The 'Great Debate' - Spitfire vs BF109

[winny]

Here's what Geoff Wellum says about it (BoB veteran).

However, in a Spitfire, just before the stall, the whole aircraft judders, it’s a stall warning, if you like. With practice and experience you can hold the plane on this judder in a very tight turn. You never actually stall the aircraft and you don’t need to struggle to regain control because you never lose it.

[Crumpp]

However, in a Spitfire, just before the stall, the whole aircraft judders, it’s a stall warning, if you like. With practice and experience you can hold the plane on this judder in a very tight turn. You never actually stall the aircraft and you don’t need to struggle to regain control because you never lose it.

Forget physics....

You have disproved it right here!!

[Robo.]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

Forget physics....

You have disproved it right here!!

By 'you', do you mean Mr. Wellum, actual Spitfire pilot during actual Battle of Britain?

[lane]

Originally Posted by winny

Here's what Geoff Wellum says about it (BoB veteran).

However, in a Spitfire, just before the stall, the whole aircraft judders, it’s a stall warning, if you like. With practice and experience you can hold the plane on this judder in a very tight turn. You never actually stall the aircraft and you don’t need to struggle to regain control because you never lose it.

That's disrespectful and outrageous. Mr. Wellum is still with us, last I heard. He flew Spitfires during the Battle of Britain and as One of the Few did his bit, to borrow from Churchill, to save the world from sinking "into the abyss of a new Dark Age made more sinister, and perhaps more protracted, by the lights of perverted science." Perhaps that's the source of the disrespect?

[Crumpp]

By 'you', do you mean Mr. Wellum

Let's not turn it into something it is not. Apply some common sense please.

Winny posted that single remark out of context is the subject. Winny, who quoted Mr Wellum, does not understand that CG's move and aircraft change condition of flight.

I am sure Mr Wellum was absolutely right for the condition he is referring too. Just as I am sure the RAE, Operating Notes, NACA, and test pilots are correct for the conditions they measured.

All that proves is that you can have some longitudinal instability and still be faultless in a turn as well as easy to take off and land.

It also says that the Spit wasn't a very steady gun platform

Well the Germans did not take any measurements so it is just opinion.

IIRC, at normal and aft CG the aircraft is longitudinally unstable. Depending on the speed and by careful application, neutral stability could also produce "faultless turns" by careful flying.

[Glider]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

Well the Germans did not take any measurements so it is just opinion.

Yes it is an opinion, but its the opinion of one of the best German pilots of the time, someone who clearly doesn't have any pro RAF bias.
The German and British test establishments do not disagree with him and neither does as far as I am aware, any of the thousands of pilots of many nations who also flew it, including newly and at times poorly trained pilots.

I have asked a number of times for any examples from you of pilots who thought it difficult or unpleasent aircraft to fly, with no response.

Without any support your theory is just that, an unsupported theory.

[Crumpp]

Without any support your theory is just that, an unsupported theory.

What theory??

You mean the measured results? The Operating Note warnings? The Test Pilot confirmation?

[winny]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

Let's not turn it into something it is not. Apply some common sense please.

Winny posted that single remark out of context is the subject. Winny, who quoted Mr Wellum, does not understand that CG's move and aircraft change condition of flight.

I am sure Mr Wellum was absolutely right for the condition he is referring too. Just as I am sure the RAE, Operating Notes, NACA, and test pilots are correct for the conditions they measured.




Well the Germans did not take any measurements so it is just opinion.

IIRC, at normal and aft CG the aircraft is longitudinally unstable. Depending on the speed and by careful application, neutral stability could also produce "faultless turns" by careful flying.

How the hell is it 'out of context'?
It's a standalone quote from a Spitfire pilot.

Are you saying Wellum is wrong?

And I do understand CG, I also understand that all your NACA data relates to a MK V. Which had a different CG, modified wings, different engine, different AUW and over 300 modifications from a Mk I.

I could also provide quotes from Brian Lane where he intentionally spins a Spitfire, or intentionally stalls one. Both things you have repeatedly said were forbidden. I'm sick of your by the book attitude, for someone who claims to be ex special forces you seem to fail to grasp the context of young men fighting for their lives and what they will do in order not to die.

Anybody who ignores pilot accounts is an idiot. As far as I know they are the only record of what happened when these aircraft were used for what they were designed for, combat.

Your dismissal of Wellum is offensive to me, and disrespectfully to him. Who the hell are you? Nobody.

Edit: I'll give you some more 'context' the preceding 2 sentences and the one after the quote I used...

If you want to shake someone off your tail you have to fly your Spitfire to its limits. In a tight turn you increase the G loading to such an extent that the wings can no longer support the weight and the plane stalls, with momentary loss of control...
...A 109 can't stay with you.

[Crumpp]

Your dismissal of Wellum

Save your indignity for somebody that cares.

I dismissed you not Mr. Wellum.