Spitfire supposed to dive better than the 109?

[senseispcc]

.
Do also remember that the first Spitfire did have fabric covered control surfaces how where dangerous in a dive.

[whoarmongar]

Clostermann and his wingman Ian Blair in Spitfire VII`s (high altitude presure cabins extended wingtips) intercepted a german aircraft that Clostermann reported as a Me 109G with aux fuel tanks under the wings at 43000 ft.
Faced with two Spits ahead and about 1000 ft above him the 109 rolled onto his back and dived straight towards the sea, with the Spits about 1/2 mile behind and following him straight down.
At 27000 ft Closters A.S indicator showed 440 mph and he needed both hands on the stick and to lean into the controls with all his strength to keep the aircraft in a straight line.
The controls were jammed @10000 ft Ian Blair closed to within 600 yds of the !09 and opened fire a short burst. The Me109G tore in half a wing tore off and the aircraft exploded.
Pulling back on the stick wasnt pulling the Spit out of its dive so he gave the trimmer a full turn back , the G force crumpled him, the whole aircraft creaked and groaned and the momentum had carried him up to 13000 feet.

[Osprey]

The Spit mach test was at FAE in a modified machine so it wasn't your run of the mill Spit Ia. That said it is extremely strong and managed .85 with Eric Brown at the controls. His colleague managed more because he was strong enough to apply more stick pressure.

I believe the OP expected just to catch the Spitfire up, this is not necessarily the case. The 109 had greater dive acceleration and much of this was due to the negative G cutout problem on the merlin, so often the 109 would pull away. At high speed though, due to the lack of rudder trim, a great deal of effort was required by the pilot of the 109 in applying rudder to trim out which the Spitfire could handle better. I recently read from one pilot (I forget) that he had no problem catching 109's diving because he barrel rolled to follow thus keeping G and engine power. You can do this in game, it's an effective method of dropping onto enemy without getting a cutout.

I am more bothered by the BS 'bunt' that 109's apply when getting hit. I believe that the pilot should risk injury from the violent bunts that 109's perform, up and down like bucking horses - show me a single guncam where that is happening - the body couldn't take it!

[Osprey]

Originally Posted by senseispcc

.
Do also remember that the first Spitfire did have fabric covered control surfaces how where dangerous in a dive.

Actually the roll response at these diving speeds (say above 350mph) was better in the Spitfire than the 109. There are graphs available displaying roll vs speed from tests

[Osprey]

Originally Posted by bw_wolverine

I wonder how many forms the pilot had to sign before that one!

Eric 'Winkle' Brown did it, it was his job to do these types of things.

Read his book, it is excellent, he did a lot of nutcase things, like the time he flew a helicopter from Liverpool to Farnborough for the first time after just reading the manual!

[CaptainDoggles]

Originally Posted by Osprey

I am more bothered by the BS 'bunt' that 109's apply when getting hit. I believe that the pilot should risk injury from the violent bunts that 109's perform, up and down like bucking horses - show me a single guncam where that is happening - the body couldn't take it!

There's BS on both sides; I could just as easily have made my previous post about RAF pilots flying with open canopy to abuse the sound radar bug but I chose not to.

Let's not turn this into a flame war.

[Osprey]

It's not for flaming, more something I just consider unrealistic. I fly with the canopy open sometimes because I forget it's open, and when I do it is to see better, I think that's the case for most pilots. That said, yes, close it or at least have penalties for it open such as drag.

[CaptainDoggles]

Originally Posted by Osprey

It's not for flaming, more something I just consider unrealistic. I fly with the canopy open sometimes because I forget it's open, and when I do it is to see better, I think that's the case for most pilots. That said, yes, close it or at least have penalties for it open such as drag.

Most figures I've seen quoted for human negative G endurance peg about -3G as the limit.

You think they're pushing more than 3 G's over the nose? Got proof? Otherwise, drop the editorials please.

[Osprey]

Look whose started the flaming.......I'd love you to test that bucking horse in RL, would mash you up in the cockpit and you know it.

"Proove this, proove that"

If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck...........

[NZtyphoon]

Originally Posted by Glider

I wouldn't set too much store in the 0.92 Mach no. It was reached but it was a test pilot and the machine basically fell apart around him, the prop came off, the engine almost fell out.

Mind you the wings stayed on

Alex Henshaw's account of experiments conducted on a Mk V are interesting: pilots were complaining that the engines were over-revving in a dive, so Castle Bromwich test pilots conducted some test flights:



Here's an account by an aerodynamicist regarding the fabric ailerons:

Originally Posted by ATAG_Dutch

Both true. In fact when I did my dive tests, I pulled out using the trimmer exclusively. In the high speed dives, I need a lot of down trim and a lot of rudder trim, but got up to at least 440mph, maybe 450, but by that time I was more concerned with where the ground was.

P.S. I also brought prop pitch down to fully coarse, i.e. lowest revs.

From Pilot's Notes Spitfire IIA & IIB

DIVING

21. The maximum permissible diving speed is 450 m.p.h. A.S.I*. Note the following:

(i) Constant-speed airscrew. - At maximum r.p.m., 3,000 , the throttle must be 1/3rd open. The pitch control need not be brought back to reduce r.p.m., the range of pitch is enough to hold down the r.p.m. at any airspeed.

(ii) The flaps must be up at over 120 m.p.h A.S.I.

(iii) The aeroplane should be trimmed in the dive, i.e. the trimming control tab should be set to give no load on the elevator. This will lessen the possibility of excessive "g" being induced in easing out of the dive, particularly if the pilot should release his hold on the stick owing to "blacking out' or any other reasons. No difficulty is experienced easing out of the dive will be experienced even if the aeroplane is trimmed in the dive as the elevator is comparatively light and recovery is not resisted by excessive stability in pitch. Elevator tabs may be used, very carefully, as described in para. 14.

(iv) The rate of descent is very great, so ample room for recovery must be allowed.

* Note Henshaw's comment on speed being pegged at 470 m.p.h. A.S.I so one wonders whether this was a misprint in the Pilot's Notes.