Quote:
|
And here is a perfect example of what I was refering to, that being how two people can read 'pilot accounts' and get different results
|
I think in that case, the pilots got different results.
Unless you really try very hard to make one plane appear better or worse than the other, ie abusing historical pilot reports to support your point of view. But who cares.
I generally base my idea of how these planes compared (maneuverability wise), on reports of pilots, who flew both (or more) types. And most of those reports fit each other exceptionally well. Which might not be the "correct" approach, but atleast it rules out some bias.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kurfürst
Because leading edge slats were fitted for exactly to this reason. Its no coincidence that slats cover the wing area ahead of ailerons, and maintain steady airflow without stalling at that part of the wing.
|
(sorry for cutting your post)
I'm totally aware of that and how slats work, but i don't think that's what macro meant when he compared slow speed rolling. But i probably misunderstood his post or interpreted it wrongly.
Anyway, yes, in the case you describe, slats definately help rolling and are in case of the 109 (lacking washout) a requirement for controllability at critically low speeds / high AoA.
So yes, the slats help, when they come out. Wether or not they are an advantage compared to washout or similar design features of a plane, regarding roll "performance", is a different thing though.