Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
No it's not - the statement by Jeffrey Quill Clearly shows he stalled the the aircraft and witnessed the slats functioning. I don't know what paragraph you extracted that statement from the "AFDU comments" but it seems to be vague and indirect.In every German evaluation flight the Bf-109 easily out-turns the FW-190, yet in the AFDU trials it somehow doesn't achieve out-turning two a/c both of which the FW-190 manages to turn with. Odd isn't it ?
The AFDU comments:
"the Me.109G being embarrassed by its slots opening near the stall"
Remember the first 109 the British test-pilots got to fly was the Emil, which slats unfortunately had a frequent habbit of jamming in turns. So the British test pilot's first experience with an a/c equipped with automatic LE slats is one with a violant departure spin in hard turns because of the slats jamming. So who's to blame the test pilots for thinking the same will happen if you push the Bf-109G that far ? - Hence the comment above made in the AFDU report.
Is this proof enough ??
No it's not - the statement by Jeffrey Quill Clearly shows he stalled the the aircraft and witnessed the slats functioning. I don't know what paragraph you extracted that statement from the "AFDU comments" but it seems to be vague and indirect.
"the Me.109G being embarrassed by its slots opening near the stall"
Your original post was "The British test-pilots didn't push the Bf-109 past the deployment of the slats being afraid the a/c was about to stall."
The PIREP from Jeffery Quill clearly states otherwise....
It is neither vague or indirect FLYBOYJ.
the Me.109G being embarrassed by its slots opening near the stall
I read it fully...As to where the statement is from, you can read it on Mike Williams site: Tempest V Performance Data Or I can provide you the original ?
Turning Circle
47. The Tempest is slightly better, the Me.109G being embarrassed by its slots opening near the stall.
No Soren again, read above - no pilot would be afraid of letting an aircraft stall unless he was 100 AGL...Since we were talking about the Bf-109G what I meant obviously was: the British test pilots didn't push the Bf-109G past the deployment of the slats being afraid the a/c was about to stall.
Now how about stop refusing to consider the facts I provide and start thinking how come the AFDU trials turned out the way they did ?
Ok you refuse to consider what I'm saying, fine, but you've still got to answer the question about how on earth the Bf-109 doesn't manage to out-turn the Mustang Tempest in those tests while the FW-190G manages to turn with them ??? No thats right, it doesn't make any sense at all, and it only supports what I've been saying so far. And I'm not the only one saying this, LW chief test pilot Heinrich Beauvais says the same and has even tried to contact Eric Brown on the matter, which he refused.
Consider that in every German evaluation flight the Bf-109 proved far superior in turn performance compared to the FW-190, all the reports stating the Bf-109 easily turns inside the FW-190. But thats not all, in every TsAGI flight evaluation the Bf-109 turns ALLOT better than the Mustang.
As to the condition of the captured a/c well here's a little thing I noticed:
"the 109G's maximum roll is embarrassing (slots keep opening) "
Now that is something which isn't going to happen to a fully functioning 109!
From: Mustang Tacical Trials
The only thing that would explain the test results besides the pilot not pushing past the slats deployment would be if the gun-pods were left on - which they most likely were.
The 109G in question:
Ok you refuse to consider what I'm saying, fine, but you've still got to answer the question about how on earth the Bf-109 doesn't manage to out-turn the Mustang Tempest in those tests while the FW-190G manages to turn with them ??? No thats right, it doesn't make any sense at all, and it only supports what I've been saying so far. And I'm not the only one saying this, LW chief test pilot Heinrich Beauvais says the same and has even tried to contact Eric Brown on the matter, which he refused.
Consider that in every German evaluation flight the Bf-109 proved far superior in turn performance compared to the FW-190, all the reports stating the Bf-109 easily turns inside the FW-190. But thats not all, in every TsAGI flight evaluation the Bf-109 turns ALLOT better than the Mustang.
As to the condition of the captured a/c well here's a little thing I noticed:
"the 109G's maximum roll is embarrassing (slots keep opening) "
Now that is something which isn't going to happen to a fully functioning 109!
From: Mustang Tacical Trials
The only thing that would explain the test results besides the pilot not pushing past the slats deployment would be if the gun-pods were left on - which they most likely were.
The 109G in question:
Here we go with Bill's insults again..
Bill your completely OT comments above don't strike me as very mature for a 61 year old I must say.
You should note that the mods have been warning against using insults for some time now.
tomo pauk said:While I might agree that 109K would be better (point-area) interceptor, the margin against 51D would be minimal.
Milosh said:Soren, the slats on the 109 were either in or out. There was no partial or gradual deployment.
Consider that in every German evaluation flight the Bf-109 proved far superior in turn performance compared to the FW-190, all the reports stating the Bf-109 easily turns inside the FW-190. But thats not all, in every TsAGI flight evaluation the Bf-109 turns ALLOT better than the Mustang.
if i remember right there are US test that tell thar mustang with merlin has around same turning rate of 190, so saw that 109 has best turning rate of 190 the 109 gas best turning rate of mustang