I Want my 4.09 Spit FM's back.........

[kimosabi]

It's no secret that pilots thought the Spitfire was easy to fly.

Major Werner Mölders, JG 51, compared the British fighters to his own prior to the Battle:

"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 Me 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." 114

Ofcourse, the Spits were fitted with constant speed propellers so his notes regarding the props were out of date when the battle kicked off.

[Kwiatek]

Remember that Molders tested SPitfire MK1 with only 2-stage prop pitch ( not constant speed propeller unit) and lower boost settings( +6 1/2 lbs). But of course flying charactersitic (not peformacne) were the same. Also German report confirmed that both Hurricane and Spitfire could turn tigher then 109 E even with older 2-stage prop pitch and lower boost.

[kimosabi]

Yep, I added that in.

Geoffrey Wellum also mentions in his book that the Spit was more manageable in tight turns, with some practice, when you encounter the stall threshold.