[QUOTE=BlackbusheFlyer;419116]Sorry Kurfurst but you are wrong about the spit elevators, they were sensitive yes but can in no way way be classed as ultra sensitive. I am a real world aerobatic pilot generally flying a Pitts special, and have flown many aerobatic types. The elevator on these aircraft IS sensitive, much much more so than the Spit. The Spitfire that went into service was and always has, been described as having well balanced controls (a twitch elevator would not accord this distinction!).
I would have respectfully disagree with you assessment, particularly about control harmony. It was a weak part of Spitfire control, as the elevator indeed touchy, while. One Spitfire pilot described the phenomenon as 'touching the elevator with a light fingertip, while arm-wrestling the ailerons'. I would suggest you to study the Spitfire II pilot notes on control aspects, basically they all about instability in pitch and poor control harmony, here:
http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpos...17&postcount=4
It particularly challenging thing to do when flying near the stall, NACA for example found that the stall boundary on the controls was very small, just 3/4 inch of stick movement having been found between the first sign of stall and actual stall. This was offset party of course by ample stall warnings and otherwise good stall characteristics, but it took an experienced pilot to fly the aircraft to its limits.
Quote:
|
It is a well known fact that the British aircraft types were much more forgiving than the German equivalents, a factor in itself in the supremacy of the Spitfire over the ME109 during the Battle of Britain. You had 'green' pilots on both sides, but the Spitfire was markedly easier to fly for those pilots allowing inexperienced pilots to get more out of the machine than was typical of the Germans.
|
Again, an urban myth. British reports from the time readily admit the opposite. See:
http://kurfurst.org/Tactical_trials/...ls/Morgan.html
Quote:
5. Fighting Qualities of the Me. 109. – 5.1. Dog-fights with Spitfire and Hurricane.
Mock fights were staged between the Me. 109 and a Spitfire, both flown by pilots of the R.A.E. In addition a number of fighter pilots, all of whom had recent experience of operational flying, visited the R.A.E. with their Spitfires and Hurricanes in order to practice combat with the Me.109 ; during these fights the Me.109 was flown by an R.A.E. pilot who had completed the handling tests described earlier in this report, and was thus thoroughly familiar with the aircraft and could be expected to get the best out of it. A brief account of the information provided by these fights has already been publishedlO. The following notes summarise the results obtained.
The arrangements were for the aircraft to take off singly and meet at about 6,000 ft. The Me.109 then went ahead and commenced to turn as tightly as possible to see if it would out-turn our own aircraft. After doing three or four tight turns in both directions the Me.109 was put into a dive, followed by a steep climb. The aircraft then changed position and repeated the above programme, after which the pilots engaged in a short general fight.
When doing tight turns with the Me.109 leading at speeds between 90 m.p.h. and 220 m.p.h. the Spitfires and Hurricanes had little difficult in keeping on the tail of the Me. 109. During these turns the amount of normal g recorded on the Me. 109 was between 2½ and 4 g. The aircraft stalled if the turn was tightened to give more than 4 g at speeds below about 200 m.p.h. The slots opened at about ½ g before the stall, and whilst opening caused the ailerons to snatch ; this upset the pilot's sighting immediately and caused him to lose ground. When the slots were fully open the aircraft could be turned quite steadily until very near the stall. If the stick was then pulled back a little more the aircraft suddenly shuddered, and either tended to come out of the turn or dropped its wing further, oscillating meanwhile in pitch and roll and rapidly losing height ; the aircraft immediately unstalled if the stick was eased forward. Even in a very tight turn the stall was quite gentle, with no tendency for the aircraft to suddenly flick over on to its back and spin. The Spitfires and Hurricanes could follow the Me.109 round during the stalled turns without themselves showing any signs of stalling.
The good control near the stall during these turns at full throttle contrasts with the results obtained from the ADM. 293 tests (section 4.42)) for when gliding the aircraft becomes unsteady at 10 m.p.h. above the stall. Slipstream thus appears to have a steadying influence on the behaviour of the Me.109 near the stall.
After these turns the Me.109 was put into a steep dive at full throttle with the airscrew pitch coarsened to keep the r.p.m. down. It was found that both the Hurricanes and the Spitfires could keep up with the Me.109 in the dive; the aircraft with constant speed airscrews could do this more readily than those with two-pitch airscrews. The ailerons and elevator of the Me.109 became so heavy in the dive that rapid manceuvring was impossible, while, as explained in section 4.22, banked turns could be done more readily to the right than to the left because of the absence of rudder bias.
The Me.109 was then pulled out of the dive and climbed at a very low airspeed at an unusually steep attitude. The aircraft was under perfect control during the climb, and could be turned with equal facility in either direction. Under these conditions it outclimbed our aircraft in most cases, since most of our pilots climbed at a higher airspeed and a flatter angle, keeping below the Me.109 and waiting for it to come out of the climb.
However, other pilots who chose to climb at very low airspeeds, mainly those with constant-speed airscrews, succeeded in keeping on the tail of the Me.109, although the Me.109 pilot thought they would have difficulty in keeping their sights on him steadily, as he was at a steeper attitude than their sights could " line ".
In most cases this steep climb at low airspeed was the only manceuvre whereby the Me.109 pilot could keep away from the Hurricane or Spitfire. During the general fighting which folIowed the set programme, one other feature of advantage to the Me.109 emerged. If a negative g is put on the aircraft for a short time, the engine does not cut as it is of the direct injection type; whereas on the Spitfire or Hurricane the engine immediately splutters and stops when negative g is applied, because the carburettor quickly ceases to deliver petrol under these conditions. Hence the Me. 109 pilot found that a useful manceuvre when being chased was to push the stick forward suddenly and do a semi-bunt, if our fighters followed him their engines cut giving the Me.109 a chance to get away ; this was particularly useful against the Hurricane, as its top level speed is less than that of the Me. 109 so that once the Me. 109 had escaped in this way it could avoid combat. The Spitfire, on the other hand, soon caught the Me.109 after this manceuvre.
When the Me.109 was following the Hurricane or Spitfire, it was found that our aircraft turned inside the Me.109 without difficulty when flown by determined pilots who were not afraid to pull their aircraft round hard in a tight turn. In a surprisingly large number of cases, however, the Me. 109 succeeded in keeping on the tail of the Spitfire or Hurricane during these turning tests, merely because our Pilots would not tighten up the turn suficiently from fear of stalling and spinning.
|
The oversensitiveness of the Spitfire I elevator and its tendency to flick over fall entering a spin was also noted by earlier British trials (April 1940) involving a Curtiss Hawk and by German trials in the summer of 1940, and by NACA in 1941 on Spit VA (metal ailerons):