Updated RAF FMs in 1.07.18301

[ATAG_Snapper]

Originally Posted by TomcatViP

Did you really read many of them talking specifically about the production model mk I & II ? because that's what we are talking abt here.

You'd certainly read it everywhere about the Hurri an the 109.

Just remind the heavy losses young Spit pilots did have to suffer compared to their Hurri colleagues.

This is getting silly.

EVERY account by Battle of Britain pilots flying the Spitfire for the first time -- including the 2-speed Spitfire Mark I -- extolled their praises of its handling characteristics and performance capabilities. Start with Al Deere's "Nine Lives", which I read back in '63, and there are dozens more accounts all of which are glowing in their initial and subsequent impressions of the early Spits. I've never read a negative report on the Spitfire's handling -- not a one.

EDIT: Oops, I lied: No one was keen on the Merlin cutting out with negative g's. Granted, that has nothing to do with the stability of the Spitfires, but IS a handling characteristic no one liked.

Unfortunately, those who flew and fought in the Spitfires back in 1940 never had the benefit of Crumps' theoretical insights that may have swayed their collective opinion to the contrary.

[Crumpp]

theoretical insights

There is no theory to it. It is measured, quantified, and the performance plotted.

[ATAG_Snapper]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

There is no theory to it. It is measured, quantified, and the performance plotted.

I stand corrected. Please allow me to correct my earlier statement:

FORTUNATELY, those who ACTUALLY flew and fought in the Spitfires back in 1940 never had the benefit of Crumps' PROVEN IRONCLAD insights that may have swayed their collective opinion to the contrary.

Better?

[ACE-OF-ACES]

rotfl

[Plt Off JRB Meaker]

...........Snapper you'da man.

[Glider]

Crumpp

In your reply you seem to have forgotten to address the main outstanding question which I repeat here.

Then you need to explain why if in theory the pilot is unable to precisely control them, did all the pilots I have read about, of all nations, praise the Spits handling abilities.

It is a fundamental difference and I would appreciate it if you could explain this conundrum.

I await your reply

PS its important to remember that the German pilots also thought highly of the handling of the Spitfire and Hurricane

Its been quoted before but this is Molders view of an early version:-
"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 Bf 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."

As I said earlier I await your explanation as to why Molders as well as the RAF and other pilots had it so wrong

[Ernst]

Originally Posted by Glider

Crumpp

In your reply you seem to have forgotten to address the main outstanding question which I repeat here.

Then you need to explain why if in theory the pilot is unable to precisely control them, did all the pilots I have read about, of all nations, praise the Spits handling abilities.

It is a fundamental difference and I would appreciate it if you could explain this conundrum.

I await your reply

PS its important to remember that the German pilots also thought highly of the handling of the Spitfire and Hurricane

Its been quoted before but this is Molders view of an early version:-
"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 Bf 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."

As I said earlier I await your explanation as to why Molders as well as the RAF and other pilots had it so wrong

Easy to fly in what situation? Just take off, land and fly around is one thing, fly it on the edge or combat is another. Some non desirable or vicious caracteristcs only became clear when the aircraft is flown to its limits.

The 109 for example had very desirable caracteristic for a fighter when flown to the edge. The slats granted very forgiving stall caracteristics that allowed the pilots confidence to fly the aircraft to its limits. The same time slats could cause the less experienced pilots to miss their target.