Quote:
Originally Posted by NZtyphoon
...
The reports which floated into the A & AEE and RAE through HQ Fighter Command on these so-called 'rogue' aircraft did much to confuse the issue during our early efforts to deal with the problem. Provided the ailerons were correctly 'tuned' and the aeroplane correctly flown, there was only one central problem - the ailerons were much too heavy at speed." (Jeffrey Quill Spitfire: A Test Pilot's Story John Murray, 1983, pp. 180-181)
Quill went on to write:
"I have mentioned how badly I felt about the ailerons of the Spitfire at the time of the Battle of Britain. In October 1940 I flew a captured ME109E; to my surprise and relief I found the ailerons control of the German fighter every bit as bad, if not worse than, at high speed as the Spitfire I and II with fabric-covered ailerons. It was good at low and medium speed but above 400 mph and above it was almost immovable. I thouught the Me 109E performed well, particularly on the climb at altitude, and it had good stalling characteristics under g except that the leading edge slats kept snapping in and out; but it had no rudder trimmer, which gave it a heavy footload at high speed; while the cockpit, the canopy and the rearward vision were much worse than that in a Spitfire." (183)
|
So basically Quill stated himself that the ailerons of a standard spit remained heavy. His concern that he expressed was about the spit dropping a wing with a badly manufactured aileron or being badly trimmed. He never mentioned that the bad roll rate at high speed or high aileron forces were reduced by fitting a good aileron to the plane according to your quotes. So Quill does NOT contradict the graphes that were posted.
The report that I referred to in my post also does not dismiss any measured value as wrong but only basically said that at that time (when they wrote the report - without the wisdom of hindsight) they wanted to have confirmation or infirmation by other sources.