I really doubt that, as i've read a report about Aileron tests on Spitfires in 1941 where is written that the Spitfire Ailerons loose 65% effectiveness at 400 mp/h because of wing twist, and that 54 lbs force are needed to get a 3°deflection on them.

Aileron reversal speed at 10000 ft was 477 mph ias.

The Rudder and the elevator of the 109 did get very stiff at highest speeds, but the ailerons also? And more that the spitfire ones with their reduced effectiveness?

I've lost interest in this, fanboys are here and then the mods will arrive to stop people saying things to each other.

Salute

Anyone bothering to read the historical tests of the respective aircraft, (early 109 and Spit), you will find both rolled very poorly at high speeds.

And high speed rolls or abrupt use of the elevator at high speed was not recommended for either. This could result in wing loss for either aircraft, the Luftwaffe Command had an advisory put out on the 109's mid war after there were quite a number of wing losses due to over zealous aileron use at high speeds. Spitfires in all versions could suffer structural damage when the elevator was pulled hard at high speeds.

The facts are: Both of these planes were capable of achieving speeds at which ham handed use of the controls could cause catastrophic damage. Yank and Bank drivers need not apply.

This is especially the case when there has been damage taken. Make sure you check your aircraft for damage before launching yourself into a vertical descent. If you don't, don't complain when parts start to come loose.

QFT

If someone has data showing the max attainable roll rate at a specified speed and altitude, they should start a thread in the FM section. Otherwise, there's really no point in arguing it any further.

Trotting out a bunch of vague pilot reports is just going to obfuscate the matter and get everyone hot under the collar.

Like this?

http://i822.photobucket.com/albums/z...e/1f2ccd42.jpg

Not sure what to think about this. Should probably test...

I used this technique to successfully evade a high energy 109 at 15k yesterday (he couldn't keep up) but also successfully chased down a diving spit tonight in a 109 without breaking up. Did you put pitch fully coarse?

well a brick dives faster than a feather ;)

Winny
One thing that struck me about that posting is how measured the results were, the pressure that had to be applied, the point at which the weasurments were taken, the time taken to bank at a set speed and so on. Clearly they were not just relying on the pilots opinions.
Excellent posting and that Gloster looks as if it would have been well able to take care of itself, what a roll rate.

Thanks, it's just a page from the 109 tests at the RAE.

If anyone would like a copy of it let me know and i'll put it on Dropbox.

I would love a copy :)