Every report ever written on the Spitfire has apparently flawed because they were always have been made on a 'rogue' plane or a single example that proves nothing etc.

How boring.

Except that everyone knows that Quill is khmm... the most outspoken priest of the Spitfire ever. If you ask Quill, the thing had no faults, and they were also immediately and complete fixed. Over and over again. Which is why he is liked to be quoted so much, as if his word was some kind of ultimate judgement which overwrites detailed reports. Quill may have an opinion, but these reports have the hard facts.

Personally I find Henshaw far, far more objective. At least he doesn't try to make it like how everything was made just perfect, despite some very obscene hiccups in the development (fabric ailerons being one of them)

That's pretty much the very best self-description I have ever read. I mean you keep playing the know-it-better smartass everytime, and then make it like as if the 'a loooong, tedious thread' its someone else fault, and then comes the usual yada-yada about your precious time and how you will put everyone on ignore.

Problem is, you've only registered here to carry over some feuds from other places, and you have made almost as many posts in 2 months as Crumpp or I did in 4 years. :D

Nope, arguing over minute details is exactly what you like to do. At least don't blame it on others. ;)

Quill is to the Spitfire as Barbi is to the Bf109.

Actually I find this highlighted phrase (bold) more interesting in the quote of NZTyphoon:

It says clearly that when riding the stall the margin was still big on pulling the stick.

I find the red phrase also interesting. Perhaps somebody with excellent understanding of flight mechanics can explain why large accelerations may be bad when flying at stall limit.

Hmm, Im no expert, far from it but wouldnt/doesnt the AoA change when power is applied (torque) hence changing the flow over the wings?

Yes, to my understanding it would increase the speed (if longitudinal acceleration is considered) hence reduce AoA which hence should reduce stall.

With lateral acceleration increase (into the turn) the velocity vector should turn more but I do not understand how this could worsen the stall situation.

Sort of correct, mainly it's the AoA increase would put you over critical and you would get a departure, torque would just define which way you go into the resulting spin, the propwash wouldn't help much in this case.

My guess is that they do not address thrust increase otherwise they would have written it I think.

Reading more closely the phrase I come to think that they perhaps wanted to say "as long as g level remained low during maximum lift pulls" meaning that the absolut lift was low while providing maximum lift for that given speed.

I admit to wondering what all the fuss is about. The vast majority of my flying experience has been in gliders so what I say comes with that caviet.

Any high speed stall is an exciting event even in a glider. By definition things happen quickly and often violently, so no suprise there.

Where the pilots notes warn about rough conditions causing the pilot to make control movements that can impact flight, its common sense and often happens. It could be that my experience is different here as what a powered plane calls turbulance is what we call potential lift and have more experience flying in those conditions. This warning would apply to any small aircraft, be it a Spitfire, 109, Piper Cub or glider.

Flying on the edge of a stall using the stall warning to stay close to the maximum performance is again a good thing, glider pilots often fly on the edge and in one case when I lost my instruments whle thermalling in a cloud with driving rain, had a good deal to do with my safe exit.
Edit - had my glider had automatic front edge slats like the 109, I may well have had to bail out, never thought of that before.


A violent spin if you push past the boundary is again nothing to worry about, it happens and you are trained not to go past the edge. I have seen international standard pilots make this mistake and spin out of a stack. You soon recognise the warning signs.

A couple of general observations,
a) the best fighters are by design borderline unstable.
b) Nearly all the reports I have seen from German pilots who flew captured Spifires said that they were easier to fly than the 109. This again supported by the Jugoslav airforce who had both Hurricanes and 109E's and used the Hurricane as a lead in to the 109 because of accidents. The RAF didn't use Hurricanes as a lead in to the Spitfire.

I find it a bit of a failure in job description that a test pilot would not report any faults because he thought it was perfect. Get real Kurfurst.

I just find it pure comedy gold that Kurfursts arrogance and general hatred of the Spit is such that he genuinely believes that he knows more about Spits that Quill did.

says everything you need to know.