraft in steady spiral flight at full throttle can be estimated from its measured full throttle performance in straight flight (partial climbs and top speed) ; the analysis leads to a compact diagram from which the radius and time of turn, and the corresponding rate of ascent or descent can be obtained at any given airspeed and normal g.

Such diagrams have been constructed for the Spitfire and Me.109, and are given in Fig. 17, together with an explanation of their use. The turning performance of the Hurricane is probably little different from that of the Spitfire, these aircraft being roughly similar in wing loading and level performance. The " stall boundary " depends on an estimate of CL max at full throttle. In the case of the Spitfire this has been measured in flight, while the Me.109 figures were based on the Spitfire results; tables of the assumed values of CL max are given in Fig. 17. CL max falls off as g is increased, because the stalling speed increases as g gets larger, thus lessening the slipstream effect.

It will be seen that the minimum radius of turn without height loss is obtained by flying as near the stall as possible at a comparatively small g. For ease of comparison the radius of turn has been plotted against speed for both aeroplanes in Fig. 18, (i) for turns at the stall, and (ii) for turns without height loss. The advantage of the Spitfire over the Me.109 at once becomes apparent, the minimum radius of turn without loss of height being about 696 ft. on the Spitfire as against 885 ft. on the Me.109. The characteristics of these turns are summarised in the following table :-

So read the whole thing

+1 Glider very well summarised and written.

I thought I'd add a translation of the German trials of the 109e, 110c, Hurricane, Curtiss and Spitfire.

Quote:

In the following performance and air combat comparison that has been performed at the E-Stelle Rechlin between Me 109E and Me 110C and the captured enemy fighters Spitfire, Hurricane and Curtiss, shall be brought to notice. The results of the comparison are to be announced immediately to all Jagd and Zestorer units to guarantee appropriate air combat behaviour in the engagements on the basis of technical conditions.

The Me109 clearly out-performs all foreign aircraft.

Speed : the Spitfire is at 0m by ca. 20 km/h, at 4km by ca. 10 km/h. Hurricane and Curtiss at 0m and 4km altitude by ca. 60km/h. A similar superiority of the Me 109E exists in climb performance too.

Climb times to 4 km.
Me109E - 4.4 mins
Spitfire - 5 mins
Hurricane - 5.6 mins
Curtiss - 5.2 mins

The Me110C is inferior speed wise to the Spitfire, superior to the Hurricane and Curtiss. Regarding climb performance the Curtiss is equal at ground level, up to 4 km superior then inferior. Hurricane is inferior up to an altitude of 2 km then superior up to 6.5 km. the Spitfire is equal at ground level but otherwise superior.

The best climb for the Me 109E and Me 110C is achieved with shallow climb angle and higher speeds than the enemy fighters.

It is wrong to climb away steeply or climb behind an enemy fighter with the same angle.

Before turning fights with the Me 109E, it must be noted that in every case, that all 3 foreign planes have significantly smaller turning circles and turning times.
An attack on the opponent as well as disengagement can only be accomplished on the basis of existing superiority in performance.

The following suggestions are made:

The Spitfire and Hurricane have 2 pitch propellers. Climbing away with the Me109 and Me 110 must be done with the best climbing speed or even higher speeds of about 280-300 km/h. On aircraft with 2 pitch propellers with low blade angle the engine will experience a very high over-revolution, on the other hand a high blade angle, high boost pressure - therefore, in other words, performance loss.

On a sudden push forward on the stick to dive, the carburettor cuts out due to negative acceleration. This evasive measure, diving, is also recommended.

The rolling ability of the enemy fighters at high speeds is worse than that of the Me 109. Quick changes of trajectory along the vertical axis cause, especially with the Spitfire, load changes around the cranial axis, coming from high longitudinal thrust momentum, and significantly disturbing aiming.

In summary it can be said that all three enemy types are inferior to the German planes regarding flying qualities. The Spitfire has bad elevator and rudder stability on the target approach. In addition, wing-mounted weapons have known shooting technique disadvantages.

A bit more on the subject.

On the 11th July 1940 Wing Commander George Stainforth - of Schneider trophy fame flew the 109 in a seris of comparative trials concerning the turning circles of the 109, Spitfire and Hurricane. Stainforths subsequent report concluded that the Hurricane out-turned the 109 'within about 1 complete turn' and that 'The Messerschmitt appears to be only slightly faster than the Hurricane.' 'The Spitfire out turned the 109 almost as easily as the Hurricane'
(unlike the Rechlin tests this Spitfire had a CSP). 'The Spitfire pilot reported that he had no difficulty in sitting on the 109s tail, and could, in fact have tightened his turn quite a lot more and got well on the inside, he was at +5 boost, almost full throttle'

The world is not white and black.

Let's talk about flying skill of the pilot: there is the general skill and I agree that the 109 pilot was really skilled, if not he would not be chosen as enemy for the test. But being a skilled pilot in some kind of plane does not mean that your as skilled in another one. For accuracy I asked to my teammate, the military pilot, and he agree with me... you need experience in THAT plane to reach the best performance. The document states that he fled it until he was used to it (how many hours? can't read by now)... but how can we know that he could push the plane at its limit like the determined pilots did in their Spitfires?

This "H + Sp > H + Bf > L + Sp" (H is a High skilled pilot, L is Low skilled pilot) as many of you want to use as proof is wrong. We don't know if the L pilots are really inexperienced... they could be expert Hurricanes' pilots flying in a Spitfire!!
So it's "H + Sp > H + Bf > (?) + Sp"

But, again, H and L can't be the pilot general skill... they must be the personal skill in those planes.
Lets add the new variable (there A means that pilot is really accustomed to the plane, and B means that the pilot is not used to fly it)...

H + Sp + (A) > H + Bf + (?) > (?) + Sp + (?)

So we don't know the overall skill of the outturned Spitfire's pilots.... we don't know if the 109 pilot could push it to its limit.... the only thing we can know is that the determined pilots who actually outturned the 109 were experienced pilots but for sure more used to fly Spitfires than the 109's pilot was used to fly the german plane.

Now can they outturn a "Marseille"? Probably... but how can we be so sure?

So now it's normal to think that the SPit outurned the Hurri ?

Regarding all you have posted Seadog, it's sad that you keep posting things that have been alrdy discussed heavily. It show what I am saying since long now : some of you don't care at all of what others can says and keep posting the same extract, the same curves, the same "document" even if those are questionable.

That's boring. We push arguments frwrd and you keep putting wall of this in every post.

Boring.

Did you ever see that we have no prob saying that the Spit will outurn a 109 in what was the condition of the test? You didn't even read that. Convinced that the truth can't be other that what you did build in your own mind.

Dogfighting is a difficult exercise. It's not acrobatic work. But that you can not understand and keep holding the point of view that the best turner have to be British and rules the fight.

Before pasting bellow another hundreds of copied lines from another thread, take the time to re-read what we have said. Otherwise, ONCE MORE, there is no point arguing with some of you.

Operational results during BoB shows that the Hurri has been the best fighter, just followed by the 109 (I put logically the Hurri frwd as it did won BoB when the 109 just loose). But that you don't care. You and others can't admits that point and still push forward the SPit, mixing it's perf with latter model just to ensure you have your Tie-Fighter ride online. Of course that a thing that you can't do with the Hurri as the theSidney Cam fighter did reach nearly all it's potential during BoB.

Moreover, anyone with an ounce of flying experience flying the SPit we have in game see immediately how ridiculous it behave. This has been pointed by many others before but still we have to ear your ridiculous discussions about frwd speed, mean tide height for "accurate" perf assessment (Oh G. forgive us for our sins), and many hair raising theorizing idea.

Enough is enough. I want myself to be able to fly a SPitfire in CoD without feeling ashamed of myself. That's how a proud Brit should spend his time on an aviation forum !

Why does it hve to be a Frenchman writing that ?

I think we agree on most things.

There is a difference between skill and experience on that I think we agree. It is quite possible to have a lot of experience on an aircraft but still not be skilled enough to takie it to the limit. It is also possible to be very skilled and not a lot of experience in an aircraft.

The Me109 was flown by an RAE pilot who we can assume is a very skilled pilot used to flying a variety of different types of aircraft. As you say he wouldn't have been given the job without that extra something. Test flying is by definition the art of taking the plane to the limit, to push the envelope to see what it does.
You are correct, we don't know how many hours he had on the Me109 but that is of lesser important than his experience as a test pilot.
From the test we know that he was confident to fly the Me 109 past the deployment of the slats which is something a number of German pilots didn't do. We know that from other quotes from other german pilots. We also know that he flew it past the stall in a tight turn until he had to recover it which means that he did push the envelope until the plane stalled.
The intresting thing is the combat with the RAF pilots. Some clearly did fly their aircraft until the shudder and those did turn inside the Me109 whatever the 109 pilot did, even until the Me109 stalled. However, others didn't and they found the Me109 when flown to the limit, stayed with them.
Those RAF would have been experienced but the skill level differed. I say they would have been experienced because if a Sqdn Leader was asked to send some pilots to fly mock dogfights against an Me109, I am willing to bet a pound to a penny they would go themselves and say the flight leaders. They wouldn't send someone inexperienced

|I know my experience was in gliders but I flew a number of different types and it didn't take that long to get the hang of something. The only real issues were if the glider had a new feature which I had no experience in, how to use that feature took a little time but you got there within a few days, not weeks.

Edit - I should add that using the new feature was fairly easy, getting the bewst use of it was something else. In my case it was when I started to fly high performance gliders with water ballast. Using it was easy, knowing when to use it was tricky

The Stability and Control characteristics of the early marque Spitfires are well defined and measureable across multiple sources, the RAE, NACA, and post war stability and control engineering text's.

As are the views of those who flew it

Subjective opinion, unmeasureable, and without definition...

Possibly, quite possibly, but the problem with post war studies are precisely that, they are post war. The benchmarks that apply post war are often not the same benchmarks that apply during a war. Even during a war, there are sometimes differences between what the engineers believe to be acceptable and what the people on the front line believe to be acceptable.

This is probably the main difference between us.

The NACA study was not post war....

The RAE Operating Notes warnings were not post war.....

Gates attempts to get the RAE on a measureable standard were not post war.....

He wrote over 130 papers during his career on stability and control. A significant portion of them were written during the war attempting to convince his colleagues at the Air Ministry to adopt measureable standards.

In fact, Gates stability margin criteria were part of the NACA's standards!!! Gates developed the "Aerodynamic Center" which would replace the obsolete "center of pressure".

All of Gates findings agreed with the NACA's conclusions!

He and Gilruth were good friends. In his 1942 visit to the NACA, Gilruth hosted Gates.

One of his sources for the development of the following table is the basis of the NACA standards!!

Just as a chart of speed or climb performance shows us how the aircraft should perform, the plots of acceleration forces over velocity tell us how the aircraft performs in abrupt maneuvers.

For satisfactory stability and control, a pilot is able to precisely control the accelerations on the aircraft.

This is not what the plots show for the Spitfire. The accelerations vary wildly as the pilot is unable to precisely control them.

It is a fantasy world to think the physical world will change because your scared and your life is being threatenend. The reality is you will just do something dumb and make the enemies job of killing you easier.

Then you need to explain why if in theory the pilot is unable to precisely control them, did all the pilots I have read about, of all nations, praise the Spits handling abilities.

It is a fundamental difference and I would appreciate it if you could explain this conundrum.


Re this statement
It is a fantasy world to think the physical world will change because your scared and your life is being threatenend. The reality is you will just do something dumb and make the enemies job of killing you easier.

Its rubbish, I can think of a half dozen examples where the rules that apply in war did not apply in peace and / or where the theorists during the war were at odds wiith the people in the front line.
You are firmly in the theorists area,

Did you really read many of them talking specifically about the production model mk I & II ? because that's what we are talking abt here.

You'd certainly read it everywhere about the Hurri an the 109.

Just remind the heavy losses young Spit pilots did have to suffer compared to their Hurri colleagues.

There are rules, which are made by people, and there are physical laws which come with the universe (what or who made that being an unknown), you are talking about rules being broken in war, which happens, what does not happen is the universe being bent out of shape just for the wars of puny humans on a microscopic planet.

Light forces and small stick travel is very pleasant to cruise about on nice day.

My DD214 says something different, what does yours say!!

:grin:

This is getting silly.

EVERY account by Battle of Britain pilots flying the Spitfire for the first time -- including the 2-speed Spitfire Mark I -- extolled their praises of its handling characteristics and performance capabilities. Start with Al Deere's "Nine Lives", which I read back in '63, and there are dozens more accounts all of which are glowing in their initial and subsequent impressions of the early Spits. I've never read a negative report on the Spitfire's handling -- not a one.

EDIT: Oops, I lied: No one was keen on the Merlin cutting out with negative g's. Granted, that has nothing to do with the stability of the Spitfires, but IS a handling characteristic no one liked.

Unfortunately, those who flew and fought in the Spitfires back in 1940 never had the benefit of Crumps' theoretical insights that may have swayed their collective opinion to the contrary.

There is no theory to it. It is measured, quantified, and the performance plotted.

I stand corrected. Please allow me to correct my earlier statement:

FORTUNATELY, those who ACTUALLY flew and fought in the Spitfires back in 1940 never had the benefit of Crumps' PROVEN IRONCLAD insights that may have swayed their collective opinion to the contrary.

Better?

rotfl

:lol:...........Snapper you'da man.

Crumpp

In your reply you seem to have forgotten to address the main outstanding question which I repeat here.

Then you need to explain why if in theory the pilot is unable to precisely control them, did all the pilots I have read about, of all nations, praise the Spits handling abilities.

It is a fundamental difference and I would appreciate it if you could explain this conundrum.

I await your reply

PS its important to remember that the German pilots also thought highly of the handling of the Spitfire and Hurricane

Its been quoted before but this is Molders view of an early version:-
"It was very interesting to carry out the flight trials at Rechlin with the Spitfire and the 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 its 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 Bf 109. As a fighting aircraft, however, it is miserable. A sudden push forward on the stick will cause the Motor to cut; and because the propeller has only two pitch settings (take-off and cruise), in a rapidly changing air combat situation the motor is either overspeeding or else is not being used to the full."

As I said earlier I await your explanation as to why Molders as well as the RAF and other pilots had it so wrong

Once again I agree with you. The rules differ in war vs peace as the risk element differs so much. I also agree the point is reached where the rules of nature cannot be broken. Its a question as to how close to that point do the rules apply.

Frankly I don't give a damn about what your piece of paper may or may not say.

I worked in IT as a Programme Manager on some good sized projects such as making the group systems Euro compliant, installing and testing new networks in all the prisons in the UK and Satellite Latency projects for the Home office. I represented all UK Insurance brokers in discussions over IT standards for European and USA networks etc

I have never had any training in IT, I never went to University and I never sat any A levels. I joined the RN at 16 did my time as an Airframes and Engines Articifer and didn't start in IT at the age of 35.
However I was the one who got the projects that had gone wrong, or were at serious risk. I promise you that the PM's I took over from had lots of pieces of paper from some of the best Universities in the UK including Oxford, Cambridge and they were IT pieces of paper.

What I looked for was how people applied what they knew, how they replied to questions and issues, how practical problems were addressed. People who would not reply to questions didn't last long.

Easy to fly in what situation? Just take off, land and fly around is one thing, fly it on the edge or combat is another. Some non desirable or vicious caracteristcs only became clear when the aircraft is flown to its limits.

The 109 for example had very desirable caracteristic for a fighter when flown to the edge. The slats granted very forgiving stall caracteristics that allowed the pilots confidence to fly the aircraft to its limits. The same time slats could cause the less experienced pilots to miss their target.

Every modern fighter hve wing leading flaps or slats and none hve elliptical wings. But that they don't understand.

As they pretend not to understand the diff btw sustained turns, and turns with excess of energy even when we are lucky to get excellent account here on this forum. Those guys are boring.

Clearly I don't know no one does, only Molders really knows, but I am willing to bet that he did more than circuits and bumps in them. Its equally wrong to assume that he didn't wring the aircraft out.

Not to be rude as I think there is a lot of interesting debate and conversation going on here but could a few of you, (you know who you are) please make another thread to have these pages and pages of conversation in.

Call it something like.... "the great debate - 109 vs Spit" Im sure you get my drift. ;)