Friday Update, April 13, 2012

[Osprey]

Originally Posted by RCAF_FB_Orville

Note that the above information is a copy-paste job from a Mike Williams article, well known in the aviation community for its tendency to use manipulated evidence to further an agenda.

Gentle reader, please note that this Hungarian Lunatic Kurfurt-Barbarrossa-Isegrim is an obsessive, compulsive, intellectually dishonest professional LIAR whom has been Permanently life time banned from wikipedia for a variety of offenses, including harassment, and various other flight sim and aviation forums for his habitually mendacious and calculated campaign of utterly unfounded, ridiculous revisionist bullsh*t. He is a complete and utter Menace to the cause of Truth.

*Mods, ban me now, but with God as my witness, I speak the truth. He is a LIAR. A disruptive, sick in the head lunatic. Plain and simple. Proper nutter. *

Whatever, Kurf. No, you're getting the time of day. You are a Liar. You should be *bleepin* ashamed of yourself. That is all.

+1

He genuinely is. It's funny how he undermines the graph I posted showing roll rate, but posts and IDENTICAL graph showing roll rate plus some other stuff that nobody was talking about.

Grathos, time to get the tissues out.

[Sutts]

Originally Posted by Osprey

+1

He genuinely is. It's funny how he undermines the graph I posted showing roll rate, but posts and IDENTICAL graph showing roll rate plus some other stuff that nobody was talking about.

Grathos, time to get the tissues out.

I was going to say exactly the same thing Osprey. The actual roll rate graph wasn't cropped at all! Very misleading indeed. NOT.

If we're going to look at stick forces then they're pretty much the same up to 300MPH which is the zone we should be most interested in. Can't imagine much dogfighting going on at speeds in excess of 300MPH.

In terms of roll rate, I can easily believe that the 109 had the edge in the roll at lower speeds. The Spitfire had 13% more wingspan and 39% more wing area so the odds are with the 109 for sure.

It's been said before but I think a lot of the arguments here are caused by quoting performance facts without the full context of speed, altitude etc.

I like this statement which sums up my opinion on the turning issue:
The 109 was capable of turning with a Spitfire, but it could only do this at low speeds where its leading edge slats gave it the advantage. At normal dogfight speeds the Spitfire had the advantage.