Above quote from 'Last of the few' by Max Arthur, combat report of a pilot of the 64th Squadron RAF, F/O Michael Wainwright.

Hence the often quoted anecdotal comments by Luftwaffe veterans that the "better" 109E pilots would deliberately alternate between slats in and out, using the slats temporarily to tighten the turn or pull lead and then almost immediately easing on the stick to regain lost speed.


- Erwin Leykauf, German fighter pilot, 33 victories. Source: Messerschmitt Bf109 ja Saksan Sotatalous by Hannu Valtonen; Hurricane & Messerschmitt, Chaz Bowyer and Armand Van Ishoven:

http://www.virtualpilots.fi/feature/articles/109myths/

"The Bf 109s also had leading edge slats. When the 109 was flown, advertently or inadvertently, too slow, the slats shot forward out of the wing, sometimes with a loud bang which could be heard above the noise of the engine. Many times the slats coming out frightenened young pilots when they flew the Bf 109 for the first time in combat. One often flew near the stalling speed in combat, not only when flying straight and level but especially when turning and climbing. Sometimes the slats would suddenly fly out with a bang as if one had been hit, especially when one had throttled back to bank steeply. Indeed many fresh young pilots thought they were pulling very tight turns even when the slats were still closed against the wing. For us, the more experienced pilots, real manoeuvring only started when the slats were out. For this reason it is possible to find pilots from that period (1940) who will tell you that the Spitfire turned better than the Bf 109. That is not true. I myself had many dogfights with Spitfires and I could always out-turn them.
One had to enter the turn correctly, then open up the engine. It was a matter of feel. When one noticed the speed becoming critical - the aircraft vibrated - one had to ease up a bit, then pull back again, so that in plan the best turn would have looked like an egg or a horizontal ellipse rather than a circle. In this way one could out-turn the Spitfire - and I shot down six of them doing it. This advantage to the Bf 109 soon changed when improved Spitfires were delivered."

Right....

What you don't understand is that speed reduction reduces radius and improves turn performance until Va is reached.

The airplane that slows down the fastest to Va will win the instantenous turn fight.

Exactly.

He is flying a yo-yo and not a constant altitude turn. By combining the climb advantage of the Bf-109 at low speed climbs with the advantage of the slats, Erwin Leykauf is defeating the constant altitude turn performance advantage of the Spitfires he is fighting.

http://kurfurst.org/Tactical_trials/...ls/Morgan.html

The Bf-109 and Spitfire are about as equal a match of dogfighters as one can get.

Are you fishing and this is bait?

What was the condition of the Bf-109 and the pilot? Was the aircraft damaged? Was the pilot wounded? Was it a real spin or did the pilot pass out??

In otherwords, it is an interesting story but without the details definately does not contradict the findings of the RLM or the RAE.

Would a pilot in a damaged a/c or being wounded not try to 'get the heck out of Dodge' and not be the aggressor in combat?

Must have been one heck of a G he was pulling to pass out, especially in a 109.

The first is a hard one to answer; that really depends on individuals and - in some cases - their indoctrination. Japanese pilots, for example often attacked when wounded or in damaged aircraft; one example was an A6M pilot during the Pearl Harbor attacks who tried to "body crash" a hanger because his aircraft was damaged and (I think) he was wounded(?). Nicholson, who won the V.C during the B of B, is another example of a pilot who chose to attack, albeit he was presented with the opportunity, while in desperate circumstances.

No I am not fishing :o I was just reading that book and came across several instances of 109 pilots spinning in while trying to follow the RAF fighters in a tight turn.

Of course it does not say anything about the skill of the pilot(s) or state of the pilot and the plane. Maybe the plane wasn't a Bf 109 at all. Just remembered this thread and thought it was an interesting find - especially how you claim it was pretty much unspinnable because it had slats. I believe they helped a great deal but you'd have to be in perfect control of your plane. Same in the game - if you're in control and have experience in 109, you won't spin her. Good 109 pilots can be often seen maneuvring with Spitfires, all that you describe - yo-yos and use of vertical maneuvers - is already possible in the sim. I agree the Emil as too hard to recover but I don't find it too easy to spin. You can tell if your opponent is good and in control of his plane if he flies clean and makes tight turns (e.g. scissors / hammerheads) and does not drop his wing and loses control every now and then. I find that very good actually and in match with combat reports. 109 is not easy to master and requires experienced pilot to be flown to its full potential. RAF planes are easier but also, obviously, you need experience to fly them on the very edge.

Right

which still puts the Spitfire at advantage (which you have confirmed yourself) having extensively reminded us of how longitudinaly unstable the Spit is and how easy it was to put load on due to it's sensitivity in pitch it is going to be the best at bleeding off that energy quickly, like you said before the 109 really must keep speed up in order to have a turn advantage over the Spit.



Yes....assuming the Spitfire remains in a level turn, in which case the Spitfire is simply making a mistake rather than suffering a disadvantage, the Spit has the option to extend away by split 's' and dive and wait for the 109 to chase and pull him into another attempt at turning.


it seems overly paranoid of you to view this with such scepticism, it is simply an account of a 109 making a piloting mistake and spinning, nothing sinister.

Trolling??

Spin resistant is not the same as unspinnable.

Spin resistant is a specific term in aeronautical engineering. The problem is not my language but the fact it is being interpretated without the realization it is a defined measured condition.



http://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/23.221

explain?