Buffalo Control Response: Better than the Spitfire?

[Snautzer01]

Fixed it

 

[PAT303]

You'll never know the crazy fun you missed!


View attachment 692747

Flyboy did you get a haircut?

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Flyboy did you get a haircut?

Nope!

 

[elbmc1969]

I'd like to know how sheet metal covered ailerons & elevators would yield better responses on flight controls, if all other factors (airspeed, altitude, size & airfoil shapes, etc) bring equal.

No matter how taut you make the fabric, when you start piling on force, the surface deforms. Now you have ribs sticking up with spanwise curves connecting adjacent ribs along the span of the aileron. Air will flow off of the high points of the ribs and "pool" in the valleys. This changes the aerodynamics of the aileron in unpredictable ways. You can get a lot of boundary layer drag, turbulent separation, etc, etc.

All-metal ailerons do this as well, but a such a tiny level that it has no discernible effect outside of truly extreme pressure and velocity situations.

 

[nuuumannn]

I read that the early model Bf 109 was a difficult aircraft to fly cross-country because of the lack of trim, it had ground adjustable tabs only and a variable incidence tailplane and elevator and pilots who went on long patrols got tired quickly because of the necessity to 'fly' the aircraft constantly. Apparently, it certainly wasn't the easiest aircraft for the novice, but that once mastered was always rewarding. From what I've read, the Germans complained that the Spitfire and Hurricane were 'easy' to fly, although rated the Bf 109 as a superior combat aircraft.