FLYBOYJ, the pilot who tested the 109 had most likely never flown any a/c with slats before, which is esp. apparent with his comment that the 109 was 'embarrased' by the opening o its slats - a guy who knows how slats function wouldn't fling out BS like that.
But its not the first time BS has been said by a British test-pilot, I remember a certain individual by the name of Kit Carson.
The Kit Carson who was an 18.5 victory ace who shot down 7 me 109s and 2 Me 26s's?? 'Kit' would be a HIGHLY unusual name for a RAF test pilot
Thats just an assumption... and a wrong one...
Also if the British understood the slats so well then how come they couldn't manage to get them to work on the Westland and had to have them shut ???
Yes, it all supports what I and Kurfürst have been saying all along.
Soren - it is highly possible that he 109G2 captured in Afrika was the test ship. What is probable is that the pilots that flew it in tests with the 109 against the Allied fighters in March 1944 would not have matched the skill with the 109 that a top German pilot with hundreds of hours in the airplane.
What is improbable is that the RAF pilot would be afraid of the slats. What is improbable is that Gunther Rall intentionally limited his observations of relative merits of Me 109 versus Mustang to steep climbing turn as the 'out' manuever if a 'tight horizontal turn" was equally effective?
What is just as improbable is that a Luftwaffe pilot would fly the Mustang in the Rechlin trials any better than the RAF pilot would fly the 109 in England.
What is equally improbable is that Lerches does NOT make any reference to Mustang inferiority to 109 while he was flying both - even by anecdotal reference to OTHER pilot recollections in comparative flights, if the me 109 showed clear superiority??
Lets sum it up.
Two 'tainted' or accurate flight comparisons by RAF test pilots in which the first, March 1944, tests the P-51B against the Fw190 and Me 109 in comparative trials - and comments that the Mustang out turns the 109 and 190 but is out turned by the Spitfire(s). No data attached. RAF makes no recommendation for performance adjustment/design for Mustang as a result of theses tests.
A 'tainted' trial (?) by USN test pilots flying F4U-1 versus same version P-51B slightly out turns and outclimbs P-51B. No data attached. If true we can conclude that the Navy pilots were less experienced in Mustangs and may not have achieved a fair test - but if so, the F4U-1 out turns Mustang which out turns the Fw 190 and Me 109 by virtue of only published test results and inference.
A Report by Soviets in which they demonstrated superior 360 degree turn time of an me 109 over an P-51A by 20 secs to 23 secs. No data regarding energy lost or airspeed after completion of first turn - or airsppeeds entering the turn. No dat other than 100m altitude.
No report, 'tainted' or otherwise of LW test pilots making judgements of ANY Me 109 in trials against Mustang at Rechlin. Only anecdotal comments produced so far are the above mentioned ones by Gunther Rall but none by experienced Test Pilot lerches. No data presented.
A Post war RAF Test series in which the P-51D, the Spit XIV and Spit (?) , plus Tempest V, plus Meteor V, plus Me 109 (unspecifed model) Fw 190A and P-47D and P-38L are flown in various comparitive tests. The P-51D out turns the Fw190, the Me 109 and one of the Spits. The Tempest and other Spit out turns the Mustang. No data presented to support anecdotal comments or graphs.
Many (How many??) encounter reports are on file in which a.) the Mustang out turns the Me 109G and later models, b.) the Mustang catches and shoots down the Me 109 in dives or watches them disintegrate. The Mustang shoots down more Me 109s than any other single fighter, the fw 190 is second.
And your case for the Me109 being superior in turn at altitudes above 15,000 feet and 300 kts is?
