Yes there are some details that make one raise an eyebrow. "Smaller and weaker wings", the canopy is jettisoned on the 109, the lack of stall warning on the 109.....
I would not say it was bias so much as just not knowing. The discovery channel says, "weaker wings". The RAF veteran is asked to go off what he sees and he does just that.
The lack of stall warning is also the Discovery Channel narrator. LE slats by their very nature give excellent stall warning and are an anti-spin device. It is a very silly thing to say.
The handling reports, especially the RAF detailed report on the Bf-109E is exactly what one would expect from an LE slat equipped aircraft.
From ~83mph to 75mph, the aircraft must be controlled with both aileron and rudder to keep it on a commanded flight path. It wants to go wings level. In a level flight stall, the left wing would drop just 10 degrees at the break.
There was never any tendency to spin under any flight condition.
The RAE's pilots opinion was the Bf-109 was too Longitudinally stable. Of course, the RAE did not have any defined stability and control characteristics at the time.
It is interesting to note their complaint about dive recovery!!
Quote:
|
when diving at 400 m.p.h. a pilot, pulling with all his strength, cannot put on enough g to black himself out if trimmed in the dive.
|
The RLM did have defined stability and control characteristics and the Bf-109 had to meet those requirements.
http://kurfurst.org/Tactical_trials/...ls/Morgan.html
05-15-2012, 02:35 PM
Threaded Mode