|
|
Go
 |
New
|
Find
|
Notify
|
Tools
|
Reply
|
|
 |
Of course they do and the wing provides the forces required while the aircraft is in flight. So once again, weight cancels offset by lift and providing centripetal force and our turn performace is a function of angle of bank and velocity. For sustained performance, power available to power required is our relationship. You cannot just look at either weight or wingloading. The airplane I currently own has very small low aspect ratio wing design. Comparing wignloading to a Cessna 172 at ~14 lbs sqft my airplane is at 20lbs sqft single pilot with full fuel tanks or a 30% increase in wingloading. My powerloading is 16.6% greater than a stock C172! Consequently, I climb at ~4 times the rate even though my Vy is very close to the C172's cruise speeds. I can sustain much higher load factors at speeds the C172 can only fly straight and level. At 100 KNOTS, the C-172 has a very poor sustained turn ability in comparison. AT any altitude we match velocity and angle of bank, we will make EXACTLY the same turn. Understand what I am saying now?? If I tried to match the C172's sustained turn performance at his V-speeds I couldn't do it and maintain altitude. If he tried to match my sustained turn performance at my V-Speeds he could not do it. He would have to exchange altitude for airspeed to match my velocity or slow down to maintain altitude.   Our Museum glorifies no state, but strives to use these aircraft as a memorial for all lost in war. Our freedom can only be truly appreciated when held in contrast to those who sought to destroy it. Our staff is proudly made up of people from many cultures and religions. Click the photos for details of our projects. "Those who do not remember history are destined to repeat it." - Winston Churchill |
|||
|
I did address needing more AOA in the turn to counter the G's effect at the same speed. That was the point there.
Saying the weight is multiplied was just different words for accelerated, you have have the counter to get the G's but they don't just go away. Result is higher induced drag than 1G flight and all this is at the same speed. I was posting that part about drag only, not radius or turn rate. Do _you_ understand what I meant now? |
||||
|
 |
The claim for turnrate Kurfurst presents are ENTIRELY based on calculations and therefore theoretical. There are no actual physical tests showing any 109E performing similarly to Kurfurst's theoretical tests. All actual tests of 109E turn capability show much higher turn times and radius. This message has been edited. Last edited by: Buzzsaw-, |
|||
|
|
|
All of Kurfurst's data here is in reference to the first TESTING of automatic pitch control on the 109, not its use in production models. In fact the introduction of operational use of automatic pitch on the 109 was limited to a few examples in the fall of 1940. 99.9% of the 109's used in the Battle of Britain were equipped with only manual pitch control. Even those few which had automatic pitch were equipped with early versions of the equipment and these performed poorly, as noted in the anecdote listed above. |
|||
|
Here's a URL to the pages in The Blond Knight of Germany that discusses Hartmann's Ju 87 adventure: http://books.google.com/books?...nn%20brother&f=false PG |
||||
|
When talking about weight, wing designs, and lift..etc. you want to talk about vector quantities, as it makes no sense as it's currently discussed.
Besides that.. back to game 'bits'.. as you know my fav plane is the FW and remarkably heavy, but at certain speeds I can turn this plane inside other lighter planes. If I see myself losing the turning thing.. I just make a decision to buzzoff or go-for-it, using the FW's other good traits to my advantage. This same tactic applies to the ME109E/F/G/K. AND why have you lot missed the point on the 'slats'. There is an article on how an 'experten' can use the slats to outturn the hurri/spit at the essential moment - and this is where it matters. It's not important whether the slats slow the plane down or not. If the ME can get a firing solution via slats, he's won the fight.   Forget the Garlic, Beetroot and Hardtack - Just gimme Gunz-n-Drugz |
||||
|
|
|
Which means absolutely nothing in terms of turn performance, lift is increased as well…… As long as the wing is flying, it provides the forces required and weight cancels. If one does not understand that fact then a skewed picture of aircraft performance will be the result. This is why V-speeds are so important and why WWII fighter aircraft became designed for high sustained load factors with speed and not the ability to sustain small circles at low speeds. Examine the rate of turn of a typical propeller fighter. You will see our airplane can choose to turn at the same rate at a higher velocity from stall to Vmax.  Aircraft are designed to meet the design team’s performance goals. Weight by itself is very bad but weight with appropriate power is not and can lead to very high performance. Adding weight to an existing design over what the design team accounted for is also very bad. Your original contention was in the context of a turn which is why I posted:
http://forums.ubi.com/eve/foru...711089997#7711089997 In a turn weight is canceled. Wing design is irrelevant to turn performance as long as we are flying. Turn performance is a purely a function of angle of bank and velocity. Power available to power required is the relationship that determines our sustained performance. That is calculated from 1G level flight which gives all the available excess power the design can devote to sustaining a turn. All the best, Crumpp Our Museum glorifies no state, but strives to use these aircraft as a memorial for all lost in war. Our freedom can only be truly appreciated when held in contrast to those who sought to destroy it. Our staff is proudly made up of people from many cultures and religions. Click the photos for details of our projects. "Those who do not remember history are destined to repeat it." - Winston Churchill |
|||
|
Since in that part quoted I hadn't even gotten to turn performance so it shouldn't be a problem.
I was replying to statements about drag and -after- that threw something in about turn performance. Did you see the part of one post about delta wing drag and the reply? All context for that. I know that in the turn you can't even get G's of acceleration without having the turning force. Newton's Second Law IIRC action-reaction being equal. They cancel yet both must exist. Both are initiated simultaneously in the action of turning. |
||||
|
|
|
OK
Our Museum glorifies no state, but strives to use these aircraft as a memorial for all lost in war. Our freedom can only be truly appreciated when held in contrast to those who sought to destroy it. Our staff is proudly made up of people from many cultures and religions. Click the photos for details of our projects. "Those who do not remember history are destined to repeat it." - Winston Churchill |
|||
|
Sorry, was spot editing. Didn't know you were 'live' here too! DOH! Mea culpa!
|
||||
|
 |
Why do the E4 and E4-B in the game have automatic prop pitch? Were the versions sent to the eastern front fitted with the auto mechanism? I know that the E4s Oleg put in are supposed to be eastern front versions, not BoB versions. What about the few E7s during BoB, which did they have, auto or manual?
|
|||
|
WOW that article was cool cuz the nice pix!
This was from the bouncing clouds link http://www.vintagewings.ca/page?a=1261&lang=en-CA This is like the 7th time I have seen 109 Emils referred to having a nose cannon. Was there ever a version that had one? 3x 20mm would be nice *evil grin* Or is this a HC slip ? (HC history channel) __________________________ I look to the sky where my help come from. And I seen it circling around from the mountain Thunder! You feel it in your chest You keep my mind at ease and my soul at rest |
||||
|
The 109E never had a hub cannon. It's a misconception that seems to have come from the MG FF/M designation, where M was thought to stand for motorkanone (sp?). |
||||
|
From that one book scan earlier the Tech Officer of II Gruppe got first his on Sept 17, 1940 still needing adjustment but how many days to do that? I forget if the rest were done when they went into battle soon after. Is II Gruppe second string? They were sent in a I Gruppe was withdrawn. What the upgrade schedule was though is not told on that scan. |
||||
|
The picture above the caption saying nose cannon does indeed have a hole in the front of the spinner. That does lead to some questions. |
||||
|
 |
Bf109 was a great fighter in 1940 but, it sure didn't have enough gas.
Spits had same problems in 1941.  "Seriousness of opponent had nothing to do with the plane type. It was more of pilot's skill level." - Vasiliy Kybarev Pilots win dogfights. Not airplanes. If a pilot is not particularly good, regardless of a plane, he'll always have a sinking feeling that something somewhere is wrong... and not everyone is willing to admit that the fault lies within. - Oleg Maddox VFS Focke-Wulf 190 Consortium | The Lockheed Syndicate Hawker Haven | CWOS FB Forum More cheese, less whine Magnum PCSupport our support guys! |
|||
|
 |
I guess my motivations for this discussion are a bit different. i'm merely stating my opinion based on my own observations. No need to split hairs either, the design of the 109 hadn't changed IMO much at all from early 109Es to 109Gs. I'll let you split the hairs, and tell me how different they were, but it will probably do little change my opinion because i can tell just looking at a 1938 109, and 1941 109, that there is not much difference other than power output. Hopefully you also understand what i mean by zenith, in that the 109 was sill a useful plane in 44 and 45, but i think it had met its peak in 43 where the weight and power of the design were in better accord. Still just an opinion. I would love to fly a plane, that would be great. I just don't see how that would give me a clearer opinion on the history of the 109 in ww2. At most, it would just give me a better picture about the numbers i read on aircraft performance, and how they translate in actual flight. I think its time for bed when people start whipping out the charts. Bill |
|||
|
Oh Bill... the rounded wingtips were not just for looks. There was a lot of cleaning up on the F's and I am willing to
bet that the need for 60 lbs ballast in the tail was addressed. Inside changes don't show up in looks either but they do fly and fight very differently because of them. Each -major- change really made a different plane that looked similar. Saying all the same is like saying a Cheetah is a Leopard is a Lion is a Tiger just because they're all big cats. A 109K is more than a 109E on steroids. P-51's had a couple of major changes, I would class the A models as a different species from the Merlin Mustangs. Wouldn't you? Spitfires, at least three major groups of those. And that's just a few. P-47 OTOH would you say only got beefier and meaner? No major change except the paddle props and monster motors? |
||||
|
A bit late, but here goes:
Quote: "'Multiple maneuvers seemed to result in a notable decay in speed, particularly whenever the leading edge slats deployed; a stark contrast to the Spitfire, whose elliptical wings retain energy nicely under sustained ‘g’. The Messerschmitt was paying the price for its high wing loading." This is probably the reason why the FW-190A, and maybe even the earlier P-47Ds(according to actual Luftwaffe tests, but likely mostly to the left only!) can out-turn their contemporary Me-109Gs with some regularity, even at many of the lower sustained speeds... In an account of Walther Oseau's demise, his wingman vividly described how Oseau's Me-109G-6AS(!)lost MORE speed in turns than the chasing Merlin P-51s, and could compete, and more, ONLY with the extra acceleration help of spiraling downward. Yet, don't we know the Me-109G-6AS had the higher climb rate and the better acceleration overall (?!?)... It is quite clear to me that, relative to an aircraft type other than itself, relative speed retention in turns can be INDEPENDENT of overall acceleration capability. Some aircrafts are "cleaner" turning, speed-retention wise, than others, even though all other aspects of combat performance do not reveal this. This could be why the FW-190A in wartime is widely acknowledged by ALL (German, British, Russian, US) sides as being a better-turning fighter in low-speed sustained turns than the Me-109G, at least as long as the Me-109G does not carry MW-50... (Oseau's G-6AS didn't) Reacting to the above details of Oseau's defeat in turning combat, a Luftwaffe officer puts it thus: "Many times I had told Oseau that the FW-190A was better than the Me-109, but being an old Me-109 pilot, he preferred it." In fact, the Merlin P-51 did not turn very tightly at all compared to most other fighters, except at very low speeds(flaps down, power slightly reduced with higher prop pitch settings: A widely-used low-speed "trick" to boost turn rate) or at very high speeds, as is widely known... But it did keep its speed up better in turns, even in the middle-range speeds that did not favor its turning radius relative to other types with a more traditional "doghouse" peak. (It seems from 700+ combat accounts that the Merlin Mustang's "doghouse" had a bit of a cave-in in the middle speed ranges...) Sustained turn RATES are very important here, because even if you have a smaller short-term turning radius than the opponent, as is likely the case for the Me-109G compared to the P-51, the abrupt speed diminution of fully exploiting this radius advantage will greatly reduce or even nullify the angle gain versus the P-51's continuing higher speed in a wider turn. This is also why speed-robbing flaps are not always a long-term panacea for a sustained turn rate at some speeds... Especially if the opponent has a smaller turn RADIUS to begin with! Flaps down can then make him gain FASTER: See a well-known P-38J-25 vs OscarI comparative test... This ambivalence explain why medium-low speed turning battles between Merlin P-51s and Me-109Gs are often long-lasting stalemates of up to 15 minutes: The turn rates are very close, but on different-sized circles. Only near the ground, with no more acceleration help from a diving spiral for the 109, does the P-51's low-speed (flaps down/high prop pitch/reduced-power) "trick" often allows a significant angles gain in level turns. On the deck against earlier non-MW-50 Me-109s, the real Merlin P-51 seems to gain without resorting to any special "trick". As to the heaviness of the Me-109E's elevators at higher speeds, resulting according to Rob Erdos in a mediocre dive pull-out, he makes no mention of the Me-109's superbly effective moveable-tail elevator trim, acknowledged by North American as one of the superior features of the Me-109G compared to their P-51... And thus incorporated later into their F-86 Sabre... Me-109 pilots often flew with tail-heavy trim, which would dramatically improve high-speed pull-out performance... (Nothing for nothing: It did require pushing all the time on the stick to fly level...) For some reason, the FW-190A's mushing character at high speed could not exploit the all-moveable tail, and the FW-190A's elevator handling at high speeds remained truly awful -"unless care was taken not to kill speed by "sinking" in dive pull-outs"- E. Brown... "Care" here likely means a relatively mediocre, gradual pull-out... As Gunther Rall described, the Me-109 was a rapier (straight strokes), while the FW-190A was a broadsword (curving strokes)... They complemented one another in altitude capability too, which explains continuing 109 production. Note the pilot's comments about the ailerons indicate good Me-109 leverage authority even at higher speeds, but the airflow separation problem has nothing to do with the fully re-designed F/G/K wing (Which, I recently found out by measuring the Ottawa's museum's Me-109F compared to the "Flying Heritage" Me-109E, had even different wing THICKNESSES: The F's wing is 1.6 inches [41 mm] deeper, vertically at the deepest point, than the E's wing! Same fuselage depth on both at 51 inches). Indeed, peak roll rate for the later Me-109 F/G/K wing was at a fairly high 300 MPH+ (109° per seconds at 550 km/h if I remember well, for an F, but probably no more than 80° second for later Gs). In any case it is a very interesting flight report, especially for the comparison of the speed bleeding of the Me-109's slats in turns compared to the Spitfire... That clarifies things a lot... Gaston |
||||
|
 |
It may be that the E-2 had one, however information on that variant is so scarce that its impossible to say with any certainity. In any case, so few of that one were produced that its hardly relevant. As far as the main production models (E-1, E-3, E-4, E-7) go, which made up 99% of the Emil production, they sure did not have a hub cannon, for whatever reason. BTW its very easy to check this on the photos of the Franco-Briton WNr. 1304 (an E-3 captured in France, 1939) - there is no cannon cover in the cocpit..   Kurfürst - Your resource site on Bf 109 performance! - Click on the picture to enter the site! 'Taktik ohne Technik ist hilflos. Technik ohne Taktik ist ziellos.' |
|||
|
| Powered by Eve Community | Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
