Quote:
Originally Posted by Osprey
This is well documented from test aerobatic flights. This at low speeds and heaviness at high speeds meant that the 109 was not good aerobatically, or rather far worse than the Spitfire.
|
Of course it was not good aerobatically: anyway in war this skill is the least important aspect of a plane. Speed, climb rate and firepower are some of the important ones.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osprey
"Immunity to spinning" - brilliant Biff, I guess you learned that type of engineering quote from your records of early 20th century shipbuilding and will stick with it. "She is unsinkable sir"  |
Slats helped the pilot to understand the limit of the plane, above all at high altitude: 109s were more forgiving if mistreated in this aspect, more than Spitfires and Mustangs that were unforgiving (above all the latter).
Probably only a moron could spin in it...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osprey
You mean he porked them by allowing you to pull out of a screaming dive without using trim?  |
Finnish pilots said it was still controllable at more than 700km/h: stick was stiff but you could still pull it... I trust them since they knew their planes.