Spitfire supposed to dive better than the 109?

[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.