Sure, in an aircraft with acceptable stability and control characteristics...

If you don't have that then the pilot can kill himself and turn the aircraft to aluminum confetti as the Spitfire Operating Notes tells you.

Keep in mind that pilots in the 1930's and 1940's were not the technical experts found in today's aviation world.

They were practical pilots who got there mostly on their courage. It was felt that it was beyond the pilots comprehension to delve too deeply into the science of flight.

Pilots were given a rudimentary knowledge of aerodynamics at best and strict left/right limits required to operate the aircraft.

ie: Quill was a no nothing pilot who just operated the controls and hoped for the best - yeah right! Interesting how Barbi and Crumpp now attack one of the most highly regarded test plots of his generation because they don't like what he wrote about the Spitfire...way to go guys! :rolleyes:

Well we just noted that Quills opinion is at odd with the very detailed testing findings of RAE, NACA and E'Stelle Rechlin. I am quite sure you are right that all these organisations experience objectiveness in testing aircraft and assessing their flying qualities pales in comparison with that of the manufacturer's own test pilot. ;)

You push any aircraft past its limits and failure may happen. However it is a rare case. What I find intersting is that you don't take note of the comments from the German pilots who flew the Spitfire and said that it was easier to fly than the 109, or the Jugoslav pilots who flew the Hurricane and Me109. Why do you just ignore that?

Does anyone have the pilots notes for the 109, I am confident that if they are to the same scope then they will have their won warnings.

Partly true, however the UK were the first to train test pilots in the 40's Germany and the USA didn't.

Because you haven't shown any...? I believe Moelders stated that the Spitfire and Hurricane are easier to land than the 109. He also added that they are otherwise miserable as fighter aircraft.

Yes I have. It doesn't have any of the longitudal stability references as the Spitfire pilot's notes, however. There are a few similarities - both manuals warn the pilot against the dangers of using the ailerons too hard in dives, as there is a danger of structural failure (twisting forces).

Molders:
"It was very interesting to carry out the flight trials at Rechlin with the Spitfire and the Hurricane. Both types are very simple to fly compared to our aircraft, and childishly easy to take-off and land

The Spitfire is one class better. It handles well, is light on the controls, faultless in the turn and has a performance approaching that of the Bf 109......"

And he only had an 87 octane 2 stage prop aeroplane to test which is why he goes on to criticise it a little. I guess he changed his mind after the Battle of Britain lol

Full quote instead of the usual selective quoting:

"It was very interesting to carry out the flight trials at Rechlin with the Spitfire and the Hurricane. Both types are very simple to fly compared to our aircraft, and childishly easy to take-off and land. The Hurricane is good-natured and turns well, but its performance is decidedly inferior to that of the Me 109. It has strong stick forces and is "lazy" on the ailerons.

The Spitfire is one class better. It handles well, is light on the controls, faultless in the turn and has a performance approaching that of the Bf 109. As a fighting aircraft, however, it is miserable. A sudden push forward on the stick will cause the Motor to cut; and because the propeller has only two pitch settings (take-off and cruise), in a rapidly changing air combat situation the motor is either overspeeding or else is not being used to the full."

So he though the Spitfire is not quite the same performance as the 109, and otherwise it's 'miserable'. I guess that concludes the story. ;)

Source please to 87 octane fuel only. Why would the Germans test an aircraft on 87 octane fuel, when supposedly all Spitfires were running on 100 octane, and would be captured in such state..? Hmm?

Yeah I did that one purpose because you already had, thus exposing your hypocracy. The model he had did not use 12lbs nor CSP - that is why it approaches the performance rather than exceeds it. An emergency bunt and run is a defensive move in a dogfight, very useful but not as a killing tactic.

Now why would exactly would they fuel it with 100 octane then Kurfurst? I though you said the RAF weren't using it. Prove to me that they put 100 in it - that's your claim not mine.

Sensible people can use deduction and logic anyway. The very fact that it is a 2 stage Spitfire means that it has a Merlin II and was in operation during the Battle of France, and that a Merlin II required conversion to accept 100 octane fuel and make use of 12lbs of boost in the first place. Then there is the fact that Molders doesn't mention use of the ABC which he would have had to use in order to get over 6.25lbs anyway.

So, either the LW decided to fuel an aircraft with a fuel that would destroy the engine or the RAF had all their fighters converted by the Fall of France but then decided to stop using it and convert them back again when the BoB started. Yeah, right.........just stop being so silly would you.