PDA

View Full Version : Flying the real 109E



Buzzsaw-
10-27-2009, 12:58 PM
Salute All

Below is a link to a report on flying a real 109E. Note the references to the constricted view, tight cockpit, the high speed elevator response, and the tricky takeoff and landing with the wheel and center of gravity.

Let's hope Oleg talks to the people who fly the plane.

The reporting pilot is former air force, as well as test pilot with the Canadian National Research Council, with over 7000 hours of flight time in 140 types of aircraft, from Jets to helicopters, with experience in flying Spitfires and Hurricanes.

http://www.vintagewings.ca/page?a=1261&lang=en-CA

Daiichidoku
10-27-2009, 01:33 PM
"Bouncing Clouds-flying with the spirit of Erich Hartmann"

I never knew E.H. flew Emils http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

AndyJWest
10-27-2009, 01:35 PM
Great find http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif


Returning to the cockpit with my German-English dictionary and a calculator, I took note of the controls.
I know the feeling...

faustnik
10-27-2009, 01:48 PM
Great pics! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

stalkervision
10-27-2009, 01:51 PM
Originally posted by Daiichidoku:
"Bouncing Clouds-flying with the spirit of Erich Hartmann"

I never knew E.H. flew Emils http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

He flew about every version of the 109 ever built even the earlier "d" models. Maybe even the "c" These versions he flew as training ships.

TS_Sancho
10-27-2009, 02:05 PM
Great article, thanks for posting that.

What I took out of it was a testament to how well the BF109 flight model was crafted in IL2.

The description of the handling nuances could read as a review of what we have in game (sans the need for manual prop adjustment).

It seems to me Oleg has been talking to the right people. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Xiolablu3
10-27-2009, 02:13 PM
Originally posted by faustnik:
Great pics! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Hi Faustnik, how you been?


Very interesting read, thank,s http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif We musnt forget however that his 'comparison' is between a Spitfire IX LF 1943 and a Bf109E 1940/41.

Would have been perfect if the SPit was a Mk1 or Mk2. Spit MkI/II vs 109E.

Or even that Spit IX vs 109G6.

stalkervision
10-27-2009, 02:19 PM
Btw before I forget nice article buzzsaw. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

IMO , a small problem with all these "snap evaluations" of ww 2 aircraft thou. One needs TIME with one's bird and a lot of it to really get the feel for all it's advantages,disadvantages and quirks. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Buzzsaw-
10-27-2009, 02:26 PM
Originally posted by stalkervision:
Btw before I forget nice article buzzsaw. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

IMO , a small problem with all these "snap evaluations" of ww 2 aircraft thou. One needs TIME with one's bird and a lot of it to really get the feel for all it's advantages,disadvantages and quirks. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

No question that the more time one has in an aircraft, the better one can fly it.

However this particular pilot, as I mentioned, is a former Test pilot for the Canadian National Research Council, trained particularly to analyze the qualities of the aircraft he is flying. He is extremely technically knowledgeable, and his observations and ability to understand an aircraft's strengths and limitations are based on an emperical method.

Test pilots often have only one chance to understand the aircraft they are flying, because they are often the first to fly it, so they are trained and selected as those who instantly can analyze the characteristics and qualities of an aircraft.

stalkervision
10-27-2009, 02:29 PM
Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stalkervision:
Btw before I forget nice article buzzsaw. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

IMO , a small problem with all these "snap evaluations" of ww 2 aircraft thou. One needs TIME with one's bird and a lot of it to really get the feel for all it's advantages,disadvantages and quirks. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

No question that the more time one has in an aircraft, the better one can fly it.

However this particular pilot, as I mentioned, is a former Test pilot for the Canadian National Research Council, trained particularly to analyze the qualities of the aircraft he is flying. He is extremely technically knowledgeable, and his observations and ability to understand an aircraft's strengths and limitations are based on an emperical method. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ya he is certainly more qualified then most isn't he? If one had to take a "snap judgment" I would pick him as in the top five guys B/S. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

I know this will sound silly and hardly relevant to a test pilot with a real 109 of course but in all the sims I have tried to 109 is the hardest to like right off the bat. It has "certain quirks" that other aircraft like the spits don't exhibit in sims. Spits always seem to fly the same as other spits do which is pretty undemanding imo usually but the 109 needs TIME even in a sim to truly appreciate and love.

off the bat imo no one would love a 109 immediately if given a choice of aircraft to fly.

faustnik
10-27-2009, 02:38 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Hi Faustnik, how you been?

Good to see you Xiolablu3!

DKoor
10-27-2009, 02:53 PM
Originally posted by faustnik:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Hi Faustnik, how you been?

Good to see you Xiolablu3! </div></BLOCKQUOTE> http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

Buzzsaw-
10-27-2009, 02:55 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by faustnik:
Great pics! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Hi Faustnik, how you been?


Very interesting read, thank,s http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif We musnt forget however that his 'comparison' is between a Spitfire IX LF 1943 and a Bf109E 1940/41.

Would have been perfect if the SPit was a Mk1 or Mk2. Spit MkI/II vs 109E.

Or even that Spit IX vs 109G6. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Salute

Rob has flown a Spitfire IX and XVI. And while obviously both of these aircraft are not the same generation as the 109E, in the context of the points Rob noted, they are still useful for comparison purposes.

I have met Rob personally, and talked about the parameters of flying these aircraft, and they are by no means flown to their combat level potential, in fact, none of the vintage aircraft at any agency or organization are.

The Spitfires that Rob has flown are never taken over +6 boost, (+25 was the max. wartime level) they are flown on 100 octane fuel, there is no other higher octane fuel commercially available, if you want higher, you have to mix it yourself, not practical for aircraft which are used very regularly. So obviously they are not performing up to the standards of a wartime IXLF.

Neither is the 109E flown to it wartime maximum engine boost levels, ie. 1.30 ata, as noted, max. boost used in this flight was 1.15 ata, a proportionately higher boost level than is being currently used on the Spitfires, but the fuel used historically in the 109E was no better than that available now.

What is relevant in these types of flight reports are the general handling characteristics of the respective aircraft, their behaviour at stall, in level flight at various speeds, and at takeoff and landing.

As well, things like cockpit view, ease and accessibility of controls, etc.

Those observations can provide valuable insight into what it was really like to fly these 60 year old birds.

For example, he noted the manual pitch control on the Prop means the pilot needs to be adjusting continuously as he climbs or dives.

That is something which should be incorporated into the BoB model of the 109E, since almost all of the German fighters of that era had only manual pitch control. (and obviously the two speed versions of the Hurricane and Spitfire would also need to reflect the disadvantages of their propellor types)

Unknown-Pilot
10-27-2009, 03:12 PM
5'9", and with a helmet and 'chute the canopy was 2 inches from closing? Just how short WERE people back then?

F0_Dark_P
10-27-2009, 03:19 PM
Nice find

I just love the Emil http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/heart.gif

BTW dos anyone have any news if they have fixed white 14 after the accident they had some time ago?...

M_Gunz
10-27-2009, 03:51 PM
Really good article! He must be one heck of a pilot, period. With more time in that plane he'd be much better surely.

One thing about monitoring engine speed is it is best done by ear with only occasional glances at the gauges but that
does take time in or on any vehicle. I don't how it would be terribly different in the 109 especially after reading
his description of the engine sound difference between the wingovers there. I'm sure he didn't have long enough aloft
to do half of what he wanted but you, hey you might actually be able to ask or even interview him! Major Envy, LOL!
If you do get the chance then please take a voice recorder of some kind!

What he said about the tilted gear wheels ground contact -- never seen it written before and a huge plus as to how good
he is for picking that up. Hell, 3++'s. He also did point out a number of good flying traits as well as the ability
to stall the ailerons (or is it the length of the wing with aileron? clarification for us non-test-pilots?).

I expect any time here to see Kurfurst dissect the article and some others (be sure plural) to get heavy-duty AE on it too.

Last bit... 109E vs Spit-what? Hardly sporting!

M_Gunz
10-27-2009, 03:53 PM
Originally posted by faustnik:
Great pics! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Salute and where you been? Got some good fishing stories (IIRC you have a boat)?

megalopsuche
10-27-2009, 04:49 PM
Originally posted by TS_Sancho:
Great article, thanks for posting that.

What I took out of it was a testament to how well the BF109 flight model was crafted in IL2.

The description of the handling nuances could read as a review of what we have in game (sans the need for manual prop adjustment).

It seems to me Oleg has been talking to the right people. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Absolutely agree. Sorry buzzsaw.

Gumtree
10-27-2009, 04:56 PM
Great article,
Nice to read real world thoughts on a war bird rather than the chart whining "facts" that seem to be the norm of those that find that their favorite plane has been "porked" in the Ubi zoo.

faustnik
10-27-2009, 06:19 PM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by faustnik:
Great pics! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Salute and where you been? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

M_Gunz,

Great to see you!

I'll sent a PM to you.

M_Gunz
10-27-2009, 07:02 PM
Originally posted by TS_Sancho:
Great article, thanks for posting that.

What I took out of it was a testament to how well the BF109 flight model was crafted in IL2.

The description of the handling nuances could read as a review of what we have in game (sans the need for manual prop adjustment).

It seems to me Oleg has been talking to the right people. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Agree but the presence of the floor switch does suggest that the auto-pitch mechanism may be out of order or removed.
The IL2 model is not that hard to fly on manual prop just by listening and having keys or buttons for + and - 5%.
I've certainly gotten a lot of good performance that way but then I always loved driving manual shift cars and dislike
automatics with some passion, they take me away from road-awareness is the best I can say and they're 'soft'.

Unknown-Pilot
10-27-2009, 07:35 PM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
What he said about the tilted gear wheels ground contact -- never seen it written before and a huge plus as to how good
he is for picking that up.

Basic camber thrust. Cars (in performance applications), motorcycles (especially), even bicycles - should inform most people of what is going on.

This is NOT a jab at you, only a comment/question about people at large - do they really have a hard time getting that? It seemd so basic and obvious.

M_Gunz
10-27-2009, 07:44 PM
That's okay with me, most good IQ tests (like Mensa's) do pose questions involving the simple and obvious.
The hardest part of so much of basic science and math is also the simple and obvious, most people look only
for the difficult and obscure or shy away because they believe it has to be that, then take their own failure
as proof they are right. I first read that in a book about great scientists back in 4th grade, it's one of
the things a couple of them including Einstein was quoted on. It's the implications and applications that
get complicated and gnarly. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

stalkervision
10-27-2009, 07:50 PM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TS_Sancho:
Great article, thanks for posting that.

What I took out of it was a testament to how well the BF109 flight model was crafted in IL2.

The description of the handling nuances could read as a review of what we have in game (sans the need for manual prop adjustment).

It seems to me Oleg has been talking to the right people. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Agree but the presence of the floor switch does suggest that the auto-pitch mechanism may be out of order or removed.
The IL2 model is not that hard to fly on manual prop just by listening and having keys or buttons for + and - 5%.
I've certainly gotten a lot of good performance that way but then I always loved driving manual shift cars and dislike
automatics with some passion, they take me away from road-awareness is the best I can say and they're 'soft'. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I was thinking the same very thing gunz about the floor switch.

FoundryWork
10-27-2009, 11:10 PM
So what is the point? I have a article on Charles Lindberg flying an early 109 and he raved about it. You can find any number of pilot reviews with opposing opinions, so they really all cancel each other out.

The only objective thing for a flight sim designer to do is to take the type and size of airfoils a plane has, it's power and drag, wieght, weight distribution etc, and plug them into a sim engine.

Poor little boys who got shot down posting why Oleg should disable their opponents for them instead of learning how to fly are amusing though.......

M_Gunz
10-28-2009, 02:30 AM
Originally posted by FoundryWork:
So what is the point? I have a article on Charles Lindberg flying an early 109 and he raved about it. You can find any number of pilot reviews with opposing opinions, so they really all cancel each other out.

Do you feel that article was saying the 109E is bad? Did you bother to read the whole thing? Lot of good points there.
You have problems with an objective view?


Poor little boys who got shot down posting why Oleg should disable their opponents for them instead of learning how to fly are amusing though.......

Who asked for anything in IL2 to be changed? You think Oleg wasn't aware of the 109 losses during landings?
Did you know that Oleg has flown a 109 as well? Might be a Buchon but I don't think that matters much.

Putting German planes down is just a reflex with Buzzsaw, he has to or he will die horribly. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

skarden
10-28-2009, 02:49 AM
Originally posted by FoundryWork:
Poor little boys who got shot down posting why Oleg should disable their opponents for them instead of learning how to fly are amusing though.......


I see you'll fit in just nicely around here http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

Blue_5
10-28-2009, 04:33 AM
Full of juicy statements like this:

'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.' http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

stalkervision
10-28-2009, 04:57 AM
Originally posted by Blue_5:
Full of juicy statements like this:

'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.' http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif


on the other hand what he doesn't mention is the 109 is one of the best accelerating fighters of ww 2. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

probably because in these later tests with these old birds no one would want to burn out the db engine, EVER!

I have a quote from one ww 2 109 pilot who said they ALWAYS FLEW WIDE OPEN IN THE COMBAT ZONE. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

what I don't understand about the spit quote is a big elliptical wing should really produce a lot of drag when turned aggressively unlike the 109's wing that shouldn't. Delta wings are well known for this same thing also. It has to do with the airfoil aspect ratio I believe.

yuuppers
10-28-2009, 05:09 AM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
Putting German planes down is just a reflex with Buzzsaw, he has to or he will die horribly. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

And there are those, from what I have read here, think the 109 was perfect with no deficiencies. They get mighty defensive when any of these deficiencies are mentioned.

megalopsuche
10-28-2009, 05:16 AM
Originally posted by stalkervision:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Blue_5:
Full of juicy statements like this:

'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.' http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif


on the other hand what he doesn't mention is the 109 is one of the best accelerating fighters of ww 2. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

probably because in these later tests with these old birds no one would want to burn out the db engine, EVER!

I have a quote from one ww 2 109 pilot who said they ALWAYS FLEW WIDE OPEN IN THE COMBAT ZONE. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

what I don't understand about the spit quote is a big elliptical wing should really produce a lot of drag when turned aggressively unlike the 109's wing that shouldn't. Delta wings are well known for this same thing also. It has to do with the airfoil aspect ratio I believe. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

For our purposes, ignore the shape of the wing. There are two types of drag that are very important here:

One is parasite drag, which becomes stronger the faster you go. Bigger wings create more parasite drag.

The other is induced drag, which is the drag incurred from the wings producing lift. A bigger wing creates less induced drag than a small wing if they're doing the same lifting.

This is a very rough approximation that will have some inaccuracies if you pick it apart in detail, but it is sufficient for explaining the flight tester's comment. The Spitfire suffers less induced drag than the 109 through hard turns and loops, especially at the low-medium speed range where the parasite drag from its larger wing is less noticeable.

BillSwagger
10-28-2009, 05:23 AM
For its time though, the 109E was the superior plane.
I think the use of the airframe was really extended through out the war out of necessity. This doesn't mean it was the best design and possibly out grew its capabilities by 43, however German engineering made subtle improvements so it could be piloted with ease.

I say out grew, meaning that the newer engines and higher altitudes achieved meant more speed and exposure to different stresses that come with those factors, that possibly the original airframe design was not intended or designed around. They had the plane, and it worked in the past, but i think it hit its zenith in 43.

The arguement about turning ability between spit and 109s is really subjective, and is true for any plane. It all depends on the speed and altitude the pilots are flying at. Under one condition one might excel over the other. You can get pretty harry interpretations from pilots this way, although i think any one of them will agree that 109s were the best climbers.

stalkervision
10-28-2009, 05:37 AM
I found this interesting article while looking for spitfire aspect ratio.

"Why carson was wrong"

http://translate.google.com/tr...2FCarson.html&anno=2 (http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=de&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fmitglied.lycos.de%2Fluftwaffe1%2FCa rson%2FCarson.html&anno=2)

nice info here.

Kettenhunde
10-28-2009, 05:53 AM
I think the use of the airframe was really extended through out the war out of necessity.

Like the P47, P51, Yak series, Spitfire, and every other first line fighter that flew during the war.....

I don't really see anything new in the article. It is an opinion formed with very little experience in the airplane.

It is a good unbiased review although some his statements are ripe for misinterpretation.


The lack of propeller governing aroused my suspicions about the workload associated with dogfighting in the aeroplane.


The VDM has a governor, hence the ability to select manual and automatic....

JG53Frankyboy
10-28-2009, 06:01 AM
very nice reading !!
THX a lot fot the link.

BTW, hopefully sometimes nobody is still thinking that the "propeller hole" of the Emils in combat service housed a weapon..........

Manu-6S
10-28-2009, 06:10 AM
Originally posted by stalkervision:
I found this interesting article while looking for spitfire aspect ratio.

"Why carson was wrong"

http://translate.google.com/tr...2FCarson.html&anno=2 (http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=de&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fmitglied.lycos.de%2Fluftwaffe1%2FCa rson%2FCarson.html&anno=2)

nice info here.

I love this article...

PS: 20 pages... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

M_Gunz
10-28-2009, 06:11 AM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
This quote for example:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The lack of propeller governing aroused my suspicions about the workload associated with dogfighting in the aeroplane.


The VDM has a governor, hence the ability to select manual and automatic.... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It appears to be disabled on that particular airplane as he also noted. He wasn't writing about all 109E's, just that one.

I did not see anything about the often-posted-as-fact asymmetric slat deployment, he seemed to like the slats and the low
speed handling enough to make positive comments about that.

How about the guessing about the pitot and the takeoff and stall speeds he was reading?

virgule88
10-28-2009, 06:14 AM
Originally posted by Daiichidoku:
"Bouncing Clouds-flying with the spirit of Erich Hartmann"

I never knew E.H. flew Emils http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

Just for the records, Erich Hartmann flew all these aircrafts during WWII:

Arado AR-66
Arado AR-96
Bucher Bu-131
Bucher Bu-133
Fiesler Fi-153
Focke-Wulf FW-44
Focke-Wulf FW-56
Focke-Wulf FW-58
Heinkel He-46
Heinkel He-50
Heinkel He-51
Junkers F-13
Junkers W-33
Junkers W-34
Klemm KL-25
Klemm KL-35
Messerschmitt Bf-108
Messerschmitt Bf-109B, C, D, E, F, G & K
Messerschmitt Me-262
Morane C-445
North American NAA-64


Models flown in combat:

Messerschmitt Me-109 G-7, G-10, G-14, G-16 and Me-109 K-4

(Source: The BLond Knight of Germany, ISBN 0-8306-8189-2, page 294)
---

stalkervision
10-28-2009, 06:18 AM
and the f-104 and the f-86 after the war! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

M_Gunz
10-28-2009, 06:19 AM
Originally posted by stalkervision:
I have a quote from one ww 2 109 pilot who said they ALWAYS FLEW WIDE OPEN IN THE COMBAT ZONE. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

I have a quote from Adolph Galland that during the BoB Herman Goering forced 109 pilots to stay close with the bombers
and that made them fly too slow so he asked for a wing of Spitfires.


what I don't understand about the spit quote is a big elliptical wing should really produce a lot of drag when turned aggressively unlike the 109's wing that shouldn't. Delta wings are well known for this same thing also. It has to do with the airfoil aspect ratio I believe.

LOL! Especially the Delta wings/same reason part! Just beautiful!

stalkervision
10-28-2009, 06:23 AM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stalkervision:
I have a quote from one ww 2 109 pilot who said they ALWAYS FLEW WIDE OPEN IN THE COMBAT ZONE. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

I have a quote from Adolph Galland that during the BoB Herman Goering forced 109 pilots to stay close with the bombers
and that made them fly too slow so he asked for a wing of Spitfires.


what I don't understand about the spit quote is a big elliptical wing should really produce a lot of drag when turned aggressively unlike the 109's wing that shouldn't. Delta wings are well known for this same thing also. It has to do with the airfoil aspect ratio I believe.

LOL! Especially the Delta wings/same reason part! Just beautiful! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


well the first was against mustangs in Romania mind you and the second is what happens when one pulls hard on a wing with a lot of wing area as in a delta at speed. They slow right down to nothing. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

btw apparently 109 drivers could still take advantage of the "merlin hiccup" of a non-fuel injected engine even at this stage, even with later carb improvements to this problem by a sudden dive and turn reversal!

M_Gunz
10-28-2009, 06:25 AM
Originally posted by Manu-6S:
PS: 20 pages... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

IMO the lock will come much sooner! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

JG53Frankyboy
10-28-2009, 06:29 AM
about autopitch in the Bf109s during BoB i always thinking about this out of Priens JG53 History book
http://www.franky.fliegerhospital.de/AutopitchJG53.jpg

sure not knowing how reliable this info is......

stalkervision
10-28-2009, 06:29 AM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Manu-6S:
PS: 20 pages... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

IMO the lock will come much sooner! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Na..too interesting to do that. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

stalkervision
10-28-2009, 06:36 AM
I really really wish I could download that sound file of the Romanian Pilot for you all. The interview is truly excellent. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif It comes from the game "Luftwaffe commander"

Kettenhunde
10-28-2009, 06:40 AM
sure not knowing how reliable this info is......




Probably pretty reliable....

What is not unusual is the fact a CSP is hard to get adjusted. So I am not surprised to hear the anecdote about his first flight.

Getting a CSP adjusted is very difficult and I have NEVER flown one with a new propeller that developed rated rpm or did not need further tinkering. Generally it takes several hours of adjustment and test flight to get it right.

Assuming your tach is correctly calibrated it is a job to get one right. I would go so far as to say it is just unusual to fly a airplane and see it develop rated rpm especially if you check the planes tach with the mechanics.

All the best,

Crumpp

Kurfurst__
10-28-2009, 06:43 AM
Originally posted by JG53Frankyboy:
about autopitch in the Bf109s during BoB i always thinking about this out of Priens JG53 History book
http://www.franky.fliegerhospital.de/AutopitchJG53.jpg

sure not knowing how reliable this info is......

The Automatic prop pitch for the 109E was introduced by the December 1939 the latest. Obviously it co-existed with the old manual prop pitch (two versions - one having a rocker switch on the throttle, the other having a lever on the dashboard)

The first known documentation of automatic propellor pitch (Luftschauben Verstellautomatik) control appears in late 1939, in the L.Dv. 556/3 (Entwurf) BF 109 E Flugzeughandbuch, promulageted 16 December, 1939, Berlin. The Handbook takes numerous notes on the operation of the Luftschauben Verstellautomatik in various conditions, and also notes that some aircraft are without this automatic system; this latter is confirmed by oral accounts of Bf 109E pilots.

Page 17, I. Startferigmachen, Step 7.
' Prüfe, ob Luftschrauben-Verstellautomatik eingeschaltet ist (Kippschalteran linker Rumpfwand; Selbstschalter in Schalttfel. '

Page 18, IV. Flug, C. Betriebsdaten.
' Bei Flugzeugen ohne Luftschrauben-Verstellautomatik, Luftschraubensteigung durch Daumenschalter am Gashebel oder Verstellschraubeschalter am Gerätebrett so einstellen, daß die verstehend angegeben Werte für Drehzahl und Ladedruck eingeschalten werden. 1,3 ata und 2400 U/min nicht überschreiten!'
' Für Sperrflug Luftschrauben-Verstellautomatik auschalten, (Kippschalter an linker Rumpfwand) und Luftschraubensteigung durch Daumschalter am Gashebel oder Verstellscraubenschalter am Gerätebrett einstellen.'

Page 20, V. Landung, Step 2., and VI. Verhalten in besonderen Fällen, A. Durchstarten, Step 1:
' Bei Flugzeugen ohne Luftschrauben-Verstellautomatik, Luftschraubensteigung durch Daumenschalter am Gashebel oder Verstellschraubeschalter am Gerätebrett auf 12 Uhr. '

Page 21, VI. Verhalten in besonderen Fällen, C. Versagen der Luftschrauben-Verstellautomatik, Step 1.
' Luftschrauben-Verstellautomatik durch Kippschalter an linker Rumpfwand auschalten. '

Page 21, VI. Verhalten in besonderen Fällen, D. Notlandung, Step 3.
' Luftschaube in Segelflug : Luftschrauben-Verstellautomatik durch Kippschalter an linker Rumpfwand auschalten, und Luftschraube durch Daumenschalter am Gashebel oder Verstellschraubeschalter am Gerätebrett in Segelflug bringen. '


Its a very interesting article, thanks for posting it. Its also worth to read the September 1940 report by RAE on the aeroplane - its pretty through.

Messerschmitt Me. 109 Handling and Manoeuvrability Tests
BY M. B. MORGAN, M.A. and D. E. MORRIS, B.SC.
COMMUNICATED BY THE PRINCIPAL DIRECTOR OF SCIENTIFIC RESEARC (AIR), MINISTRY OF SUPPLY

http://kurfurst.org/Tactical_t...UKtrials/Morgan.html (http://kurfurst.org/Tactical_trials/109E_UKtrials/Morgan.html)

M_Gunz
10-28-2009, 06:46 AM
Originally posted by stalkervision:
well the first was against mustangs in Romania mind you and the second is what happens when one pulls hard on a wing with a lot of wing area as in a delta at speed. They slow right down to nothing. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Wing sweep lowers the stall speed.

Really megalopsuche gave the straight answer. The higher the wing loading the more AOA needed to lift the plane. In a turn
the weight is multiplied and the need for AOA is also. Induced drag increases with the square of that need.

If you have the thrust then you make the turn anyway, the only doghouse charts I've seen for a 109 and a Spitfire are
British and though account has been shown by RAEE that the 109 was turned slats out there will always be dispute it was not.

I'd purely love to see good chart or data from Rechlin. I saw one of a late 109 supposed to be turned flat at 6 G's but
the drawing showed a circle and sorry, no way it sustained a 6 G turn which is the only way to get a circle.

BillSwagger
10-28-2009, 06:52 AM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> I think the use of the airframe was really extended through out the war out of necessity.

Like the P47, P51, Yak series, Spitfire, and every other first line fighter that flew during the war.....

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You could probably lump the Yak, and the Spit into a similar category as the 109, but my point was more to the fact that the airframe was quite possibly the best plane earlier in the war. The introduction of newer designs as well as higher output engines took the fights to higher speeds an altitude that might have been manageable in a 109, but probably better suited for their counter parts and even other German aircraft designs.

We see planes like the P-47 and P-51 first introduced in 42/43, when the 109 was already 5 years old.

I say that 43 was the zenith period because performance wise it was already achieving its V speeds. You put a bigger engine in, it goes faster, and climbs better, but that doesn't mean it will be any better in a combat situation. There also seems to be a considerable amount of denial over the 109s elevator authority at higher speeds. Granted later model 109s were very effective, and I find the K model to be quite an interesting piece of engineering, i still think the early 109s held a bigger advantage over its counterparts.

Really what it comes down to, is we see a design made early on the excels over most fighters but as faster planes and speeds were attained the airframe began to show its age. This is just my opinion, but i also base it on the all the great articles posted here, in combination with other knowledge shared and debated in the past.

Manu-6S
10-28-2009, 06:56 AM
Originally posted by stalkervision:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Manu-6S:
PS: 20 pages... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

IMO the lock will come much sooner! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Na..too interesting to do that. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Interesting and funny... this is why I love this board, the banana forum is so boring.

Kurfurst__
10-28-2009, 07:17 AM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
If you have the thrust then you make the turn anyway, the only doghouse charts I've seen for a 109 and a Spitfire are
British and though account has been shown by RAEE that the 109 was turned slats out there will always be dispute it was not.

I don't think the bothered with the slats, the RAE doghouse chart is calculated for both aircraft, with the Bf 109E's coefficient of lift being guessed/estimated from the Spitfire's Cl values; the latter were derived from stall tests, which again creates some pitfalls.


I'd purely love to see good chart or data from Rechlin. I saw one of a late 109 supposed to be turned flat at 6 G's but
the drawing showed a circle and sorry, no way it sustained a 6 G turn which is the only way to get a circle.

According to the Bf 109E Specification sheet, 1939, the shortest turning radii was, w. and w/o use of flaps at 0 and 6000 meter:

Engste Kurvenradien.

Im Luftkampf betragen die engsten Kurvenradien ohne Ausschlag der Landeklappen

in 0 m Höhe 170 m.
in 6000 m Höhe 320 m.

Mit Klappenausschlag sind die engsten Kurvenradien

in 0 m Höhe 125 m.
in 6000 m Höhe 230 m.


Similiar figures are given by a calculation by Messerschmitt AG on Bf 109E turn times and radius in an internal Messerschmitt report.

The calculation was based on a similiar set of data, but assumes the slightlly lower power output of the DB 601A-1 at 990 PS. Conditions in the calculation were 2540 kg weight, 990 PS output, an altitude of 0 m and no height loss. Under these conditions, the turning characteristics of the Bf 109E were as follows :

Turn time for 360 degrees: 18,92 seconds.
Turn radius for above turn: 203 m

Unknown-Pilot
10-28-2009, 09:02 AM
The pilot beleived the speeds listed were wrong, but was this ever proven? As he noted, that wing was designed to wring every last bit of lift out of every available square inch, using much more technical methods than the Spitfire (and didn't the use of those slats allow for a lack of washout?).

Sorry, it's been a long time since I really followed or got involved in FM arguments, so I'm really rusty. hehe


Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Similiar figures are given by a calculation by Messerschmitt AG on Bf 109E turn times and radius in an internal Messerschmitt report.

The calculation was based on a similiar set of data, but assumes the slightlly lower power output of the DB 601A-1 at 990 PS. Conditions in the calculation were 2540 kg weight, 990 PS output, an altitude of 0 m and no height loss. Under these conditions, the turning characteristics of the Bf 109E were as follows :

Turn time for 360 degrees: 18,92 seconds.
Turn radius for above turn: 203 m

Roughly 19 seconds calculated, or actually tested, for the Emil? Because according to IL2 Compare (with 4.09 data), the E4 does it in 22.59. That's a HUGE difference.

stalkervision
10-28-2009, 09:28 AM
22.59! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

M_Gunz
10-28-2009, 09:29 AM
Check the altitude that IL2Compare uses, I think it is 1000m.

Manu-6S
10-28-2009, 09:34 AM
Originally posted by Unknown-Pilot:
Roughly 19 seconds calculated, or actually tested, for the Emil? Because according to IL2 Compare (with 4.09 data), the E4 does it in 22.59. That's a HUGE difference.

IL2 compare numbers don't agree neither with the russian test (FW190?)

Lock at the difference between the various 109 versions, above all F4/G2/G6

Kettenhunde
10-28-2009, 09:44 AM
We see planes like the P-47 and P-51 first introduced in 42/43, when the 109 was already 5 years old.


And the Bf-109 was completely redesigned in 1941.....

You can split the hairs however you like....

It does not change the fact all the fighters in WWII were not "new designs" and they are were upgraded.


Crumpp says:
Like the P47, P51, Yak series, Spitfire, and every other first line fighter that flew during the war.....


Really, you guys should get some experience in actual aircraft as it would highlight just how silly most of the banter is on these boards. Unfortunately that is beyond the means for most especially those in Europe were your system is prohibitive to learning to fly. You would see many of these reports and evaluations on your favorite airplane in a new light.

It really prevents some good discussion and makes every thread a repeat of the same old tired retoric as if repetition will some how make something a fact.


The Automatic prop pitch for the 109E was introduced by the December 1939 the latest. Obviously it co-existed with the old manual prop pitch (two versions - one having a rocker switch on the throttle, the other having a lever on the dashboard)


Thanks Kurfurst,

Makes sense and the FW-190 retains the VDM manual rocker switch on the throttle for Emergency Operation.

All the best,

Crumpp

Kettenhunde
10-28-2009, 09:52 AM
In a turn
the weight is multiplied


Wrong.

Weight cancels in a turn and has no effect on rate or radius.

AS for AoA, It depends on the design whether the heavier aircraft requires more AoA. All things being equal, the high CL with higher weight is a natural consequence of the forces required. If the wing provides the forces required, the aircraft remains in flight! Once again though, this has no effect on turn performance as weight cancels.

If you want to talk about sustained turn performance, once again it depends but weight still cancels. Our sustainable performance is a function of power available to power required in a power producer. You have to refer to the design and you cannot make a blanket statement without setting conditions.

There are plenty of heavier aircraft that operate at higher V-speeds which can sustain a higher load factor at high speed than a lighter design.


O.K. - Here's a doozy of a question I was posed recently...

"If two aircraft are at the same altitude, IAS and bank angle, but one is light weight and the other is heavy weight, which statement is true?"

A. The heavy aircraft will have a greater turn radius but a lower turn rate.

B. The heavy aircraft will have a greater radius but the same rate.

C. Both the light and heavy aircraft will have the same rate and radius

D. The light aircraft will have the same radius and but a higher rate.

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

Any ideas?? My answer was C. I cannot for the life of me justify it aerodynamically, but from experience, I have flown dissimilar formations where the exact question description has occured. By virtue of being "in formation" the same rate & radius has occured. But, as we all know, reality is not always the correct reasoning when it comes to obscure "knowledge based" questions!

Help me sleep at night by justifying it aerodynamically PLEEEEASE:{


http://www.pprune.org/archive/index.php/t-187127.html

M_Gunz
10-28-2009, 09:55 AM
Originally posted by Manu-6S:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Unknown-Pilot:
Roughly 19 seconds calculated, or actually tested, for the Emil? Because according to IL2 Compare (with 4.09 data), the E4 does it in 22.59. That's a HUGE difference.

IL2 compare numbers don't agree neither with the russian test (FW190?)

Lock at the difference between the various 109 versions, above all F4/G2/G6 </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

IL2Compare is flown by a user-AI and does not do well at all near stall. It is likely that good players can do better.
Check with Youss to see if anything about that has changed in the last two versions.

M_Gunz
10-28-2009, 10:01 AM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">In a turn
the weight is multiplied


Wrong. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Really? G's in turn require no extra lift? I was certain that a turn would accelerate the plane and require more AOA
at the same speed to stay level.

Sillius_Sodus
10-28-2009, 10:16 AM
Originally posted by virgule88:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Daiichidoku:
"Bouncing Clouds-flying with the spirit of Erich Hartmann"

I never knew E.H. flew Emils http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

Just for the records, Erich Hartmann flew all these aircrafts during WWII:

Arado AR-66
Arado AR-96
Bucher Bu-131
Bucher Bu-133
Fiesler Fi-153
Focke-Wulf FW-44
Focke-Wulf FW-56
Focke-Wulf FW-58
Heinkel He-46
Heinkel He-50
Heinkel He-51
Junkers F-13
Junkers W-33
Junkers W-34
Klemm KL-25
Klemm KL-35
Messerschmitt Bf-108
Messerschmitt Bf-109B, C, D, E, F, G & K
Messerschmitt Me-262
Morane C-445
North American NAA-64


Models flown in combat:

Messerschmitt Me-109 G-7, G-10, G-14, G-16 and Me-109 K-4

(Source: The BLond Knight of Germany, ISBN 0-8306-8189-2, page 294)
--- </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

He flew the JU-87 too...sort of....he taxied into a tent and some other stuff trying to ferry one http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Kettenhunde
10-28-2009, 10:19 AM
G's in turn require no extra lift?

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.

M_Gunz
10-28-2009, 12:46 PM
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?

Buzzsaw-
10-28-2009, 02:04 PM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
If you have the thrust then you make the turn anyway, the only doghouse charts I've seen for a 109 and a Spitfire are
British and though account has been shown by RAEE that the 109 was turned slats out there will always be dispute it was not.

I don't think the bothered with the slats, the RAE doghouse chart is calculated for both aircraft, with the Bf 109E's coefficient of lift being guessed/estimated from the Spitfire's Cl values; the latter were derived from stall tests, which again creates some pitfalls.


I'd purely love to see good chart or data from Rechlin. I saw one of a late 109 supposed to be turned flat at 6 G's but
the drawing showed a circle and sorry, no way it sustained a 6 G turn which is the only way to get a circle.

According to the Bf 109E Specification sheet, 1939, the shortest turning radii was, w. and w/o use of flaps at 0 and 6000 meter:

Engste Kurvenradien.

Im Luftkampf betragen die engsten Kurvenradien ohne Ausschlag der Landeklappen

in 0 m Höhe 170 m.
in 6000 m Höhe 320 m.

Mit Klappenausschlag sind die engsten Kurvenradien

in 0 m Höhe 125 m.
in 6000 m Höhe 230 m.


Similiar figures are given by a calculation by Messerschmitt AG on Bf 109E turn times and radius in an internal Messerschmitt report.

The calculation was based on a similiar set of data, but assumes the slightlly lower power output of the DB 601A-1 at 990 PS. Conditions in the calculation were 2540 kg weight, 990 PS output, an altitude of 0 m and no height loss. Under these conditions, the turning characteristics of the Bf 109E were as follows :

Turn time for 360 degrees: 18,92 seconds.
Turn radius for above turn: 203 m </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

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.

Buzzsaw-
10-28-2009, 02:09 PM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG53Frankyboy:
about autopitch in the Bf109s during BoB i always thinking about this out of Priens JG53 History book
http://www.franky.fliegerhospital.de/AutopitchJG53.jpg

sure not knowing how reliable this info is......

The Automatic prop pitch for the 109E was introduced by the December 1939 the latest. Obviously it co-existed with the old manual prop pitch (two versions - one having a rocker switch on the throttle, the other having a lever on the dashboard)

The first known documentation of automatic propellor pitch (Luftschauben Verstellautomatik) control appears in late 1939, in the L.Dv. 556/3 (Entwurf) BF 109 E Flugzeughandbuch, promulageted 16 December, 1939, Berlin. The Handbook takes numerous notes on the operation of the Luftschauben Verstellautomatik in various conditions, and also notes that some aircraft are without this automatic system; this latter is confirmed by oral accounts of Bf 109E pilots.

Page 17, I. Startferigmachen, Step 7.
' Prüfe, ob Luftschrauben-Verstellautomatik eingeschaltet ist (Kippschalteran linker Rumpfwand; Selbstschalter in Schalttfel. '

Page 18, IV. Flug, C. Betriebsdaten.
' Bei Flugzeugen ohne Luftschrauben-Verstellautomatik, Luftschraubensteigung durch Daumenschalter am Gashebel oder Verstellschraubeschalter am Gerätebrett so einstellen, daß die verstehend angegeben Werte für Drehzahl und Ladedruck eingeschalten werden. 1,3 ata und 2400 U/min nicht überschreiten!'
' Für Sperrflug Luftschrauben-Verstellautomatik auschalten, (Kippschalter an linker Rumpfwand) und Luftschraubensteigung durch Daumschalter am Gashebel oder Verstellscraubenschalter am Gerätebrett einstellen.'

Page 20, V. Landung, Step 2., and VI. Verhalten in besonderen Fällen, A. Durchstarten, Step 1:
' Bei Flugzeugen ohne Luftschrauben-Verstellautomatik, Luftschraubensteigung durch Daumenschalter am Gashebel oder Verstellschraubeschalter am Gerätebrett auf 12 Uhr. '

Page 21, VI. Verhalten in besonderen Fällen, C. Versagen der Luftschrauben-Verstellautomatik, Step 1.
' Luftschrauben-Verstellautomatik durch Kippschalter an linker Rumpfwand auschalten. '

Page 21, VI. Verhalten in besonderen Fällen, D. Notlandung, Step 3.
' Luftschaube in Segelflug : Luftschrauben-Verstellautomatik durch Kippschalter an linker Rumpfwand auschalten, und Luftschraube durch Daumenschalter am Gashebel oder Verstellschraubeschalter am Gerätebrett in Segelflug bringen. '


Its a very interesting article, thanks for posting it. Its also worth to read the September 1940 report by RAE on the aeroplane - its pretty through.

Messerschmitt Me. 109 Handling and Manoeuvrability Tests
BY M. B. MORGAN, M.A. and D. E. MORRIS, B.SC.
COMMUNICATED BY THE PRINCIPAL DIRECTOR OF SCIENTIFIC RESEARC (AIR), MINISTRY OF SUPPLY

http://kurfurst.org/Tactical_t...UKtrials/Morgan.html (http://kurfurst.org/Tactical_trials/109E_UKtrials/Morgan.html) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

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.

paradoxguy
10-28-2009, 03:27 PM
Originally posted by Sillius_Sodus:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by virgule88:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Daiichidoku:
"Bouncing Clouds-flying with the spirit of Erich Hartmann"

I never knew E.H. flew Emils http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

Just for the records, Erich Hartmann flew all these aircrafts during WWII:

Arado AR-66
Arado AR-96
Bucher Bu-131
Bucher Bu-133
Fiesler Fi-153
Focke-Wulf FW-44
Focke-Wulf FW-56
Focke-Wulf FW-58
Heinkel He-46
Heinkel He-50
Heinkel He-51
Junkers F-13
Junkers W-33
Junkers W-34
Klemm KL-25
Klemm KL-35
Messerschmitt Bf-108
Messerschmitt Bf-109B, C, D, E, F, G & K
Messerschmitt Me-262
Morane C-445
North American NAA-64


Models flown in combat:

Messerschmitt Me-109 G-7, G-10, G-14, G-16 and Me-109 K-4

(Source: The BLond Knight of Germany, ISBN 0-8306-8189-2, page 294)
--- </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

He flew the JU-87 too...sort of....he taxied into a tent and some other stuff trying to ferry one http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

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 (http://books.google.com/books?id=4LrKkp7ynFcC&pg=PA20&lpg=PA20&dq=Erich+Hartmann+brother&source=bl&ots=xrA0wj_tF-&sig=AvpgvAJ37XgUGiRs5NPAj-jShJw&hl=en&ei=qnGuSbqYLp3gsAOxvZ2vDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=2&ct=result#v=onepage&q=Erich%20Hartmann%20brother&f=false)

PG

K_Freddie
10-28-2009, 03:37 PM
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.
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Kettenhunde
10-28-2009, 04:42 PM
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.


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.

http://img264.imageshack.us/img264/4387/typicalpropfighterturnr.jpg (http://img264.imageshack.us/i/typicalpropfighterturnr.jpg/)

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:


M_Gunz says:
In a turn the weight is multiplied and the need for AOA is also. Induced drag increases with the square of that need.

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/foru...711089997#7711089997 (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/1851038997?r=7711089997#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

M_Gunz
10-28-2009, 08:37 PM
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.

Kettenhunde
10-28-2009, 08:46 PM
OK

M_Gunz
10-28-2009, 08:49 PM
Sorry, was spot editing. Didn't know you were 'live' here too! DOH! Mea culpa!

mortoma
10-28-2009, 09:13 PM
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?

doraemil
10-28-2009, 09:23 PM
WOW that article was cool cuz the nice pix!



The beautifully ugly working end of the Bf-109E, the only flying “Emil” in the world. Noise and stink were not the only things to come out of the Daimler-Benz DB601 engine - it also spewed a thumping heavy stream of 20 mm cannon rounds. The single high-performance cannon (or 'shell-gun', as sometimes referred in the 1930s) fired through the cylinder banks via a blast tube, with the engine buffering the recoil. The brutally simple design concept dealt with protruding bits by letting them hang in the slipstream and just fairing over them. Photo: John Latimer, Velocity Photograhy


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)

megalopsuche
10-28-2009, 09:43 PM
Originally posted by doraemil:
WOW that article was cool cuz the nice pix!


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> The beautifully ugly working end of the Bf-109E, the only flying “Emil” in the world. Noise and stink were not the only things to come out of the Daimler-Benz DB601 engine - it also spewed a thumping heavy stream of 20 mm cannon rounds. The single high-performance cannon (or 'shell-gun', as sometimes referred in the 1930s) fired through the cylinder banks via a blast tube, with the engine buffering the recoil. The brutally simple design concept dealt with protruding bits by letting them hang in the slipstream and just fairing over them. Photo: John Latimer, Velocity Photograhy


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) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

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?).

M_Gunz
10-28-2009, 09:54 PM
Originally posted by mortoma:
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?

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.

M_Gunz
10-28-2009, 10:03 PM
Originally posted by megalopsuche:
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?).

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.

faustnik
10-28-2009, 10:08 PM
Bf109 was a great fighter in 1940 but, it sure didn't have enough gas.

Spits had same problems in 1941.

BillSwagger
10-28-2009, 10:49 PM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> We see planes like the P-47 and P-51 first introduced in 42/43, when the 109 was already 5 years old.


And the Bf-109 was completely redesigned in 1941.....

You can split the hairs however you like....

It does not change the fact all the fighters in WWII were not "new designs" and they are were upgraded.

Really, you guys should get some experience in actual aircraft as it would highlight just how silly most of the banter is on these boards. Unfortunately that is beyond the means for most especially those in Europe were your system is prohibitive to learning to fly. You would see many of these reports and evaluations on your favorite airplane in a new light.

It really prevents some good discussion and makes every thread a repeat of the same old tired retoric as if repetition will some how make something a fact.
Crumpp </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


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

M_Gunz
10-28-2009, 11:54 PM
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?

Gaston444
10-29-2009, 02:07 AM
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

Kurfurst__
10-29-2009, 05:20 AM
Originally posted by megalopsuche:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by doraemil:
WOW that article was cool cuz the nice pix!


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> The beautifully ugly working end of the Bf-109E, the only flying “Emil” in the world. Noise and stink were not the only things to come out of the Daimler-Benz DB601 engine - it also spewed a thumping heavy stream of 20 mm cannon rounds. The single high-performance cannon (or 'shell-gun', as sometimes referred in the 1930s) fired through the cylinder banks via a blast tube, with the engine buffering the recoil. The brutally simple design concept dealt with protruding bits by letting them hang in the slipstream and just fairing over them. Photo: John Latimer, Velocity Photograhy


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) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

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?). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

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..

http://kurfurst.org/Tactical_trials/109E_UKtrials/Morgan_files/image031.jpg

yuuppers
10-29-2009, 05:42 AM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
P-47 OTOH would you say only got beefier and meaner? No major change except the paddle props and monster motors?
P-47N

Kettenhunde
10-29-2009, 05:52 AM
I just don't see how that would give me a clearer opinion on the history of the 109 in ww2.

Bill,

It will give you much better insight and help to separate the wheat from the chaff.

For example, when the article mentions the airplane being tail heavy on taxi because of the CG. He talks about the how the airplane is easier to get lose directional control.


Unfortunately it also meant that the center of gravity was very far aft of the main wheels. That is not a good thing.

EVERY tail dragger in existence has the CG aft of the main wheels.....

If they did not then the airplane would tip over on the propeller. The closer the CG is to the mains, the easier it is to strike the prop and the less steering forces you have on the tail if things go wrong. So it is a little harder to lose control but you pay for it with reduced control.

He explains that the CG is farther back and that has been covered on these boards many times. You know the airplane is easier to lose directional control.

As a pilot you know that the CG location does some great things for you as well. A tail dragger needs forces on the tail wheel to maintain directional control. The Bf-109 has good control authority on roll out. It means that the pilot can swing the airplane further off center and still recover than an airplane with the CG closer to the mains.

It is already mentioned in the article the CG also gives the pilots very good brake response. You can stand on the brakes to stop yourself from hitting an obstacle without fear of a nose over. You can't do that in an airplane with a CG closer to the mains. You take your chances, hit the obstacle or nose over and hope you don’t end up dead under the aircraft if it flips.

Wheel landings would be easier as the airplane has plenty of buffer to shove the stick forward to pin it to the runway without fear of a strike. The tail also comes down quickly allowing you to use those good brakes and shorten your landing roll.

As a student learning to fly tail draggers, the stability is nice to learn on. As a pilot, the control is fantastic and what I want. There is nothing worse than gusty cross winds after the flare or the mains touchdown. Any tail dragger will start wagging its tail and the pilot has to be on the rudders controlling the swing. I want an airplane with plenty of control and reduced exposure time so I can get it stopped in the shortest time possible.

All the best,

Crumpp

M_Gunz
10-29-2009, 06:03 AM
Probably depends on what he means by "very far aft". The statement itself is not absolute.

Kettenhunde
10-29-2009, 06:07 AM
Probably depends on what he means by "very far aft". The statement itself is not absolute.

No it is not an absolute but it is telling.


If he has to push forward on the stick and give a shot of throttle to get the tail swinging from a stop....The airplane has a very far aft CG from the mains.

You are stick back in a tail dragger with your thumb parallel to the wind and almost never stick forward on taxi.

Kettenhunde
10-29-2009, 06:23 AM
As a student learning to fly tail draggers, the stability is nice to learn on.

Just to clarify on this....

The directional stability is nice for a student because new tail dragger pilots have a hard time setting the airplane down straight inline with the runway.

That means a tail dragger naturally lands in a three pointer on just one main at a time on most cross wind. It is not a comfortable feeling at first for new pilots. Hence they tend to screw it up adding side drift to plant all three wheels.

With experience a straight touchdown is easy and becomes almost second nature because you just let the airplane do the work. In a three pointer, you set the tailwheel down just before the mains and pin it to the runway with stick back. This gives you better control in the aircraft with the CG further aft for gusting.

Blue_5
10-29-2009, 08:43 AM
An interesting site along side the original and reports supplied by Kurfurst:

http://www.virtualpilots.fi/fe...e/articles/109myths/ (http://www.virtualpilots.fi/feature/articles/109myths/)

M_Gunz
10-29-2009, 10:04 AM
Life is just a bowl of cherries.

Unknown-Pilot
10-29-2009, 12:26 PM
Apparently so.... apparently to the point where nobody can EVER, NOT be accused of cherry picking.

Anytime anyone says something positive about an aircraft, someone else inevitably comes in and calls cherry picking. It's predictable and passe.

What is interesting though, is that this phenomenon happens more to LW aircraft, and within that group, more to the 109 than anything else.

It is curious. I wonder if it's related to the pre-FB days when this whole forum was chock full of red-whiners.

Erkki_M
10-29-2009, 01:06 PM
Me 109 G:
"In my opinion the Messerchmitt's tendendy to swing in takeoff was the result of incorrect training and pilot attitude. Perhaps too hasty takeoffs were sometimes responsible. If you pushed the throttle fully open immediately, the plane tried suddenly to turn right and lean towards the left wing, especially if you had not locked the tailwheel. If the pilot now strongly pushed the left rudder to correct the rightways swing, the plane now started a powerful swing leftwards towards the "Messerschmitt corner". The plane was now hard to control if you didn't use the right brake. But I think the accidents in takeoff were mostly because lack of knowledge and lack of piloting skills."
-Mikko Lallukka, Finnish fighter pilot. Source: Hannu Valtonen, "Me 109 ja Saksan sotatalous" (Messerschmitt Bf 109 and the German war economy), ISBN 951-95688-7-5.Source: Hannu Valtonen, "Messerschmitt Bf 109 and the German war economy"

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/partyhat.gif

Too bad of the incredible amount of Finnish aviation literature only a couple of books have ever been translated to English. Some of them go down to the details of air combat and the aircraft themselves... And there are a few ones listing rare, exciting and funny things that happened in the war. Did you know one Finnish LeLv34 pilot shot down a LaGG-3 in his 109 - having his badly screwed gunsight fallen between his legs? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

F0_Dark_P
10-29-2009, 01:47 PM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by megalopsuche:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by doraemil:
WOW that article was cool cuz the nice pix!


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> The beautifully ugly working end of the Bf-109E, the only flying “Emil” in the world. Noise and stink were not the only things to come out of the Daimler-Benz DB601 engine - it also spewed a thumping heavy stream of 20 mm cannon rounds. The single high-performance cannon (or 'shell-gun', as sometimes referred in the 1930s) fired through the cylinder banks via a blast tube, with the engine buffering the recoil. The brutally simple design concept dealt with protruding bits by letting them hang in the slipstream and just fairing over them. Photo: John Latimer, Velocity Photograhy


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) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

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?). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

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..

http://kurfurst.org/Tactical_trials/109E_UKtrials/Morgan_files/image031.jpg </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

According to what i have read about the Emil the E-3 production variant during the period September 1939 about May 1940 had the MG FF/M hub-firing cannon, but the cannon was very unpopular in service and was often discarded.

I don't exactly know why, but think i have read somewhere that it had problems with overheating.


The source for this is in: Aircam Aviation Series No. 39 (vol.1)

Messerschmitt Bf 109B,C,D,E in Luftwaffe & Foreign Service by Francis K. Mason

Osprey Publishing.

M_Gunz
10-29-2009, 03:05 PM
Originally posted by Unknown-Pilot:
Apparently so.... apparently to the point where nobody can EVER, NOT be accused of cherry picking.

Anytime anyone says something positive about an aircraft, someone else inevitably comes in and calls cherry picking. It's predictable and passe.

What is interesting though, is that this phenomenon happens more to LW aircraft, and within that group, more to the 109 than anything else.

It is curious. I wonder if it's related to the pre-FB days when this whole forum was chock full of red-whiners.

I don't know about YOU but I see the cherry picker parade a-comin now and it ain't *everybody* but just watch the story-piles
that lean over BOTH WAYS and you'll know who.

You know that "everything is either black or white" view is one sign of mental problems?

VMF-214_HaVoK
10-29-2009, 05:50 PM
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

That has been pretty much my quote for the past 8 years. It has failed to catch on with most.

VMF-214_HaVoK
10-29-2009, 05:52 PM
Originally posted by Unknown-Pilot:
It is curious. I wonder if it's related to the pre-FB days when this whole forum was chock full of red-whiners.

I been here a long time and I remember the opposite.

csThor
10-30-2009, 12:39 AM
No Emil ever had a hub-cannon. There was no space for the breech as Messerschmitt had placed an oil tank right there (according to butch2k). Old myth which lives on because some authors are too lazy to do research themselves and keep copying what other authors considered "current state of research" - 30 years ago. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

M_Gunz
10-30-2009, 01:03 AM
Originally posted by VMF-214_HaVoK:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Unknown-Pilot:
It is curious. I wonder if it's related to the pre-FB days when this whole forum was chock full of red-whiners.

I been here a long time and I remember the opposite. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Your memory is pretty good though to those on the blue side anyone else was 'red', 'wrong', and a whiner.

Many times I had been declared as both, always by someone holding up the sacredness of his viewpoint and
often in the same thread if not page!

Unknown-pilot is obviously a logon for someone who held or holds a different name, banned or not, who has been
here for some time and feels the need to add a voice to, in this case, the blue view. When they don't say,
that says a lot in itself.

M_Gunz
10-30-2009, 01:05 AM
Originally posted by csThor:
No Emil ever had a hub-cannon. There was no space for the breech as Messerschmitt had placed an oil tank right there (according to butch2k). Old myth which lives on because some authors are too lazy to do research themselves and keep copying what other authors considered "current state of research" - 30 years ago. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Which does leave the question of what it was he flew doesn't it? The photo shows the muzzle hole in the spinner but maybe
the spinner isn't original.

Blue_5
10-30-2009, 03:06 AM
The E model until the E-7 (IIRC) have a spinner of that shape. It does not seem to be linked to the carriage of a cannon, as indicated by that fitted from the F onwards.

Not sure exactly why that apeture was there.

M_Gunz
10-30-2009, 03:10 AM
That might be the origin of all the 109E with axial cannon stories then?

Hey, it's page 5 already in a 109 thread and no one has complained about the Spitfires. Spooky.

csThor
10-30-2009, 04:08 AM
The origin is an ancient book on the 109 series, the same that propagated the BS about the K-4 having an armament of 2x MG 151/15 above the engine and a Mk 103 between the cylinder banks.

The Luftwaffe considered centerline-mounted weapons to be far preferable to wing-mounted weapons and had asked Messerschmitt if a 20mm MG FF would be possible to be placed there for the E-series. Wasn't possible for a number of reasons (i.e. vibrations and excessive recoil of the gun) so the E-series went on without a centerline gun installation. Messerschmitt had to put a considerable amount of work into redesigning the weapon mounts in the Friedrich so that the wing guns could be removed (and he had to relocate the oil tank which he'd placed in the weapon's path in the Emil).

JG53Frankyboy
10-30-2009, 04:52 AM
not to forgett even the early Bf110s had these spinner with a hole and sure no engine mounted canons............ http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

M_Gunz
10-30-2009, 05:01 AM
Prop mechanism cooling?

yuuppers
10-30-2009, 05:23 AM
Originally posted by csThor:
The origin is an ancient book on the 109 series, the same that propagated the BS about the K-4 having an armament of 2x MG 151/15 above the engine and a Mk 103 between the cylinder banks.

Sounds like the books by W Green from 50 years ago. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

stalkervision
10-30-2009, 05:37 AM
The cannon on the e vibrated so bad on firing it was removed by almost all pilots. The open spinner was kept on some aircraft by some pilots as a additional cooling source. This is my understanding. I hate the pointy spinner myself. It ruins the lines of the squared off 109 e IMO. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

csThor
10-30-2009, 06:17 AM
No, stalkervision. There was never a mass-produced Emil with the hub-cannon. It is even highly doubtful that such a type made it to prototype stage. As I said - Messerschmitt placed an oil tank into the space where the breech would have been. You can't relocate such things "on the fly" so there's no way any Emil ever had a gun there.

stalkervision
10-30-2009, 07:25 AM
Originally posted by csThor:
No, stalkervision. There was never a mass-produced Emil with the hub-cannon. It is even highly doubtful that such a type made it to prototype stage. As I said - Messerschmitt placed an oil tank into the space where the breech would have been. You can't relocate such things "on the fly" so there's no way any Emil ever had a gun there.


Hmmm isn't the oil tank around the prop shaft csthor?

It definitely made it to prototype stage and was tested thou i believe.

Kurfurst__
10-30-2009, 07:41 AM
Originally posted by stalkervision:

Hmmm isn't the oil tank around the prop shaft csthor?

Not on Emil, only on 109F and later. On Emil, it was somewhere between the engine and the pilot.


It definitely made it to prototype stage and was tested thou i believe.

Only very limited numbers of the E-2 variant were built, for which the V20 prototype served as basis. It was armed with two wing mounted, and one engine mounted MG FF cannon, which gave considerable trouble in service, as well as two MG 17s cowl machineguns. I can't confirm nor disprove this from original sources (there is nothing on the E-2), but some authors note this, and it looks plenty detailed enough to me.

What is known is that 6./JG 3 lost one damaged, on 7 September 1940. In August 1940, II./JG 27 was operating this type. In any case, as I noted the main types were E-1, E-3, E-4 and E-7. These ones DEFINIETELY did not have an engine cannons, sooo ... weather a dozen or so E-2 with or without engine cannon was in operation or not seems like more of a scholarly debate. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

csThor
10-30-2009, 07:45 AM
No, the oil tank was behind the engine - in the location where the gun breech of any centerline-mounted gun would be (the gun is behind the engine, not in it). As I said I'm sceptical if there was ever an Emil with said configuration since even the E-1 did not have a centerline-mounted weapon. I suspect the MG FF was tested on an older Type, probably a Dora to see if it was possible at all. And even if there was an Emil with said config it was surely a single piece and certainly not representative for the many Emils built.

EDIT: The only mention of an "E-2" I ever found was in an ancient "Bf 109 in combat" from the early 1980s. I would not call that one particularly trustworthy ... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/halo.gif

stalkervision
10-30-2009, 07:48 AM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stalkervision:

Hmmm isn't the oil tank around the prop shaft csthor?

Not on Emil, only on 109F and later. On Emil, it was somewhere between the engine and the pilot.


It definitely made it to prototype stage and was tested thou i believe.

Only very limited numbers of the E-2 variant were built, for which the V20 prototype served as basis. It was armed with two wing mounted, and one engine mounted MG FF cannon, which gave considerable trouble in service, as well as two MG 17s cowl machineguns. I can't confirm nor disprove this from original sources (there is nothing on the E-2), but some authors note this, and it looks plenty detailed enough to me.

What is known is that 6./JG 3 lost one damaged, on 7 September 1940. In August 1940, II./JG 27 was operating this type. In any case, as I noted the main types were E-1, E-3, E-4 and E-7. These ones DEFINIETELY did not have an engine cannons, sooo ... weather a dozen or so E-2 with or without engine cannon was in operation or not seems like more of a scholarly debate. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

thanks Kurf. I have seen all kind of contradictory info on this that this helps clear it up a bit.

Xiolablu3
10-30-2009, 10:00 AM
DOes anyone know why the engine cannon was not fitted on the Emils? Imagine 2 wing cannons and a third through the spinner in 1940. That would be awesome armament.

Was it because it was troublesome at first?

stalkervision
10-30-2009, 10:56 AM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
DOes anyone know why the engine cannon was not fitted on the Emils? Imagine 2 wing cannons and a third through the spinner in 1940. That would be awesome armament.

Was it because it was troublesome at first?

from what I understand when the cannon was fired the vibration was so bad that it often damaged the airframe X/3. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

Metatron_123
10-30-2009, 11:13 AM
It jammed a lot. In the mod Bf-109E-3 you have the option of a third cannon, and it does jam, but I suspect it's still too good to be true... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif

stalkervision
10-30-2009, 11:18 AM
Originally posted by Metatron_123:
It jammed a lot. In the mod Bf-109E-3 you have the option of a third cannon, and it does jam, but I suspect it's still too good to be true... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif

You have to choose your shots very carefully then. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/icon_twisted.gif

Kettenhunde
10-30-2009, 12:42 PM
In the mod Bf-109E-3 you have the option of a third cannon,

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/partyhat.gif

TS_Sancho
10-30-2009, 01:14 PM
There is a cut away diagram of the BF109 E4 on page 12-13 of Francis Masons German Aircraft of WW2 which shows the position of an oil resevoir in the space that the gun breach occupies in the BF109F onwards, exactly as csThor said.

I have never seen in picture or reliable print a pre F BF109 with a hub firing weapon either and I'm willing to bet money if Kurfurst cant find it it doesnt exist.

P.S. just because the modders modded something doesnt make it real. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

My two cents...

M_Gunz
10-30-2009, 01:23 PM
Compared to the Lerche, it's realism.

Metatron_123
10-30-2009, 01:44 PM
Originally posted by TS_Sancho:
There is a cut away diagram of the BF109 E4 on page 12-13 of Francis Masons German Aircraft of WW2 which shows the position of an oil resevoir in the space that the gun breach occupies in the BF109F onwards, exactly as csThor said.

I have never seen in picture or reliable print a pre F BF109 with a hub firing weapon either and I'm willing to bet money if Kurfurst cant find it it doesnt exist.

P.S. just because the modders modded something doesnt make it real. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

My two cents...

At least some where fitted but according to my sources the Bf-109 E-3s that were fitted with the gun later had it removed...
http://i186.photobucket.com/albums/x286/metatron_123/bf109e3.jpg

Sillius_Sodus
10-30-2009, 01:54 PM
I seem to remember that one of the early versions had 5 mg's, one firing through the prop hub. Might have been an experiment.

TS_Sancho
10-30-2009, 01:59 PM
That certainley appears to be a gun muzzle sticking out of a BF109E prop spinner, ty for the debunking. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

Daiichidoku
10-30-2009, 02:00 PM
id still like to know why Bf 110s had the same hole in the spinner....anyone?

stalkervision
10-30-2009, 02:09 PM
Originally posted by Metatron_123:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TS_Sancho:
There is a cut away diagram of the BF109 E4 on page 12-13 of Francis Masons German Aircraft of WW2 which shows the position of an oil resevoir in the space that the gun breach occupies in the BF109F onwards, exactly as csThor said.

I have never seen in picture or reliable print a pre F BF109 with a hub firing weapon either and I'm willing to bet money if Kurfurst cant find it it doesnt exist.

P.S. just because the modders modded something doesnt make it real. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

My two cents...

At least some where fitted but according to my sources the Bf-109 E-3s that were fitted with the gun later had it removed...
http://i186.photobucket.com/albums/x286/metatron_123/bf109e3.jpg </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


That isn't a gun, that's Adolph Galland's cigar. It was always rumored he stuck his cigar into the end of his airplanes prop to keep it lit while he flew combat missions due to the prop wash. This was quite possible since the 109 had such 'short legs" as you all well know. Now we have proof.

Xiolablu3
10-30-2009, 02:54 PM
Originally posted by TS_Sancho:
That certainley appears to be a gun muzzle sticking out of a BF109E prop spinner, ty for the debunking. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

I *think* that is a MG17, as has been mentioned already.

Xiolablu3
10-30-2009, 02:55 PM
Originally posted by Daiichidoku:
id still like to know why Bf 110s had the same hole in the spinner....anyone?

I guess just because it had the same engine and therefore the same propellor.

AndyJWest
10-30-2009, 03:16 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Daiichidoku:
id still like to know why Bf 110s had the same hole in the spinner....anyone?

I guess just because it had the same engine and therefore the same propellor. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Actually, that suggests to me that the hole may have been used for cooling - after all, making hole-free spinners is hardly going to be a major job. In fact, depending on how they are made, it might even be simpler...

Freiwillige
10-30-2009, 03:45 PM
This is what I have read over the years on the Motorkannon issue.

The E-series was designed to have an MGFF firing between the inverted cylinder banks and out the Spinner hole.

In testing they either found inadequacies with the cannon or the mount. Heat and vibration was also an issue. E-3's were delivered with the cannon but its fail rate and vibration usually meant it was removed almost immediately with some initial E-3's having them but most scrapping the idea right at the factory.

By the E-4 the option was gone completely and never subsequently tried again until the F series.

Later 109E-7 series had a cone to cover the hole on the prop cover since the idea was dropped by then.

BF-110 had same prop cone as 109E that's why they are the same.

F0_Dark_P
10-30-2009, 03:55 PM
I would like to see a source on that the Emils never carried engine cannons

Kurfurst__ do you have that available to read?

I dont want to start a flamewar or argue i just want to learn!.

All i say is that we still have Rob Erdos that says that the Bf 109E-3 he flew (White 14) had a engine cannon and then my book.. i just want to see why this is a "myth"



"The E-3 production variant during the period September 1939 about May 1940 had the MG FF/M hub-firing cannon, but the cannon was very unpopular in service and was often discarded."

The source for this is in: Aircam Aviation Series No. 39 (vol.1)

Messerschmitt Bf 109B,C,D,E in Luftwaffe & Foreign Service by Francis K. Mason

Osprey Publishing.

Kettenhunde
10-30-2009, 06:35 PM
Originally posted by stalkervision:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Metatron_123:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TS_Sancho:
There is a cut away diagram of the BF109 E4 on page 12-13 of Francis Masons German Aircraft of WW2 which shows the position of an oil resevoir in the space that the gun breach occupies in the BF109F onwards, exactly as csThor said.

I have never seen in picture or reliable print a pre F BF109 with a hub firing weapon either and I'm willing to bet money if Kurfurst cant find it it doesnt exist.

P.S. just because the modders modded something doesnt make it real. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

My two cents...

At least some where fitted but according to my sources the Bf-109 E-3s that were fitted with the gun later had it removed...
http://i186.photobucket.com/albums/x286/metatron_123/bf109e3.jpg </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


That isn't a gun, that's Adolph Galland's cigar. It was always rumored he stuck his cigar into the end of his airplanes prop to keep it lit while he flew combat missions due to the prop wash. This was quite possible since the 109 had such 'short legs" as you all well know. Now we have proof. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It is a tow coupling. Mtt experimented with bomber towed fighters. The idea was the bomber could simply bring its escort with it and conserve the limited fuel of the fighter.

The VDM propeller was full feathering, so the fighter simply feathered the propeller and became a glider.

Drop tanks proved to be more practical.

The DB601 is designed to mount a weapon firing thru the propeller shaft. There was not a reliable cannon in service at the time the BF-109A-E's airframe was designed no provision was made to mount the weapon. According to Mtt, no production BF-109A-E series had a Motorkanone.

Did you guys know Mtt made their own propeller designs? Propellers are extremely complicated and the most sophisticated piece of equipment on any propeller driven aircraft. The RLM ordered Mtt to fold its propeller company into VDM. They experimented with increasing the STOL capability of the BF-109 by developing a reversible propeller that could change pitch at 60 degrees a second. Most CSP change at 6-9 degrees a second so 60 degrees a second represents a significant advancement in propeller design.

One of Mtt's design was actually produced in quantity.

All the best,

Crumpp

JG53Frankyboy
10-31-2009, 05:29 AM
Originally posted by F0_Dark_P:
................

"The E-3 production variant during the period September 1939 about May 1940 had the MG FF/M hub-firing cannon, but the cannon was very unpopular in service and was often discarded."

...............
actually this M desigantion has nothing to do with the german word Motor=engine.

guess what the main difference between an E-3 and an E-4 was............. the E-4 had MG-FF/M in its wings the E-3 MG-FF.
This M showed that this canonversion was able to fire mineshells.

Buzzsaw-
10-31-2009, 02:01 PM
All i say is that we still have Rob Erdos that says that the Bf 109E-3 he flew (White 14) had a engine cannon and then my book.. i just want to see why this is a "myth"

No, he didn't say that.

What spawned this is a caption on a photo in th article, probably put up in error by the Webmaster to go along with what Rob wrote, which says that engine mount cannon were used in 109's. (which is true, most 109's had the engine mount cannon) I doubt that Rob would absolutely assert that this 109 had a cannon mount. I know Rob, and have met the guys from the Russell Group, the owners of the 109, and most of these aircraft have their original weapons fitted, (rendered non-fireable) and so if you went to the Russell Group and ask them what the armament of the 109 is, they will not tell you it has a engine mount cannon, since very simply, you can't fit one in this engine, there is no space.

I think this is just a error, probably made by the webmaster.

20mm Hispanos on Vintage Wings Hurricane, "Flying Can Opener":

http://img75.imageshack.us/img75/1918/picture060ys9.th.jpg (http://img75.imageshack.us/my.php?image=picture060ys9.jpg)

By the way, Rob flys this Hurricane, note in the picture the distance between the tips of the Props and the ground, not much space.

Remember what he said in the article about the 109, that the Spits and Hurris have their center of gravity much closer to the cockpit. In the case of the Hurri, this is not much of a problem, but with the Spit, you need to be careful you don't tip the plane over onto its nose.

On the other hand, the Hurricane has its very wide set undercarriage, and is very easy to land or takeoff, directionally stable, unlike the 109. The undercarriage on the Hurris was so strong, the aircraft required no modification in order to be used off Carriers. Most WWII aircraft which are converted to carrier use from normal field operation, require strengthening of the undercarriage to deal with the shock of landing on a carrier deck. The Seafire IIs, converted Spitfires, had some strengthening, but even so, had a very high incidence of undercarriage collapse. During the Salerno invasion, when Seafires based on carriers provided most of the air cover, something like 50% of the available Seafires were out of action by the end of three days, due to undercarriage issues.

TS_Sancho
10-31-2009, 02:28 PM
So to clear things up to this point...

Metatrons image is that of a BF109E with an experimental tow coupling on the spinner, not a gun barrel and no one thus far has offered any legitimate source beyond misquotes and hearsay of the existence of a production BF109E with a hub mounted cannon.

Correct?

Kettenhunde
10-31-2009, 02:58 PM
In about two minutes of searching....



The aircraft tipped forward onto its nose whilst landing on Runway 20 at North Weald. The pilot, who was uninjured, reported that the approach and touchdown in a three-point attitude, were normal.

http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_res...20G-HHII%2007-09.pdf (http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources.cfm?file=/Hawker%20Hurricane%202B,%20G-HHII%2007-09.pdf)

This is just from ONE airfield in England....


Hawker Hurricane Ia R2680 VK-? 238 Squadron RAF St Eval was damaged in a landing accident. Sgt Frederick Albert Sibley 758073 was uninjured.




Hawker Hurricane IIa Z2390 HP-A of 247 Squadron flying a searchlight co-operation sortie, swung onto rough ground on landing and tipped up onto its nose at RAF Predannack.


Hawker Hurricane IIa Z2828 HP-? 247 Squadron based at RAF Predannack landed heavily with drift during bad weather. Sgt D C Deuntzer was unhurt but the aircraft was damaged.




Hawker Hurricane Mk X of 1449 Flt St Marys, Isles of Scilly. Undershot landing and undercarriage leg collapsed.



This is Google's cache of http://www.rafdavidstowmoor.or...h_log/crashlog42.htm (http://www.rafdavidstowmoor.org/pages/crash_log/crashlog42.htm). It is a snapshot of the page as it appeared on 26 Aug 2009 02:54:43 GMT. The current page could have changed in the meantime


Undercarriage collapsed in heavy landing.


http://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/wiki.php?id=15218


It is an ex-RCAF aircraft which suffered two landing accidents in service with a coastal defence sqn and a training unit.

http://www.militaryairshows.co.uk/hurri.htm

It is a conventional gear airplane and has the same risks as any other conventional gear airplane.

All the best,

Crumpp

Buzzsaw-
10-31-2009, 03:04 PM
Salute

Below is a link to Rob Erdos report on the Hurricane IV.

This aircraft is much heavier and more highly powered than BoB era Hurricanes, these models were manufactured in Canada and saw most of their use in Burma as ground attack aircraft.

This aircraft is only flown at maximum +4 boost, the real aircraft was able to use up to +16 boost levels.

Note his comments that similar to the 109, it has visibility problems, and has a cramped cockpit.

He notes how easy it is to taxi, takeoff and land, but doesn't get into as much detail on maneuvering it as he did with the 109.

http://www.vintagewings.ca/page?a=246&lang=en-CA

And here is a report on flying the Spitfire XVI, this one by Mike Potter, the CEO of Vintage Wings.

Note the comments re. ground handling, and maneuverability.

This aircraft is flown at a max. +6 boost, the real aircraft were flown up to +25 boost.

http://www.vintagewings.ca/page?a=211&lang=en-CA

Buzzsaw-
10-31-2009, 03:16 PM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
In about two minutes of searching....


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> The aircraft tipped forward onto its nose whilst landing on Runway 20 at North Weald. The pilot, who was uninjured, reported that the approach and touchdown in a three-point attitude, were normal.

http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_res...20G-HHII%2007-09.pdf (http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources.cfm?file=/Hawker%20Hurricane%202B,%20G-HHII%2007-09.pdf)

This is just from ONE airfield in England....


Hawker Hurricane Ia R2680 VK-? 238 Squadron RAF St Eval was damaged in a landing accident. Sgt Frederick Albert Sibley 758073 was uninjured.




Hawker Hurricane IIa Z2390 HP-A of 247 Squadron flying a searchlight co-operation sortie, swung onto rough ground on landing and tipped up onto its nose at RAF Predannack.


Hawker Hurricane IIa Z2828 HP-? 247 Squadron based at RAF Predannack landed heavily with drift during bad weather. Sgt D C Deuntzer was unhurt but the aircraft was damaged.




Hawker Hurricane Mk X of 1449 Flt St Marys, Isles of Scilly. Undershot landing and undercarriage leg collapsed.



This is Google's cache of http://www.rafdavidstowmoor.or...h_log/crashlog42.htm (http://www.rafdavidstowmoor.org/pages/crash_log/crashlog42.htm). It is a snapshot of the page as it appeared on 26 Aug 2009 02:54:43 GMT. The current page could have changed in the meantime


Undercarriage collapsed in heavy landing.


http://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/wiki.php?id=15218


It is an ex-RCAF aircraft which suffered two landing accidents in service with a coastal defence sqn and a training unit.

http://www.militaryairshows.co.uk/hurri.htm

It is a conventional gear airplane.....

All the best,

Crumpp </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not sure what your point is Crrump?

All aircraft have accidents, especially those which are 60 years old and which are flown by pilots with lower levels of experience.

The Hurricane by any analysis had a much heavier and more stable undercarriage than either the 109's or Spitfires, and was far easier to land and takeoff in.

See Rob Erdos article on the Hurricane.

Kettenhunde
10-31-2009, 03:41 PM
The only challenges on landing are poor forward visibility and the need to be pretty comfortable with three-point landing technique. A gently curving approach to the runway threshold will solve the visibility problem. (And, by the way, all those World War II Spitfire veterans were taught that way and will expect to see it.) Over the fence at 90 knots and a last look speed of 80 knots and you will be well set up. Take a good look at the cross wind as you come short final and program your mind for how much side slip you want to feed in on the flare, because it is not easy to judge the drift once that long nose starts to come up. Flare to a tail low or three point attitude, remembering again how light and responsive the elevator is, and enjoy the arrival. It may jiggle around a bit on that ridiculously narrow undercarriage, but there is no mean streak in this airplane. Although the tail wheel is free castoring, the big rudder is very effective as long as you are reasonable fast with your feet.
Oh, and easy, very easy, on the brakes.


Wow! As long as you know what your doing, very comfortable with the landing technique, and stay ahead of the airplane, it is a real pussycat!

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif



it’s normal to run out of aft elevator trim on approach.

Elevator effectiveness is poor in the 3-point attitude. Leave a trickle of power through the flare or it will drop out from under you.

That's not very good or conducive to safe landing. It only took a few minutes of searching google to find a few accidents because of this characteristic.


Hawker Hurricane Mk X of 1449 Flt St Marys, Isles of Scilly. Undershot landing and undercarriage leg collapsed.



Undercarriage collapsed in heavy landing.



http://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/wiki.php?id=15218


The Hurricane’s undercarriage is wide and soft, and the directional stability and response allow adequate tracking through the roll-out. Compared to the Spitfire, there’s even enough download on the tail to allow some use of brakes.

That's good, directional control is "adequate" on a normal rollout. That is better than the T-6 Texan which has very poor control at certain speeds on rollout.

However should we not have a normal rollout, whatever force a taildragger swings the swingback will be force squared. Whatever the case, it is better than the Spitfires tail-load but not as good as the Bf-109's.

http://www.vintagewings.ca/page?a=246&lang=en-CA

The point is all of these are conventional gear aircraft. You have to know what you are doing when you fly them and all of them can bite. All of them are safe as long as they are operated correctly.


All the best,

Crumpp

Daiichidoku
10-31-2009, 05:02 PM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
All of them are safe as long as they are operated correctly.

everything but Kevorkian machines are safe when operated correctly http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

M_Gunz
10-31-2009, 06:09 PM
And suicide bombs and nukes....

Kettenhunde
10-31-2009, 06:26 PM
everything but Kevorkian machines are safe when operated correctly

Exactly! There is very little to choose from in conventional gear aircraft. That is why your insurance rates are much higher for any aircraft just because it has a tail wheel.

RV-6 come with tri-gear or tailwheel...much higher insurance rates if you choose a tailwheel. Why? All conventional gear aircraft are harder to operate and the physics only allows a designer to pick his poison. There is no such thing as a "pussycat" with a tailwheel.

C170 will run twice the insurance rate over a C172 just because of the tailwheel.

http://www.eaa.org/insurance/a...-12-15_insurance.asp (http://www.eaa.org/insurance/articles/2005-12-15_insurance.asp)

The argument that one conventional gear airplane is less prone to landing accidents than another conventional gear airplane is really silly.

Mostly it comes down to folks reading much more into anecdotes than is really present.

All the best,

Crumpp

yuuppers
10-31-2009, 07:04 PM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
The argument that one conventional gear airplane is less prone to landing accidents than another conventional gear airplane is really silly.

All the best,

Crumpp

Got statistics? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Buzzsaw-
10-31-2009, 07:34 PM
Salute

The people who get to fly these aircraft are usually those with extensive experience already, but still everyone who takes these irreplaceable aircraft into the blue have to jump through a lot of hoops.

Rob Erdos talks about what is required before you start the engine and taxi away:

http://www.vintagewings.ca/page?a=557&lang=en-CA

Following is another take on the Hurricane IV, by a rookie, who runs into the types of problems which can arise when you are flying an antique.

http://www.vintagewings.ca/page?a=548&lang=en-CA

Buzzsaw-
10-31-2009, 07:41 PM
Salute

And here is British pilot Howard Cook talking about preparing to fly one of the only flying Spit V's in the world:

http://www.vintagewings.ca/page?a=513&lang=en-CA

By the way, despite his extensive experience, Howard Cook suffered serious injuries this summer when the mild mannered Tiger Moth he was flying, lost all power just after lift off. He is now recovering in hospital.

M_Gunz
10-31-2009, 07:48 PM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
Mostly it comes down to folks reading much more into anecdotes than is really present.

Or just using whatever comes to hand for agenda rhetoric.

Kettenhunde
10-31-2009, 08:36 PM
Got statistics?

No, but my insurance company does and I get a bill from them every year for owning a taildragger!

Give them a call and ask about taildraggers...

http://www.falconinsurance.com/contact/


After a landing accident in the summer of 2000, the airframe was stripped down to its smallest components.

http://www.buytigermoth.com/


But it was very forgiving, just as it had been on my first ground loop in a similar Moth when training.

http://www.lancastermuseum.ca/s,92_2joetiger.html

Here is a nice article on taildraggers:

http://www.legend.aero/inprint...ar_or_Tail_Wheel.pdf (http://www.legend.aero/inprint/Tri-Gear_or_Tail_Wheel.pdf)

Kettenhunde
10-31-2009, 08:42 PM
Buzzsaw,

I definitely agree with those guys on the T-6. That is the loopiest taildragger I have ever flown. It is a great advanced trainer as there is no forgiveness anywhere in it.

If you can master the T-6, you can fly anything with a tailwheel.

All the best,

Crumpp

Kettenhunde
10-31-2009, 09:13 PM
Or just using whatever comes to hand for agenda rhetoric.

That too....

RamsteinUSA
11-02-2009, 06:37 AM
Oleg gave the German fighter incredible energy retention, something many the allied planes fall short on. Me thinks fromt he sound of the report, like whent he pilot talks about the wingovers, that the plane did find a stall speed faster witht he prop not adjusted properly. To me that would indicate less engery retention than the BF109 has in Il-2.