Spitfire supposed to dive better than the 109?

[Osprey]

The Spit mach test was at FAE in a modified machine so it wasn't your run of the mill Spit Ia. That said it is extremely strong and managed .85 with Eric Brown at the controls. His colleague managed more because he was strong enough to apply more stick pressure.

I believe the OP expected just to catch the Spitfire up, this is not necessarily the case. The 109 had greater dive acceleration and much of this was due to the negative G cutout problem on the merlin, so often the 109 would pull away. At high speed though, due to the lack of rudder trim, a great deal of effort was required by the pilot of the 109 in applying rudder to trim out which the Spitfire could handle better. I recently read from one pilot (I forget) that he had no problem catching 109's diving because he barrel rolled to follow thus keeping G and engine power. You can do this in game, it's an effective method of dropping onto enemy without getting a cutout.

I am more bothered by the BS 'bunt' that 109's apply when getting hit. I believe that the pilot should risk injury from the violent bunts that 109's perform, up and down like bucking horses - show me a single guncam where that is happening - the body couldn't take it!

[CaptainDoggles]

Originally Posted by Osprey

I am more bothered by the BS 'bunt' that 109's apply when getting hit. I believe that the pilot should risk injury from the violent bunts that 109's perform, up and down like bucking horses - show me a single guncam where that is happening - the body couldn't take it!

There's BS on both sides; I could just as easily have made my previous post about RAF pilots flying with open canopy to abuse the sound radar bug but I chose not to.

Let's not turn this into a flame war.

[Osprey]

It's not for flaming, more something I just consider unrealistic. I fly with the canopy open sometimes because I forget it's open, and when I do it is to see better, I think that's the case for most pilots. That said, yes, close it or at least have penalties for it open such as drag.

[CaptainDoggles]

Originally Posted by Osprey

It's not for flaming, more something I just consider unrealistic. I fly with the canopy open sometimes because I forget it's open, and when I do it is to see better, I think that's the case for most pilots. That said, yes, close it or at least have penalties for it open such as drag.

Most figures I've seen quoted for human negative G endurance peg about -3G as the limit.

You think they're pushing more than 3 G's over the nose? Got proof? Otherwise, drop the editorials please.

[Osprey]

Look whose started the flaming.......I'd love you to test that bucking horse in RL, would mash you up in the cockpit and you know it.

"Proove this, proove that"

If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck...........

[CaptainDoggles]

Originally Posted by Osprey

Look whose started the flaming.......I'd love you to test that bucking horse in RL, would mash you up in the cockpit and you know it.

"Proove this, proove that"

If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck...........

If you make an assertion, the onus is on you to prove it. It's called the burden of proof, and that's how science works. I don't think it's unreasonable to expect similar standards when we're talking about flight physics.

[jf1981]

Originally Posted by Osprey

I am more bothered by the BS 'bunt' that 109's apply when getting hit. I believe that the pilot should risk injury from the violent bunts that 109's perform, up and down like bucking horses - show me a single guncam where that is happening - the body couldn't take it!

I would be pleased that they tune up what a human can stand in a fighter aircraft so that one cannot abuse the very high followed by negative Gs.

At the present time, one can handle very high Gs for some time but even a low neg G for long time results in sort of blackout.

[Osprey]

Totally agree JF. For instance the way we survive a bad landing or even a belly landing is over-protective. Wheels up would at best give bad bruising to the pilot shoulders and would usually break his nose on the gunsight (There is footage of a PR Spitfire landing wheels up from a mission but he was fine because the PR had no guns!). When they nose over the pilot is often injured, usually trapped and doused in petrol with a grave risk of fire. Heavy landings could easily cause spinal injuries and improper bailout often led to the pilot hitting the airframe - Hans Joachim Marseille was killed this way, the P51 Big Beautiful Doll which crashed at Duxford in 2011 injured the pilots legs on the tail as he bailed out - it would make people try to get out properly, canopy, half roll, forward stick and out. (can't really do harneess, oxygen and RT connection)

If you died on bad landings that would improve landing quality I am sure!