[NZtyphoon]

Originally Posted by *Buzzsaw*

Actually your comments are an exaggeration.

What the slats do is allow a pilot the confidence that if he pulls too much G and stalls his aircraft, the likelyhood of a violent spin is diminished and the knowledge he should be able to recover relatively easily.

The slats in themselves do not give any guarantee of a stall not occurring, they merely make the event, when it occurs, less violent.

The pilot still must be able to judge whether or not his aircraft is about to depart, and how many G's he is able to pull before departure may occur.

The slats opened prior to the stall, by RAF estimation, approx. 1/2 a G, and in pulling further G's and in order to avoid a stall, the pilot had to know the further signs of a stall approach, in the same way a Spitfire or Hurricane pilot was required to monitor his aircraft's behaviour.

In addition, the installation of the slats was not without penalty. As noted, the slats by deploying, increased the lift generated by the outer section of the wing, but they also generate more drag and reduce the speed of the aircraft. For earlier models of the 109, in particular the E, the chances of the slats deploying assymetrically in a turn was a factor, which was noted to cause aileron snatching and which could cause the aircraft to change direction without the pilot's intention.

From what I have read 109 pilots did have concerns about the slats banging open, causing a jolt because of aileron snatching and sometimes upsetting the pilot's aim. Fact is that all designs are a compromise in one way or t'other - like I keep saying slats were no better nor worse at aiding control than other aerodynamic aids. In the end it was the pilot's skills and experience that made a real difference; learning how to get the best out of the aircraft was a great survival technique.