Your right, he unlatched the hood at 100 ft and then went of to say that he turned and at least five times went onto his back.
This is a low speed combat, after 10 minutes of turning, down to a 100ft they would have lost a lot of speed
From the Pilots notes Mk IX with 66 engine section 42 'Warning of the approach of the stall in a steep turn is given by a pronounced buffeting of the tail (and on Mk XVI aircraft by the hood rattling) if the acceleration is then increased the aircraft, in general, flick out of the turn'..
"Flick out of the turn" That's IT for "on my back"?
So he was buffeting badly and
still felt five consecutive times that he wasn't gaining enough by being at the limit to stall? And pushed things
further at 100 ft. of the water, only to flick out of the turn five times at 100 ft.? And not hitting the water?
Does that sound likely?
Haven't you noticed he actually says: "I did a series of tight turns and at least five times was forced over on my back,
when I relaxed pressure on the stick"
This isn't what your "explanatory" quote is saying: "if the acceleration
is then increased the aircraft, in general, flicks out of the turn'
He is saying that the "flick" -
all the way on his back mind you- occurred
after he relaxed the stick. The flick
follows the relaxing of the stick because of the comma: The comma here makes distinct the two actions: Otherwise the comma would not be there if the two occurred simultaneously...
That they don't occur simultaneously likely means that one follows the other, and if that happens FIVE times, doesn't that suggest he is doing it
voluntarily?
Very basic questions: -Why does he relax the pressure on the stick if he felt he wasn't gaining enough?
-Why does a lessening of stick pressure induce a flick/stall, when your quote says it requires a
further increase of the acceleration of the turn beyond buffeting?
Even if we take your logic as correct:
Flicking out of a turn is basically what most aircrafts do when they stall in turns... So your argument is: The fight was 100 ft.
all the way and he stalled FIVE TIMES at 100 ft.?
Doesn't that mean that
each time he stopped his turn completely and was thus gained on?
And do you also think he could stall so badly at 100ft. that he winds up on his back, and yet survive these stalls five times without losing 100 ft. of altitude?
You really want to persist with the notion that the Spitfire stalling five times at 100 ft. proves its superiority in turns?
The rest I will have to come back to but it does prove your habit of reading into a quote sometihng that isn't there...
But the mystery is, what do
you read into your quotes, because so far the gist insn't coming accross...
For you to believe your version we are still left with tow big unawnsered questions
a) Have you got any examples of Spitfire pilots avoiding a turning combat, the honest reply is no you don't....
How about this one?:
1-S/L J. B. Prendergast of 414 Squadron recorded in his Combat Report for 2 May 1945 (Mk XIV vs FW-190A):
I observed two aircraft which presumably had just taken off the Wismar Airfield as they were at 800/1000 feet flying in a northerly direction and gaining height.-------The other E/A had crossed beneath me and was being attacked by my No. 2, F/O Fuller. I saw my No. 2's burst hitting the water--------
The E/A being attacked by my No. 2 did a steep orbit and my No. 2 being unable to overtake it broke away.
Isn't "breaking away" from an orbit at sea level "avoiding turning combat"?
b) How do you do do a split S from 100 ft, and here the honest reply is no you cannot.....
Well I guess we have top deny ourselves all power of thought and be a victim of his paragraph construction, but then, in all honesty, how exactly do you flick/stall five times at 100 ft. and not touch the water?
As for this statement of yours while I have half a dozen to the contrary posted all along this and other threads .....
Funny I counted less, but none of them contain the tell-tale signs of low-speed and lower altitudes, like "orbit", "Lufberry", "climbed and turned", or even simply suggestions of "multiple circles", which anyone reasonable would agree are indications of lower speeds...
You have one example of a pilot who was in a MkV spit an aircraft everyone agrees was inferior to the Fw 190 on his first ever combat against a Fw190..
Really? But how did you like the one flat on the sea with the Mk XIV giving up?
And did I not tirelessly establish many times that the Mk V was considered equal-turning to the Mk IX by those beloved WWII tests available to all on the "WWII aircraft performance" site? This while Planes of Fame opined (more reasonably in my opinion) that their decades of experience show a slight but noticeable Mk V turn superiority over the Mk IX...
I have this suggestion. Support your statement with six examples of the Fw190 turning inside the Spitfire and I will make a public apology, withdraw from this thread and withdraw from this forum completely for a period of six months.
The ball as they say is in your court. Its time to put up or shut up, if you cannot support what you have said and fail to take up this challange, it says everything we need to know about the accuracy and honesty of your statements.
Well if you won't allow that stalling five times at 100 ft. is an indication of a lack of turn superiority, then I am short one as I can only find five others so far: Mk XIIs, Mk XIVs, 2-3 Mk Vs...
You remember what I said about Spitfires avoiding Lufberrys like the plague? Well there you go...
Give me a bit of time, I'l come up with the missing sixth...
But hey, did you notice the 25+ P-47Ds out-turning Me-109Gs so far? I did find the two of the opposite, from the same pilot, as I am
always trying hard to find anything that can counter my claims...
You see, the P-47
likes Lufberrys: The word appears in every other report, almost...
Meanwhile while I do that, you can try hard to work on your number one for the Spitfire: I am trying hard to help you, but so far no luck... Oh, I did just almost find one doing it after climbing,
not diving, but it turned out he was latching on to another aircraft entirely... Darn!
The two of us, I'm sure we can pull one off... Just where are those Rammjagers when you need them?!?
Gaston