Quote:
Originally Posted by TomcatViP
Regarding the 109:
-Slats are deployed in front of the ailerons in order to keep ctrl at stall conditions. No wing drop (and full airflow around the pouter portion of teh wing), no asymmetric stall . Hence no spin. This is why Crumpp refer it as an anti-spin device. So Crumpp was right (again...)
|
Then why is washout not automatically considered an anti-spin device? it has exactly the same function, to prevent the outer portions of the wing from stalling and maintain aileron effectiveness during the stall and prevent assymetrical stall, if you do consider washout an anti-spin device then what makes it inferior to slats?
so why is it that 2 aircraft with 2 solutions to the same problem (Spit/109) apparently have totally different behaviours? is it really because of the elevator design on the 109 which prevented the use of pitch at stalling angles? or perhaps the design was too stable (see RAE report) which meant there was not enough elevator authority?
either way it seems you get 2 choices here, either the 109 was able to turn well (and possibly suffer a spin if overdone) or you have limited elevator authority which impedes manouverability.