PDA

View Full Version : More on Bf109G high speed roll rates



XyZspineZyX
09-30-2003, 03:51 PM
Gentlemen,

Found this website -

http://user.tninet.se/~ytm843e/versus.htm

while touring around on the net. It specifically relates to tactical performance trials of the Tempest V. Howver, interestingly enough, the Tempest is compared to the Spitfire Mk.XIV, the FW190A, and Mustang III, and the Bf109G. Particulars on the comparison a/c are absent. While numerical roll rate values are not stated, the report does point in an interesting direction regarding comparative roll rate performance.

Quoting from the report as regards the relative performance of the Tempest to each of the named a/c -


Rate of Roll


The Spitfire XIV rolls faster at speeds below 300 mph, but definitely more slowly at speeds greater than 350 mph.

The Tempest V cannot compare with the FW 190.

At normal speeds there is nothing in it, but at speeds over 350 mph the Tempest could get away from the Bf.109G by making a quick change of bank and direction.

The Tempest is not so good. This attribute may be improved upon later aircraft with re-designed ailerons.


Readers are invited to draw their own conclusions.



Blutarski

XyZspineZyX
09-30-2003, 03:51 PM
Gentlemen,

Found this website -

http://user.tninet.se/~ytm843e/versus.htm

while touring around on the net. It specifically relates to tactical performance trials of the Tempest V. Howver, interestingly enough, the Tempest is compared to the Spitfire Mk.XIV, the FW190A, and Mustang III, and the Bf109G. Particulars on the comparison a/c are absent. While numerical roll rate values are not stated, the report does point in an interesting direction regarding comparative roll rate performance.

Quoting from the report as regards the relative performance of the Tempest to each of the named a/c -


Rate of Roll


The Spitfire XIV rolls faster at speeds below 300 mph, but definitely more slowly at speeds greater than 350 mph.

The Tempest V cannot compare with the FW 190.

At normal speeds there is nothing in it, but at speeds over 350 mph the Tempest could get away from the Bf.109G by making a quick change of bank and direction.

The Tempest is not so good. This attribute may be improved upon later aircraft with re-designed ailerons.


Readers are invited to draw their own conclusions.



Blutarski

XyZspineZyX
09-30-2003, 04:30 PM
..... then again, I just found this bit of info at another website -

http://www.vectorsite.net/avbf1092.html


Quote -

A Luftwaffe pilot would land his Bf-109G at RAF Manston by mistake later in the war and allow comparison of the Messerschmitt against current Allied types, showing it to have few advantages and many disadvantages relative to the Spitfire Mark IX and XIV, as well as the P-51C Mustang. This Gustav was lost in an accident before it could be tested against a Tempest Mark V.

- Unquote


So it can probably be inferred that the performance comparison between the Tempest V and the 109G was interpolated based upon the results of previous tests against other a/c.

One would think that these flight test reports must still be lurking somewhere within the PRO.



Blutarski

XyZspineZyX
09-30-2003, 04:32 PM
Again they are comparing against Bf-109 with gunpods mounted. Not relevant at all.


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
09-30-2003, 04:55 PM
Huckebein_FW wrote:
- Again they are comparing against Bf-109 with gunpods
- mounted. Not relevant at all.
-
-



How much did the gunpods impede the performance of the 109?

Still waiting for you or Issy to produce some numbers for the high speed roll rates of the 109.



http://www.stenbergaa.com/stenberg/west-battleline.jpg



"Only a dead 'chamber pot' is a good 'chamber pot'!"

XyZspineZyX
09-30-2003, 05:37 PM
Huckebein_FW wrote:
- Again they are comparing against Bf-109 with gunpods
- mounted. Not relevant at all.

Even if that *was* true it is not 100% correct. The initial roll rate *might* be slower due to the extra inertia of the gun pods. After which the sustaned roll rates should be very close.

On/Off topic, any word on why the flettner tabs would not show up in a picture of a late war 109K-6?



<div style="background:#222222;color:#e0e0e0;font-size:24px;font-weight:bold;font-face:courier;"> TAGERT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If WAR was not the ANSWER.. Than what the H was your QUESTION?
</div>
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=forum
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=discussion

XyZspineZyX
09-30-2003, 05:56 PM
According to Prien/Rodeike there are no known W.Nr. block assigned to the K-6 and it is not known if the K-6 actually entered production. There was one K-6 being tested at Rechlin in the fall of '44. (a prototype??)

Do you have a photo of a K-6?

tagert wrote:

-
- On/Off topic, any word on why the flettner tabs
- would not show up in a picture of a late war 109K-6?
-


http://www.stenbergaa.com/stenberg/west-battleline.jpg



"Only a dead 'chamber pot' is a good 'chamber pot'!"

XyZspineZyX
09-30-2003, 06:08 PM
Huckebein,

Do we know for certain that the 109G was tested with the gun pods in place? It seems that, if indeed present on the aircraft, the gunpods apparently did not remarkably affect either speed or climb rate. I would really like to see the full report.



Blutarski

XyZspineZyX
09-30-2003, 06:19 PM
BLUTARSKI wrote:
- Huckebein,
-
- Do we know for certain that the 109G was tested with
- the gun pods in place? It seems that, if indeed
- present on the aircraft, the gunpods apparently did
- not remarkably affect either speed or climb rate. I
- would really like to see the full report.


Unfortunately the quality of british tests on captured german aircrafts is so poor, that most of the time you won't see any details about the configuration of the aircraft in test. And of course no word about HP rating (this is why you'll see in such tests SpitV climbing at 4700fpm/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif ).

If you're lucky you might get a weight in test.
You'll get the performance numbers though.

American tests have a different approach, they give some details about the aircraft tested, but they do not give any performance numbers found in test. They say it was "good", "bad" and so on.

Two different kinds of saying nothing about the actual aircraft.


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
09-30-2003, 06:22 PM
BLUTARSKI wrote:
- Do we know for certain that the 109G was tested with
- the gun pods in place? It seems that, if indeed
- present on the aircraft, the gunpods apparently did
- not remarkably affect either speed or climb rate. I
- would really like to see the full report.

On that note.. I could have sworn I read somewhere that the gun pods were designed for quick instalation and removal.. If so, I would think it wise of the people testing the aircraft to test it both ways, or at least, when comparing it to other aircraft to find it weeknes you would want to test it in it's BEST CASE senario.



<div style="background:#222222;color:#e0e0e0;font-size:24px;font-weight:bold;font-face:courier;"> TAGERT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If WAR was not the ANSWER.. Than what the H was your QUESTION?
</div>
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=forum
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=discussion

XyZspineZyX
09-30-2003, 06:33 PM
So fill us in Huckie. What numbers do you have for the high speed roll rates for the 109.

What Spit V test says 4700fpm? If you mean this one, it does give a boost of +18lb as well as the weight, 6,450 lb. http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/w3228.html


http://www.stenbergaa.com/stenberg/west-battleline.jpg



"Only a dead 'chamber pot' is a good 'chamber pot'!"

XyZspineZyX
09-30-2003, 06:35 PM
That SpitV had a 1720hp engine. Meaning a late Spit IX engine (at least in terms of HP rating, I know it was still designated Merlin 45) in a light SpitV airframe. Not a realistic combination. Of course it never saw production.

Giving the boost only does not tell the whole story.


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

Message Edited on 09/30/0312:42PM by Huckebein_FW

XyZspineZyX
09-30-2003, 06:51 PM
Huckebein_FW wrote:
- Unfortunately the quality of british tests on
- captured german aircrafts is so poor, that most of
- the time you won't see any details about the
- configuration of the aircraft in test. And of course
- no word about HP rating (this is why you'll see in
- such tests SpitV climbing at 4700fpm
-
- If you're lucky you might get a weight in test.
- You'll get the performance numbers though.
-
- American tests have a different approach, they give
- some details about the aircraft tested, but they do
- not give any performance numbers found in test. They
- say it was "good", "bad" and so on.
-
- Two different kinds of saying nothing about the
- actual aircraft.

huckie.. try to put yourself in thier shoes, and while doing so keep in mind that the purpose of alot of those tests was to find out how those aircraft compaired to thier aircraft. ie find the areas of weekness of the enmy aircraft, relitive to thier aircraft. This info could then be used by thier pilots to exploite the weekneses. In a nutshell they DID NOT collect data so someone could write a computer program to simulate them in 60+ years. The pilots didnt need to know the difference in the roll rate between 250 gallons and 260 gallons in that they didnt know what the enmy fule load was anyways!! The pilots just needed the BIG ABSOLUTES!! ie avoid conflits at this alt range, trun, climb, or dive, etc. Basically the resolution is not there because that kind of resolution was not needed.

So to say *poor* or *incomplete* only shows your poor and incomplete understanding of the purpose of AC vs AC testing.



<div style="background:#222222;color:#e0e0e0;font-size:24px;font-weight:bold;font-face:courier;"> TAGERT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If WAR was not the ANSWER.. Than what the H was your QUESTION?
</div>
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=forum
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=discussion

Message Edited on 09/30/0310:59AM by tagert

XyZspineZyX
09-30-2003, 07:00 PM
Huckie, 18lb boost gave a hp of 1585 @ 2750ft. The 45/50 and 45M/50M engines were fitted to production a/c.


Huckebein_FW wrote:
- That SpitV had a 1720hp engine. Meaning a late Spit
- IX engine (at least in terms of HP rating, I know it
- was still designated Merlin 45) in a light SpitV
- airframe. Not a realistic combination. Of course it
- never saw production.
-
- Giving the boost only does not tell the whole story.
-

STILL WAITING FOR THOSE HIGH SPEED ROLL RATE NUMBERS FOR THE 109.


http://www.stenbergaa.com/stenberg/west-battleline.jpg



"Only a dead 'chamber pot' is a good 'chamber pot'!"

XyZspineZyX
09-30-2003, 07:21 PM
MiloMorai wrote:
- Huckie, 18lb boost gave a hp of 1585 @ 2750ft. The
- 45/50 and 45M/50M engines were fitted to production
- a/c.


1585hp at 18lb is for early Merlin 60 series. Late Merlin 60 series gave 1720hp at the same boost. This is why giving only the boost is misleading.

Merlins 45/50 mounted in '43 on serviceable SpitV had a max of 1480hp. Earlier ones were less powerfull.


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
09-30-2003, 07:38 PM
See pg. 172 of "Spitfire: The History" Huckie.

Since when were Merlin 60 series engines fitted to the Spitfire Mk V? Since 45/50 engines were fitted to the Mk V, only giving boost for the Mk V is quite correct.


Huckebein_FW wrote:

-
- 1585hp at 18lb is for early Merlin 60 series. Late
- Merlin 60 series gave 1720hp at the same boost. This
- is why giving only the boost is misleading.
-
- Merlins 45/50 mounted in '43 on serviceable SpitV
- had a max of 1480hp. Earlier ones were less
- powerfull.
-

Quit dodging the question.

WHEN ARE YOU GOING TO POST THOSE HIGH SPEED ROLL RATES FOR THE 109?



http://www.stenbergaa.com/stenberg/west-battleline.jpg



"Only a dead 'chamber pot' is a good 'chamber pot'!"

XyZspineZyX
09-30-2003, 08:10 PM
tagert wrote:

- On/Off topic, any word on why the flettner tabs
- would not show up in a picture of a late war 109K-6?

Funny, aileron Flettner tabs DO show up on all Bf 109 K factory drawings I have seen yet, INCLUDING the K-4, K-6.


Now, it`s another stupid attempt we have seen from the same guys before. So far :

V 1.0 109 roll rate was poor.

V 1.1. 109 roll rate was poor at high speed. Show us anything that doesn`t show it

v 1.2 Ok. you showed something, but somehow it suddenly become blurry, we can`t read it.

v 1.3 [Great silence after results were typed in]

v 1.4 450 kp/h values are irrelevant. Show us for 600+ kph. There 109 roll rate was poor. Mark Hanna also says that.

v 1.405 How deep a tongue can reach ? Blutarski shows us, with the help of taggert.

v 1.41 Yeah, we don`t care if Coggan and Hanna says ailerons were actually much lighter than on other planes, Mark Hanna never flew above 520 kph. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif Compare to previous.

v 1.5 We neither care of the results with Flettner tabs. Flettner tabs were never used on 109s, in any form, not even on K, in absolutely no way.

v 1.6 Sing after us, despite that didn`t know BS about the use of Flettner tabs on 109s from 1943 onwards, we now state that they were never used on ailerons, just on rudder (even if we before said it wasn`t used on the rudder neither)

v 1.7 Blutatski kisses tagerts a$$, tagert touches Blutty`s internals with his toungue-tip, invasion from the soft underbelly.

v 1.8 Hah! You just showed us drawings that show Flettner tabs on the ailerons... uhm.. eh... No proof, no proof, no proof, sing after me, tagert wanna cracker, a drawing is no proof.

v 1.9 Yeah-yeah, you can show us a picture showing the actual use of Flettners... what does this prove ? nothing to us! It was prototype, sing after me, proto, proto, prototype, anyway, was never used on other than K series (which entered service Janauary 1945 /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif ).

v 2.0 Uhm... this plane has Flettners... it`s not a K-4.. oh yerah, I know. These are LOCKED. I can see that clearly, being an expert on Flettner tabs and how they work. Especially on how much they were used on 109s. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif Locked, locked, locky locked, or must be protty-protty PRO-TO-TYPE. We know it all. Source? We don`t need those ! [Mad laugh].

v 2.1 Yeah yeah, you show me 1 photo,I show ya 25 that doesn`t have them. No, I show ya 50 ! Or 100 ! Does it matter how much I say ? Not at all, I never posted those anyway...

v 2.2 I, tagert, the All-knownaladgable Final Arbiter on what 109 roll rate was, with my Trusty Companion and Obidient A$$licker Blutto, hereby pronounce that on the many thousen pictures I have seen on the (never produced) "late-war 109K-6s", I could not see or experience in any other way the presence of Flettner tabs, and even if I did, those were locky-locky-locky locked on prottttoooottyyyyyyyyyyype! [Mad ninja shout].



More on human idiocy, I must say... that would be a more proper title to the thread.

http://vo101isegrim.piranho.com/FB-desktopweb.jpg
'Only a dead Indianer is a good Indianer!'

Vezérünk a Bátorság, K*sérµnk a Szerencse!
(Courage leads, Luck escorts us! - Historical motto of the 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)

Flight tests and other aviation performance data: http://www.pbase.com/isegrim

XyZspineZyX
09-30-2003, 08:20 PM
Huckebein_FW wrote:

- Unfortunately the quality of british tests on
- captured german aircrafts is so poor, .
(snip)
- American tests have a different approach, they give
- some details about the aircraft tested, but they do
- not give any performance numbers found in test. They
- say it was "good", "bad" and so on.
(snip)
- Two different kinds of saying nothing about the
- actual aircraft.


I ask the following question. When you state that all American and British test evaluations are "saying nothing" do you mean to imply that they are worthless on every level, or simply imprecise? If your position is that they are imprecise, then I agree (see below). If are attempting to arge that the tests were incompetently conducted and therefore totally useless, then I strongly disagree.

Gradings such as "poor, fair, good, excellent, etc" or "better than such and such an a/c in climb over 20,000 feet" do indeed impart valuable information, if only from a relative perspective. If the intent of the report was to explore performance differences in a general or relative way, then detailed and specific values were not germaine to the goal of the effort.


Blutarski

XyZspineZyX
09-30-2003, 08:56 PM
Vo101_Isegrim wrote:
-
- tagert wrote:
-
-- On/Off topic, any word on why the flettner tabs
-- would not show up in a picture of a late war 109K-6?
-
- Funny, aileron Flettner tabs DO show up on all Bf
- 109 K factory drawings I have seen yet, INCLUDING
- the K-4, K-6

Drawings... Factory Drawings? We talking blue prints? Doubt it. Either way.. your premis is that flettner tabs were present on *some* G's.. and that they were *standard* for the K's... Then why are there pictures of K's without them? That sounds very *un-standard* to me.

- Now, it`s another stupid attempt we have seen from
- the same guys before. So far : *SNIP*

LOL! Looks like I struck a nerve! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

- More on human idiocy, I must say... that would be a
- more proper title to the thread.

And your childish attempt to start another flaming tanget topic to get of the subject at hand is weak and shows your argument has no merit.

<div style="background:#222222;color:#e0e0e0;font-size:24px;font-weight:bold;font-face:courier;"> TAGERT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If WAR was not the ANSWER.. Than what the H was your QUESTION?
</div>
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=forum
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=discussion

XyZspineZyX
09-30-2003, 09:17 PM
tagert wrote:
-
- And your childish attempt to start another flaming
- tanget topic to get of the subject at hand is weak
- and shows your argument has no merit.


"A childish attempt to (..)" How old are you tagert? 14-15?


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
09-30-2003, 09:23 PM
BLUTARSKI wrote:

-
- I ask the following question. When you state that
- all American and British test evaluations are
- "saying nothing" do you mean to imply that they are
- worthless on every level, or simply imprecise? If
- your position is that they are imprecise, then I
- agree (see below). If are attempting to arge that
- the tests were incompetently conducted and therefore
- totally useless, then I strongly disagree.
-
- Gradings such as "poor, fair, good, excellent, etc"
- or "better than such and such an a/c in climb over
- 20,000 feet" do indeed impart valuable information,
- if only from a relative perspective. If the intent
- of the report was to explore performance differences
- in a general or relative way, then detailed and
- specific values were not germaine to the goal of the
- effort.


No, because without saying the performance obtained in test no one can tell if they performed according to the specs. Nobody can say that they were tested correctly. That's for american tests.

About the british tests that never list the HP rating of the planes in test, and most of the time do not list the equipment fitted. The result in such a test simply does not say anything. HP rating could have had any value.

Yes, they are worthless. They tested foreign equipment in order to obtain the results they wanted to obtain (which depending on the situation had to be good or bad).


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

Message Edited on 09/30/0303:34PM by Huckebein_FW

XyZspineZyX
09-30-2003, 09:39 PM
MiloMorai wrote:
- See pg. 172 of "Spitfire: The History" Huckie.
-
- Since when were Merlin 60 series engines fitted to
- the Spitfire Mk V? Since 45/50 engines were fitted
- to the Mk V, only giving boost for the Mk V is quite
- correct.

I never said Merlin 60 series were fitted on serial SpitV. I said: experimental SpitV in that particular test was fitted with a Merlin 45 with the HP rating of a Merlin 66, therefore the increased performance.



- Quit dodging the question.
-
- WHEN ARE YOU GOING TO POST THOSE HIGH SPEED ROLL
- RATES FOR THE 109?


Isegrim answered very well to this question. There is no need for other proof that Bf-109 had good handling at high speeds.


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
09-30-2003, 10:07 PM
Some British and US tests are very extensive.
British tests of the G-2 are really impressive, really going into the details with many details about test conditions and results.


Butch

XyZspineZyX
09-30-2003, 10:12 PM
Butch,

Does that test give the high speed roll rate for G2? Or the sustained turn rate?
Can you point to such an extensive american evaluation of Bf-109, beside that on F4 (which is positive, but can be hardly called extensive)?


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

Message Edited on 09/30/0304:12PM by Huckebein_FW

XyZspineZyX
09-30-2003, 10:18 PM
- I never said Merlin 60 series were fitted on serial
- SpitV. I said: experimental SpitV in that particular
- test was fitted with a Merlin 45 with the HP rating
- of a Merlin 66, therefore the increased performance.

- 1585hp at 18lb is for early Merlin 60 series. Late
- Merlin 60 series gave 1720hp at the same boost. This
- is why giving only the boost is misleading.

Sorry Huck, you're wrong.

The Merlin 50 in that Spit V had a croped supercharger. That had the effect of reducing the supercharger boost, and reducing the ammount of power the supercharger required.

Consequently, the power was higher at lower altitudes, but fell off quickly because the supercharger could only maintain 18lbs boost to a low altitude (4000ft at climbing speed)

The Spit V weighed 6450 lbs, the Spit IX 7485lbs.

The climb performance of both at the best height for the Merlin 50 engined Spit, 4000ft, was 4720ft/min for the Spit V, 4,660ft/min for the Spit IX.

In other words, the climb rates were almost identical, but the Spit IX weighed 1,000lbs more, and so probably had more power than the Spit V to achieve almost the same climb rate.

Now, the Merlin 66 had an output of around 1500 - 1550hp at 4,000ft. Therefore, the Merlin 50 in that Spit V was putting out something less than that.

- Merlins 45/50 mounted in '43 on serviceable SpitV
- had a max of 1480hp. Earlier ones were less
- powerfull.

That's probably about right. The Merlin 66 engined Spit IX weighed more than 1000lbs more, and had a power output at 4,000ft (critical alt for the Spit V with Merlin 50) of 1500 - 1550hp. The Spit V, with 1000lbs less weight, and 50 - 70hp less, is going to climb better, at that altitude.

XyZspineZyX
09-30-2003, 10:25 PM
Huckebein_FW wrote:
.
-
- I never said Merlin 60 series were fitted on serial
- SpitV. I said: experimental SpitV in that particular
- test was fitted with a Merlin 45 with the HP rating
- of a Merlin 66, therefore the increased performance.
-

Huckie, the 45M/50M/55M were not experimental engines. And that test had a 50M fitted, which was a standard fit in the CCC MkVs, so is hardly an experimental a/c.


-
-
- Isegrim answered very well to this question. There
- is no need for other proof that Bf-109 had good
- handling at high speeds.
-
-

I never saw any high speed roll rate graphs for the 109's. Issy's rantings don't count.



http://www.stenbergaa.com/stenberg/west-battleline.jpg



"Only a dead 'chamber pot' is a good 'chamber pot'!"

XyZspineZyX
09-30-2003, 10:36 PM
Welcome back, Isegrim -

I see you are still fascinated by tongues and anuses.

If you review my posts, you will see that I never passed any sort of judgment upon the the roll rate performance of the Bf-109. I only questioned your claim that roll rate must have been high simply because a 2/3 aileron deflection had been displayed in a Bf109 test at 770kph.

Have you had any time to find those documented Bf-109 high-speed roll rate figures I asked about?

Although this test apparently involved Flettner tabs, regarding which it is unclear as to exactly how prevalent they were among service Bf109's, I never mentioned a word further about them, except to inquire as to whether anyone knew to what degree they were to have been found on Bf109's during the later war period. So, if you are going to the trouble of crafting such a luxurious buffet of insults, at least make sure that you direct them to the proper objects of your ire.

You remind me of the knight in the woodland clearing in "Monte Python and the Holy Grail". I admire your combativeness and zeal, sort of, but disputing with you is like fighting a defenceless man.


Blutarski

XyZspineZyX
09-30-2003, 10:52 PM
Huckebein_FW wrote:
- No, because without saying the performance obtained
- in test no one can tell if they performed according
- to the specs. Nobody can say that they were tested
- correctly. That's for american tests.
-
- About the british tests that never list the HP
- rating of the planes in test, and most of the time
- do not list the equipment fitted. The result in such
- a test simply does not say anything. HP rating could
- have had any value.
-
- Yes, they are worthless. They tested foreign
- equipment in order to obtain the results they wanted
- to obtain (which depending on the situation had to
- be good or bad).


I can understand some of what you argue, i.e. - that without knowing the background details it is impossible to know whether the captured a/c were performing to spec. The other side of this argument, however, is to ask the following question: How could anyone in a wartime situation know for certain the true performance specifications of any captured a/c? In a wartime environment, they make the best of what they had available - a captured a/c, repaired to the best of their understanding of the equipment.

Based upon the British evaluation of the 109G, they certainly seem to have gotten the climb aspect correct. If so, then why is their comparative roll rate appraisal suspect. They got the a/c up to 350-400mph and rolled it. It did not roll as well as other a/c. Unless the control linkage was out of adjustment or the ailerons damaged in some unseen manner, both presumably to be evident in any careful pre-flight, what other influence might affect the roll rate?

Your closing comment that the Allies tested foreign equipment "in order to obtain the results they wanted
to obtain" is patently foolish. Do you actually believe this? If so, grow up.



Blutarski

XyZspineZyX
09-30-2003, 10:57 PM
Huckebein_FW wrote:
-Isegrim answered very well to this question. There is no need for other proof that Bf-109 had good handling at high speeds.

If you really believe what you posted above, why are you asking Butch for data?



Blutarski

XyZspineZyX
09-30-2003, 11:37 PM
Huckebein_FW wrote:
- "A childish attempt to (..)" How old are you tagert?
- 14-15?

Your childish attempt to start another flaming tanget topic to get off the subject at hand is weak and shows your argument has no merit.


<div style="background:#222222;color:#e0e0e0;font-size:24px;font-weight:bold;font-face:courier;"> TAGERT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If WAR was not the ANSWER.. Than what the H was your QUESTION?
</div>
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=forum
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=discussion

XyZspineZyX
10-01-2003, 01:20 AM
Blutarski,
The quality of allied tests is a subject for another thread. Open another thread and look for the comparison between P47 and Fw190. We'll have a good laugh together.

On the subject of roll rate, there is not much to say. Since the ailerons could be deflected 2/3 from max deflection at 770km/h IAS it means the following:


pb/2v = coeff * total_aileron_deflection

p - roll rate
b - wing span
v - IAS
total aileron deflection is the cumulated angles of deflection on both ailerons

coeff - is (coeff of rolling moment with aileron angle)/((coeff of rolling moment with helix angle)*114.6)

the above coeff is aprox constant with speed for a particular plane


As a result roll rate at 770km/h and 2/3 aileron deflection is aprox the same with roll rate at 500km/h and full aileron deflection. Also note that stick forces are higher in first case than in second. So the roll rate in that case was aprox 80 deg/sec as long as the pilot had the muscle to put 2/3 aileron deflection.


Also note that 30lb aileron force is very heavy. 50lb force is what is commonly known as "stick in cement". 50lb force is not the force exerted by the pilot, but the force applied lateraly on the stick. The force exerted by the pilot is even higher. This is why higher limits for elevator forces are tolerated, because they can be applied more efficiently.


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

Message Edited on 09/30/0307:40PM by Huckebein_FW

XyZspineZyX
10-01-2003, 01:52 AM
MiloMorai wrote:
- So fill us in Huckie. What numbers do you have for
- the high speed roll rates for the 109.


He has none. All the evidence we've seen suggests the Bf-109 had a poor roll rate at higher speeds. Huck disagrees, but can't (or won't) prove it. He'll offer some meaningless calculations, but his talent in that regard is very suspect given his propensity to use incorrect data.



Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/NAA_logo.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-01-2003, 01:58 AM
Propensity to use erroneous data? You cannot even read the easiest text in mathematics or physics and have the boldness to comment on the data I post.
How about reading the previous post of mine in this thread. Where are the errors Skychimp?


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
10-01-2003, 02:03 AM
Huckebein_FW wrote:
- Propensity to use erroneous data? You cannot even
- read the easiest text in mathematics or physics and
- have the boldness to comment on the data I post.
- How about reading the previous post of mine in this
- thread. Where are the errors Skychimp?



Prove your position with a roll chart, Huckles, and not one of your own creation.

Put your money where your mouth is. We are all waiting.


Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/NAA_logo.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-01-2003, 02:04 AM
That formula is NACA creation not mine. But of course you can argue with them. You are fully qualified.


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
10-01-2003, 02:06 AM
Huckebein_FW wrote:
- That formula is NACA creation not mine. But of
- course you can argue with them. You are fully
- qualified.


Poor excuse for not providing a chart. In otherwords, you are not going to prove your point, are you?

Safe to say, Bf-109 high speed rool rate was poor, and Huck can't prove otherwise.

Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/NAA_logo.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-01-2003, 02:13 AM
I don't have to provide any chart. I just gave a formula of linear dependence between speed and aileron deflection.
But of course you cannot draw a chart even for a linear function.

Ignorance is bliss, way to go Skychimp.


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

Message Edited on 09/30/0308:13PM by Huckebein_FW

XyZspineZyX
10-01-2003, 02:18 AM
Huckebein_FW wrote:
- I don't have to provide any chart. I just gave a
- formula of linear dependence between speed and
- aileron deflection.
- But of course you cannot draw a chart even for a
- linear function.
-
- Ignorance is bliss, way to go Skychimp.


I want you to provide some roll rates, Mr. Huckles, to back up your stupid assertions.

YOU NEVER back up your statements. That's the reason you have no credibility on these boards.

Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/NAA_logo.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-01-2003, 02:35 AM
Skychimp wrote:
-Huckebein_FW wrote:
-- I don't have to provide any chart. I just gave a
-- formula of linear dependence between speed and
-- aileron deflection.
-- But of course you cannot draw a chart even for a
-- linear function.
--
-- Ignorance is bliss, way to go Skychimp.


-I want you to provide some roll rates, Mr. Huckles, to back up your stupid
-assertions.

The formula is correct. I also calculated the roll rate for you, so you don't have to use your brain.




<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

Message Edited on 09/30/0308:53PM by Huckebein_FW

XyZspineZyX
10-01-2003, 02:54 AM
Huckebein_FW wrote:
- Blutarski,
- The quality of allied tests is a subject for another
- thread. Open another thread and look for the
- comparison between P47 and Fw190. We'll have a good
- laugh together.
-
- On the subject of roll rate, there is not much to
- say. Since the ailerons could be deflected 2/3 from
- max deflection at 770km/h IAS it means the
- following:
-
-
- pb/2v = coeff * total_aileron_deflection
-
- p - roll rate
- b - wing span
- v - IAS
- total aileron deflection is the cumulated angles of
- deflection on both ailerons
-
- coeff - is (coeff of rolling moment with aileron
- angle)/((coeff of rolling moment with helix
- angle)*114.6)
-
- the above coeff is aprox constant with speed for a
- particular plane
-
-
- As a result roll rate at 770km/h and 2/3 aileron
- deflection is aprox the same with roll rate at
- 500km/h and full aileron deflection. Also note that
- stick forces are higher in first case than in
- second. So the roll rate in that case was aprox 80
- deg/sec as long as the pilot had the muscle to put
- 2/3 aileron deflection.

When I first glanced at your equaiton I wondered why you didnt solve it for "p". After looking at it, I think I know why.

pb/2v = coeff Ӕ total_aileron_deflection
pb = 2 Ӕ v Ӕ coeff Ӕ total_aileron_deflection
p = (2 Ӕ v Ӕ coeff Ӕ total_aileron_deflection)/b

replacing your variable names with mine we have

p = (2 Ӕ v Ӕ Co Ӕ d)/b

where
p1 = roll rate at 500km/hr with full aileron deflection
p2 = roll rate at 770km/hr with 2/3 aileron deflection
d1 = aileron deflection of 1.00 (full)
d2 = aileron deflection of 0.67 (2/3)
v1 = 500km/hr
v2 = 770km/hr

Now let first take a look at your *aprox*

v1 = 2ӔCoӔd2Ӕv2/2ӔCoӔd1
v1 = d2Ӕv2/d1
v1 = ((2/3)Ӕ770)/1.0
v1 = 513.00

so aprox is 500 but actual is 513.. I can understand why you would want to round down! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Now lets take a look at the equation itself

p = (2 Ӕ v Ӕ Co Ӕ d)/b

Notice that it Is directly proportinal to velocity (v). What that means is roll rate (p) will increase directly with an increase in velocity (v) as long as every thing else is constant. So, what variables do effect roll rates? Well take a look at the equation, I think it is safe to assume that the wing span (b) is going to be a constant.. And you yourself said it is safe to assume that coeff is a constant.. That *only* leaves "total_aileron_deflection". Which agrees with what you have said, ie you can only deflect the alerions 2/3 of the full motion at 770km/h. But.. that also agrees with what Carson said.. ie we allready knew that the 109 does not roll very well at high speeds.

The *interesting* thing here to consider is what if the 109 didnt roll poorly at high speeds, and could apply full aileron deflection at high speeds... What improment in roll rate do these equations of your predict? Lets take a look

p2/p1
2ӔCoӔ(d2)Ӕv2/2ӔCoӔ(d1)Ӕv1
2ӔCoӔ(1.0)Ӕ770/2ӔCoӔ(2/3)Ӕ770
2ӔCoӔ(1.0)Ӕ770/2ӔCoӔ(0.663)Ӕ770
1.0/0.66
1.51

What that tells us is *if* the 109 could obtain full deflection at high speeds it would have a roll rate that is one and a half better than actual. That is if the 109 had a roll rate of 10 at 770km/hr with 2/3 deflection it would have a roll rate of 15 at 770km/hr with full deflection. In short, I dont see how the 2/3 deflection can be used as an argument... it seems to me it agrees with what we allready knew.. The 109 dont roll well at high speeds. On that note, can *total_aileron_deflection* be assumed to be *linear*? I find that hard to belive? Anyway, I just wanted to work with the equation presented


Message Edited on 09/30/0307:10PM by tagert

XyZspineZyX
10-01-2003, 03:02 AM
Excellent computation tagert!!
Though, wasn't it more simple to do 770*2/3=513.33 without filling the page with formulas you don't understand?
Take a good night sleep kid, tomorrow you have homework to do.


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
10-01-2003, 03:06 AM
Huckebein_FW wrote:
- Excellent computation tagert!!
- Though, wasn't it more simple to do 770*2/3=513.33
- without filling the page with formulas you don't
- understand?
- Take a good night sleep kid, tomorrow you have
- homework to do.

I broke it down for you in that it was clear you were.. and are still missing the point.. No comment on the 1.5 better roll rate huh? Talk about NOT UNDERSTANDING THE EQ!! Someone here needs some homework for sure! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


<div style="background:#222222;color:#e0e0e0;font-size:24px;font-weight:bold;font-face:courier;"> TAGERT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If WAR was not the ANSWER.. Than what the H was your QUESTION?
</div>
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=forum
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=discussion

Message Edited on 09/30/0307:13PM by tagert

XyZspineZyX
10-01-2003, 03:28 AM
tagert wrote:
-Huckebein_FW wrote:
-- Excellent computation tagert!!
-- Though, wasn't it more simple to do 770*2/3=513.33
-- without filling the page with formulas you don't
-- understand?
-- Take a good night sleep kid, tomorrow you have
-- homework to do.

- I broke it down for you in that it was clear you were.. and
- are still missing the point.
- No comment on the 1.5 better roll rate huh? Talk about NOT
- UNDERSTANDING THE EQ!! Someone
- here needs some homework for sure! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


tagert, you're actually telling me that there was something worth reading in your post? What was that kid?


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
10-01-2003, 03:35 AM
No Tagert, complete aileron deflection DOES NOT always provide for a completely linear increase in roll rate.

When you see a roll chart with a perfectly linear rise in roll rate, it usually represents a perfomance based on a calculation, one like Huckles' that assumes a linear rise.

Actual testing will almost always result in a roll curve.

That's the failing of Huckles' method. It's a guess. And guess are rarely exact.

Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/NAA_logo.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-01-2003, 03:51 AM
It's an estimation of course, but a good one.
Indeed helix angle (pb/2v) is linearly dependent with aileron deflection. The slope of this linear dependence is almost the same except at high speed were it is slightly offset.

this is the link to NACA document containing the formula:

http://naca.larc.nasa.gov/reports/1941/naca-report-715/naca-report-715.pdf

You can see that this formula applies very well to test data. On figure 30 on page 55 of the following NACA report you can see the linear dependence of the helix angle with aileron deflection for P-47D. Keep in mind that the following chart contains test data not calculations.


http://naca.larc.nasa.gov/reports/1952/naca-tn-2675/naca-tn-2675.pdf

http://naca.larc.nasa.gov/reports/1952/naca-tn-2675/0056.gif



<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

Message Edited on 09/30/0309:59PM by Huckebein_FW

XyZspineZyX
10-01-2003, 04:08 AM
Salute Huckbein

Why do you keep repeating the same old disinformation?

The 109G tested was a G2 not a Gunpod equipped G6, in particular, this one:

http://www.luftwaffe-experten.co.uk/mike/rafw03.jpg


http://www.luftwaffe-experten.co.uk/capt-luft/bf109/rn228-01.jpg


http://www.heuvel22.myweb.nl/Images/Raaf109-6x.jpg



Here's what I have of the test says:


"The Tempest V, using 9 lbs of boost, possessed a speed advantage of 40-50mph at altitudes up to 20,000 ft, but that the speed advantage diminished rapidly above that altitude... The rate of climb of the Bf 109G2 was superior to the that of the Tempest at all altitudes, (my notes: this was the Tempest pre-production prototype with the Sabre IIa, not the Sabre IIb with its higher horsepower) although this advantage was not pronounced at heights below 5,000 ft, but in comparitive dives the Tempest proved capable of pulling away from the Messerschmidt. The turning circle of the Tempest was marginally superior and there was little to choose between the two aircraft in roll rate at speeds below 350mph, but above this speed the Tempest could out-maneuver its opponent by making a quick change of bank and direction."

By the way, Butch 2k:

Please post the complete British G2 test you have. It would clear up a lot of controversy.


Thanks RAF74 Buzzsaw

XyZspineZyX
10-01-2003, 05:04 AM
Thanks for the pics Buzzsaw, but that comment on Tempest roll rate does not add anything new to the Bf-109 high speed roll rate characteristic problem. A test which does not list any value of the performance measured in test does not worth any consideration. What you got there is so vague that is useless.


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
10-01-2003, 05:09 AM
Another pb/2v versus total aileron deflection chart, which clearly shows that the graph line is linear even up to transonic speeds. This particular chart is for a F-80A:

http://naca.larc.nasa.gov/reports/1947/naca-rm-a7j24/0051.gif



<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
10-01-2003, 05:16 AM
Huckebein_FW wrote:
- tagert, you're actually telling me that there was
- something worth reading in your post? What was that
- kid?

You mean other than the question about aileron deflecion not being linear? You know the thing you defending now.. That was but a side note, the thing you MISSED on PURPOSE was the 1.5 factor improvement you get between 2/3 deflection and full deflection.



<div style="background:#222222;color:#e0e0e0;font-size:24px;font-weight:bold;font-face:courier;"> TAGERT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If WAR was not the ANSWER.. Than what the H was your QUESTION?
</div>
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=forum
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=discussion

XyZspineZyX
10-01-2003, 05:21 AM
SkyChimp wrote:
- No Tagert, complete aileron deflection DOES NOT
- always provide for a completely linear increase in
- roll rate.
-
- When you see a roll chart with a perfectly linear
- rise in roll rate, it usually represents a
- perfomance based on a calculation, one like Huckles'
- that assumes a linear rise.
-
- Actual testing will almost always result in a roll
- curve.

That was my gut feeling.. I dont know what is funnier.. Huckie saying he didnt see anything worth reading.. and is now all over that non-linear comment/question I possed.. Or his side stepping of the 1.5 factor improment obtained *IF* the full range could be obtained.

- That's the failing of Huckles' method. It's a
- guess. And guess are rarely exact.

Yup.. I love it when the details suport his argument, he is all over it.. but when they dont suport his argument he uses the simple hand waving method.

- Regards,
-
- SkyChimp

Careful.. If you say hi to me you open yourself up to Iggie saying something about toungs in a bung hole.. The boy really has a fasination for toungs in the bung.. explains volumes /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif



<div style="background:#222222;color:#e0e0e0;font-size:24px;font-weight:bold;font-face:courier;"> TAGERT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If WAR was not the ANSWER.. Than what the H was your QUESTION?
</div>
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=forum
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=discussion

XyZspineZyX
10-01-2003, 06:17 AM
Huck,

From your own NACA link :

"The values k determined in flight are considerably lower than those predicted by theory and, in most cases, they are lower than values obtained for comparable aerodynamic arrangements in the wind tunnel. At least part of this effect may be accounted for on the basis of the deflection of the wing in torsion and the deflection of the aileron control system."

IIRC, the Bf 109 (all models) featured a single spar wing as oppossed to the more rigid wing designs featured on aircraft such as the Fw 190, P-51, P-47 and Tempest V.


Huckebein_FW wrote:
- It's an estimation of course, but a good one.
- Indeed helix angle (pb/2v) is linearly dependent
- with aileron deflection. The slope of this linear
- dependence is almost the same except at high speed
- were it is slightly offset.
-
- this is the link to NACA document containing the
- formula:
-
- <a
- href="http://naca.larc.nasa.gov/reports/1941/naca-
- report-715/naca-report-715.pdf"
- target=_blank>http://naca.larc.nasa.gov/reports/19
- 41/naca-report-715/naca-report-715.pdf</a> -
-
- You can see that this formula applies very well to
- test data. On figure 30 on page 55 of the following
- NACA report you can see the linear dependence of the
- helix angle with aileron deflection for P-47D. Keep
- in mind that the following chart contains test data
- not calculations.
-
-
- <a
- href="http://naca.larc.nasa.gov/reports/1952/naca-
- tn-2675/naca-tn-2675.pdf"
- target=_blank>http://naca.larc.nasa.gov/reports/19
- 52/naca-tn-2675/naca-tn-2675.pdf</a> -
-
- <img
- src="http://naca.larc.nasa.gov/reports/1952/naca-t
- n-2675/0056.gif"> -
-
-
-
- <center> <img
- src="http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-m
- ain.jpg"> </center> -
- Message Edited on 09/30/03 09:59PM by
- Huckebein_FW

XyZspineZyX
10-01-2003, 07:03 AM
lrrp22 wrote:
- Huck,
-
- From your own NACA link :
-
- "The values k determined in flight are considerably
- lower than those predicted by theory and, in most
- cases, they are lower than values obtained for
- comparable aerodynamic arrangements in the wind
- tunnel."



Read again lrrp. It clearly says that the Figure 3 with k values for various aileron config is determined from flight testing, not from theory.

Also k value does not change in any way the fact that helix angle is linearly dependent with total aileron deflection.



- "At least part of this effect may be
- accounted for on the basis of the deflection of the
- wing in torsion and the deflection of the aileron
- control system."
-
- IIRC, the Bf 109 (all models) featured a single spar
- wing as oppossed to the more rigid wing designs
- featured on aircraft such as the Fw 190, P-51, P-47
- and Tempest V.


Torsional rigidity is given by ribs not spars. Spars help countering the bending moments on the wing. They have a role in torsional rigidity though. From what I remember Bf-109 used 2 spars close together in what is called today a torsion box. This solution is considered better than the two spar wing config and replaced it in most of the modern aircrafts.


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

Message Edited on 10/01/0301:37AM by Huckebein_FW

XyZspineZyX
10-01-2003, 07:08 AM
tagert wrote:
- SkyChimp wrote:
-- No Tagert, complete aileron deflection DOES NOT
-- always provide for a completely linear increase in
-- roll rate.
--
-- When you see a roll chart with a perfectly linear
-- rise in roll rate, it usually represents a
-- perfomance based on a calculation, one like Huckles'
-- that assumes a linear rise.
--
-- Actual testing will almost always result in a roll
-- curve.
-
- That was my gut feeling.. I dont know what is
- funnier.. Huckie saying he didnt see anything worth
- reading.. and is now all over that non-linear
- comment/question I possed.. Or his side stepping of
- the 1.5 factor improment obtained *IF* the full
- range could be obtained.


Skychimp your little apprentice is waiting for an answer. Stun him with your knowledge.


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
10-01-2003, 07:41 AM
Huckebein_FW wrote:
- Skychimp your little apprentice is waiting for an
- answer. Stun him with your knowledge.

In the mean time... 1.5 better roll rate!! What? Still dont understand? Ok, lets start off easy and build up to it. First test consisting of some math that I think you can handle.

1.5 > 1.0

a) TRUE
b) FALSE
c) MAYBE
d) NONE OF THE ABOVE

Ok huckie.. now is your chance to shine!





<div style="background:#222222;color:#e0e0e0;font-size:24px;font-weight:bold;font-face:courier;"> TAGERT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If WAR was not the ANSWER.. Than what the H was your QUESTION?
</div>
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=forum
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=discussion

XyZspineZyX
10-01-2003, 08:33 AM
"This is serious Robin. Nimtards have hijacked teh interweb"


http://www.tvdads.com/images/batman.jpg



<center>http://www.btinternet.com/~lenazavaroni/images/tva_01a.jpg

<font size="+4">What a fox!</font></center>



Message Edited on 10/01/03 09:36AM by homeless1

Message Edited on 10/01/0309:36AM by homeless1

XyZspineZyX
10-01-2003, 09:24 AM
Salute Huckbein

"...this is why you'll see in
- such tests SpitV climbing at 4700fpm. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif "

Your ability to be absolutely blinkered in your thinking once again is demonstrated.

If you look at the Spitfire V test with the specially prepared Merlin 50, you can see quite clearly the engine has been modified for low level performance, hence its extremely good climb at those altitudes.

This engine configuration sacrifices the high altitude performance which Spitfires were generally known for, in preference for low altitude power.

Look at the speeds at 18,000 ft. The original Spitfire VC did 371mph at altitude.

The Merlin 50 was an engine being considered for use in a Seafire, carrier based aircraft. Carriers based planes do not normally require high altitude performance.

Any engine can be modified in its air induction patterns to give better or worse performance at various altitudes.

That you don't understand basic engine tuning is astonishing.


RAF74 Buzzsaw

XyZspineZyX
10-01-2003, 09:33 AM
Blutarski, the kids were almost asleep, why did you have to wake them?

lrrp22, you beat me to the torsion comment. Huck, are you still practicing engineering without a license? As you correctly mentioned, a torsion box is more resistant to twisting than a similarly sized I beam type spar. Ribs do not provide the majority of torsional stiffness, however. They keep the monocoque wing skin stiff, allowing it to resist the torsional load. What you failed to point out is that a two-spar structure forms a larger torsion box (the front and rear spars connected by the upper and lower stressed skin.) This structure is stiffer in torsion than a one-spar structure of similar weight (torsion box or I beam.) I'm still surprised by Milo's earlier post in another thread that the Flettner tabs were effective when mounted to the 109's single spar wing. I don't doubt the report, but maintain that a two-spar structure of similar weight would have been torsionally stiffer.

As for the flight test results, thanks for the link, but please read ALL of it, not just the parts you like (I seem to have to tell you and Issy this quite a lot.) Especially:
(Pg. 1):

k aileron effectiveness factor, effective change in angle of attack of wing-aileron section per unit aileron deflection.

This is a factor of the aileron's effectiveness PER UNIT DEFLECTION. It does not reflect the amount an aileron can be deflected, nor the maximum roll rate produced.


(Pg. 2):

(7) Some of the large airplanes tested suffered severely from the effects of control-cable stretch in limiting the available aileron deflections, particularly at high speeds. It would also appear that the large airplanes and some of the small airplanes with fabric-covered wings lost a considerable amount of potential rolling ability through wing warping due to the torsional loads applied by the deflected ailerons.

With fabric-covered wings, the skin is no longer a stressed member. The spar is still there, and the ribs, but the spar is the only thing resisting the torsional load. Metal stressed skins stiffen the wing. Two spars and metal skin stiffen it more.

(Pg. 3):

For airplanes of the pursuit category, this amount of control appears to be required in maneuvering at high speeds. In this connection, airplanes with high stick forces may have insufficient aileron control at high speeds because the controls cannot be deflected a sufficient amount.

The authors are specifically mentioning this because the test data (and the equation derived from it) does not take this factor into account when calculating high-speed roll rates. The test data is taken over a lower (unspecified) speed range.

lrrp22 wrote:
- Huck,
-
- From your own NACA link :
-
- "The values k determined in flight are considerably
- lower than those predicted by theory and, in most
- cases, they are lower than values obtained for
- comparable aerodynamic arrangements in the wind
- tunnel."



Read again lrrp. It clearly says that the Figure 3 with k values for various aileron config is determined from flight testing, not from theory.

Also k value does not change in any way the fact that helix angle is linearly dependent with total aileron deflection.

You need to read it again Huck, and read all of it. lrrp is right.

(Pg. 4):

The values of aileron effectiveness factor k, when delta a = 30 degrees, were determined from the observed pb/2V values of the various airplanes tested in flight and are presented in figure 3 as a function of the ratio of mean aileron chord to mean wing chord.

Delta a is the angular difference between the up and down aileron, and for about half of the types tested, was their maximum deflection. Control force limits and wing torsion aren't mentioned, but considering all the aircraft tested were at delta a = 30 degrees, the speed had to be low enough where these weren't a factor. At higher speeds they would be.

(Pg. 4):

The values of k determined in flight are considerably lower than those predicted by theory and, in most cases, they are lower than values obtained for comparable aerodynamic arrangements in the wind tunnel. At least part of this effect may be accounted for on the basis of the deflection of the wing in torsion and the deflection of the aileron control system. For example, 1 degree of wing twist varying uniformly from the wing tip would reduce the apparent aileron effectiveness by about 20 percent. The wing deflections experienced by the various airplanes, however, are unknown.

Again, the authors stating that torsion and control forces are both factors they didn't consider in their equation. Just like those frictionless surfaces and massless pulleys in your high school physics equations.

The equation:

pb/2V = (Cldelta/k) [(k)(Delta a)/(114.6)(Clp)]

Was the engineers attempt to predict aileron effectiveness for an untested aircraft based on test data from known aircraft. Nowhere in the equation is there a factor for control force, wing flex or control cable stretch (or rod/bellcrank bending in the case of the 109.) Just "plugging and chugging" numbers into the equation will lead to unrealistically high roll rates because limiting forces, control and wing flex, are specifically not accounted for (as mentioned above from the article.)

Issy, regarding your previous rant, get help. I don't know if you and Huck share a Prozac prescription, but if you do, apparently Huck has it this week. Get it back. Regarding Flettner tabs and factory drawings, the drawings show they at least had plans to incorporate the tabs. But they didn't fly the drawings into combat, and from the photos everybody has produced so far, it seems incorporating the tabs into late war 109s was haphazard at best across the different models. For those aircraft so equipped they would have helped, but by how much neither of us knows.

To both Issy and Huck, please promise me you will not build aircraft until you have the required education. I'm not saying this to be insulting; I'm saying it because I'm serious. I'm a bad engineer, but I recognize that neither of you have any engineering education, bad or otherwise. Randomly data diving and selectively picking equations and articles, with no education with which to put them into context, is dangerous. You obviously have a passion for aircraft (for some unknown reason the 109 in particular) but you need to channel that passion towards a proper education. I don't want either one of you building another Christmas Bullet.

Blotto

"Only the spirit of attack, born in a brave heart, will bring success to any fighter craft, no matter how technically advanced." - A. Galland

"Look, do you want the jets, or would you rather I slap the props back on?" - W. Messerschmitt

http://home.mindspring.com/~blottogg/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/14fsPatch.gif

XyZspineZyX
10-01-2003, 09:42 AM
Salute Huckbein

Once again you are selectively posting... /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

All those pages from the F-47D30 tests to try to back up your claims and ramblings on about how 30 lbs was the upper level of stick force, and how 50 lbs was "like a stick was in cement"...

Of course, other pages on the same test show quite clearly that 50 lbs, in fact 55lb stick force were applied in the test, as shown below:

http://naca.larc.nasa.gov/reports/1952/naca-tn-2675/0054.gif


And you neglect to read through the leading study of aircraft rollrate and effectiveness that NACA put out, which incidentally used 50lbs stickforce as its standard:

http://naca.larc.nasa.gov/reports/1947/naca-report-868/

Try to be a little less obvious... /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif


RAF74 Buzzsaw


Huckebein_FW wrote:
- It's an estimation of course, but a good one.
- Indeed helix angle (pb/2v) is linearly dependent
- with aileron deflection. The slope of this linear
- dependence is almost the same except at high speed
- were it is slightly offset.
-
- this is the link to NACA document containing the
- formula:
-
- <a
- href="http://naca.larc.nasa.gov/reports/1941/naca-
- report-715/naca-report-715.pdf"
- target=_blank>http://naca.larc.nasa.gov/reports/19
- 41/naca-report-715/naca-report-715.pdf</a>
-
-
- You can see that this formula applies very well to
- test data. On figure 30 on page 55 of the following
- NACA report you can see the linear dependence of the
- helix angle with aileron deflection for P-47D. Keep
- in mind that the following chart contains test data
- not calculations.
-
-
- <a
- href="http://naca.larc.nasa.gov/reports/1952/naca-
- tn-2675/naca-tn-2675.pdf"
- target=_blank>http://naca.larc.nasa.gov/reports/19
- 52/naca-tn-2675/naca-tn-2675.pdf</a>
-
-
- <img
- src="http://naca.larc.nasa.gov/reports/1952/naca-t
- n-2675/0056.gif">
-
-
-
-
- <center> <img
- src="http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-m
- ain.jpg"> </center>
-
- Message Edited on 09/30/03 09:59PM by
- Huckebein_FW


Huckebein_FW wrote:
- It's an estimation of course, but a good one.
- Indeed helix angle (pb/2v) is linearly dependent
- with aileron deflection. The slope of this linear
- dependence is almost the same except at high speed
- were it is slightly offset.
-
- this is the link to NACA document containing the
- formula:
-
- <a
- href="http://naca.larc.nasa.gov/reports/1941/naca-
- report-715/naca-report-715.pdf"
- target=_blank>http://naca.larc.nasa.gov/reports/19
- 41/naca-report-715/naca-report-715.pdf</a>
-
-
- You can see that this formula applies very well to
- test data. On figure 30 on page 55 of the following
- NACA report you can see the linear dependence of the
- helix angle with aileron deflection for P-47D. Keep
- in mind that the following chart contains test data
- not calculations.
-
-
- <a
- href="http://naca.larc.nasa.gov/reports/1952/naca-
- tn-2675/naca-tn-2675.pdf"
- target=_blank>http://naca.larc.nasa.gov/reports/19
- 52/naca-tn-2675/naca-tn-2675.pdf</a>
-
-
- <img
- src="http://naca.larc.nasa.gov/reports/1952/naca-t
- n-2675/0056.gif">
-
-
-
-
- <center> <img
- src="http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-m
- ain.jpg"> </center>
-
- Message Edited on 09/30/03 09:59PM by
- Huckebein_FW

XyZspineZyX
10-01-2003, 10:07 AM
tagert wrote:


huckie.. try to put yourself in thier shoes, and
- while doing so keep in mind that the purpose of alot
- of those tests was to find out how those aircraft
- compaired to thier aircraft. ie find the areas of
- weekness of the enmy aircraft, relitive to thier
- aircraft. This info could then be used by thier
- pilots to exploite the weekneses. In a nutshell they
- DID NOT collect data so someone could write a
- computer program to simulate them in 60+ years. The
- pilots didnt need to know the difference in the roll
- rate between 250 gallons and 260 gallons in that
- they didnt know what the enmy fule load was
- anyways!! The pilots just needed the BIG ABSOLUTES!!
- ie avoid conflits at this alt range, trun, climb, or
- dive, etc. Basically the resolution is not there
- because that kind of resolution was not needed.


Exellent point one that many overlook.

No1RAAF_Pourshot
http://members.optusnet.com.au/~andycarroll68/CA-15%20Kangaroo.jpg

No1_RAAF

XyZspineZyX
10-01-2003, 10:19 AM
Bf-109 G roll rate without the use of rudder is about little less than 90 degrees per second at speeds of 400-450km/h according the Finnish tests.

I have it written here in front of me.

If it is bad or good you can argue, but that is the value.


-jippo

XyZspineZyX
10-01-2003, 11:26 AM
bump.



More charts please.

<center>http://www.btinternet.com/~lenazavaroni/images/tva_01a.jpg

<font size="+4">What a fox!</font></center>

XyZspineZyX
10-01-2003, 12:39 PM
Quote:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
COMBAT TRIALS AGAINST FW.190 (BMW.801D)

Turning Circles
There is very little difference in turning circles between the two aircraft. If anything a very slight advantage lies with the Tempest<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

compare with

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
COMBAT TRIALS AGAINST Bf.109G

Turning Circle
The Tempest is slightly better, the Bf.109G being embarrassed by its slots opening near the stall.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This goes against all logic when comparing the 109 and 190. I'll emphasize the Tempest close performance against the 190, yet still being able to beat the 109 at turning. This must thus have been at a speed regime favoring the Tempest and not a objective turn performance test. The 109 should be able to beat the Tempest in the slower level of the speed range. The "embarrassing slats" deploying at high speed, not as the text would make it appear across the whole range.

Tests are always a two edged sword, it is as much about what is left out as what is left in.

Ruy "SPADES" Horta
http://www.xs4all.nl/~rhorta
-----------------------------
Il-2 - VEF JG 77
-----------------------------
'95-02 - WB Jagdgeschwader 53
'99-00 - DoA Jagdstaffel 18
-----------------------------
The rest is history...

http:\\www.xs4all.nl\~rhorta\brother.jpg

Message Edited on 10/01/0301:39PM by rhorta

XyZspineZyX
10-01-2003, 12:56 PM
Jippo01 wrote:
- Bf-109 G roll rate without the use of rudder is
- about little less than 90 degrees per second at
- speeds of 400-450km/h according the Finnish tests.
-
-

What did the Finns get for 550kph? 650kph? 750kph?

(400-450kph = 250-280mph)


http://www.stenbergaa.com/stenberg/west-battleline.jpg



"Only a dead 'chamber pot' is a good 'chamber pot'!"

XyZspineZyX
10-01-2003, 01:18 PM
Buzzsaw, to refresh your memory and Skychimp's NACA use for P-47 control testing an Olympic champion weightlifter, named Perry Ritchie. I guess for him it was not a problem to deflect the ailerons with 50lb of force. Or to pull up at 0.86 Mach. You need him modelled for each american fighter if you insist that 50lb stick force means light ailerons (or was a standard value/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif )


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

Message Edited on 10/01/0307:20AM by Huckebein_FW

XyZspineZyX
10-01-2003, 01:42 PM
Blottogg, you I enjoy watching you waisting your time copying the whole article.

To answer you very shortly fabric covered ailerons of Fw190 managed to give it the best roll rate of all ww2 fighters. And the torsion box is not just 2 spars close together, making the regular 2 spar wing stronger. Torsion box is exactly what the name says, a box, 2 vertical spars connected by 2 horizontal spars, making it stronger than a simple 2 spar wing. American designers could not use it because they opted for wing tanks.

http://www.bath.ac.uk/~en0yt/wings/torsion%20box.gif


Now if you want to prove that torsion box is less stronger than the simple 2 spars config, go ahead, prove your engineering skills. I could use a good laugh.


Now getting back to the point:

pb/2V = (Cldelta/k) [(k)(Delta a)/(114.6)(Clp)]

NACA gives the formula this way because from testing they have the following values: Cldelta/k, k and Clp.
But you can write the above this way:

pb/2V = ((Cldelta)/(114.6)(Clp)) * (Delta a)

which gives the linear dependence between helix angle and total aileron deflection, confirmed by test flights

So the basic calculation: 2/3 aileron deflection at 770km/h gives aprox the same roll rate as full aileron deflection at 500km/h, which is aprox 80 deg/sec, is correct.

The german test pilot who deflected the ailerons to 2/3 deflection at 770km/h obtained aprox 80deg/sec roll rate. I don't think that he was an Olympic champion weightlifter/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

Message Edited on 10/01/0308:19AM by Huckebein_FW

XyZspineZyX
10-01-2003, 01:46 PM
MiloMorai wrote:
-
- Jippo01 wrote:
-- Bf-109 G roll rate without the use of rudder is
-- about little less than 90 degrees per second at
-- speeds of 400-450km/h according the Finnish tests.
--
--
-
- What did the Finns get for 550kph? 650kph? 750kph?
-
- (400-450kph = 250-280mph)
-
-

It is not tested, stick force at 450km/h was over 10kg.


-jippo

XyZspineZyX
10-01-2003, 01:49 PM
RAF74BuzzsawXO wrote:
- Salute Huckbein
-
- "...this is why you'll see in
-- such tests SpitV climbing at 4700fpm. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif "
-
- Your ability to be absolutely blinkered in your
- thinking once again is demonstrated.
-
- If you look at the Spitfire V test with the
- specially prepared Merlin 50, you can see quite
- clearly the engine has been modified for low level
- performance, hence its extremely good climb at those
- altitudes.
-
- This engine configuration sacrifices the high
- altitude performance which Spitfires were generally
- known for, in preference for low altitude power.
-
- Look at the speeds at 18,000 ft. The original
- Spitfire VC did 371mph at altitude.
-
- The Merlin 50 was an engine being considered for use
- in a Seafire, carrier based aircraft. Carriers based
- planes do not normally require high altitude
- performance.
-
- Any engine can be modified in its air induction
- patterns to give better or worse performance at
- various altitudes.
-
- That you don't understand basic engine tuning is
- astonishing.
-


No, what is astonishing is your inability to distinguish fact from fiction. That engine had 1720hp at sea level, I don't care what his designation was. With less power you can't get that climb rate on a SpitV.

I would ask you to calculate the HP rating for a SpitV giving that climb rate, but you were not able to finish the basic Bf-109 Cd0 estimation in two months. I don't expect quicker results now.


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

Message Edited on 10/01/0307:51AM by Huckebein_FW

XyZspineZyX
10-01-2003, 02:16 PM
Is that image suppose to be of a 109's spar, Huckie?

http://www.bath.ac.uk/~en0yt/wings/torsion%20box.gif


How about posting an image of a real 109 box spar.


http://www.stenbergaa.com/stenberg/west-battleline.jpg



"Only a dead 'chamber pot' is a good 'chamber pot'!"

XyZspineZyX
10-01-2003, 02:57 PM
How about staying on topic Milo?

Do you have something more to add, regarding 109's high speed roll rate, beside the fact that it could achieve 80deg/sec at 770km/h?

If not we can put an end to this topic.


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
10-01-2003, 03:02 PM
Huckebein_FW wrote:
- On the subject of roll rate, there is not much to
- say. Since the ailerons could be deflected 2/3 from
- max deflection at 770km/h IAS it means the
- following:
-
-
- pb/2v = coeff * total_aileron_deflection
-
- p - roll rate
- b - wing span
- v - IAS
- total aileron deflection is the cumulated angles of
- deflection on both ailerons
-
- coeff - is (coeff of rolling moment with aileron
- angle)/((coeff of rolling moment with helix
- angle)*114.6)
-
- the above coeff is aprox constant with speed for a
- particular plane
-
- As a result roll rate at 770km/h and 2/3 aileron
- deflection is aprox the same with roll rate at
- 500km/h and full aileron deflection. Also note that
- stick forces are higher in first case than in
- second. So the roll rate in that case was aprox 80
- deg/sec as long as the pilot had the muscle to put
- 2/3 aileron deflection.


..... What you pose is again simply a theoretical calculation. I refer you to the extract from Whitford's book FUNDAMENTALS OF FIGHTER DESIGN which I posted previously. In short, he states that roll rates at high airspeeds are extremely affected by even the smallest design or configuration factors. True empirical data can therefore be the only convincing proof. I'm interested in the true figures.
-
-
- Also note that 30lb aileron force is very heavy.
- 50lb force is what is commonly known as "stick in
- cement". 50lb force is not the force exerted by the
- pilot, but the force applied lateraly on the stick.
- The force exerted by the pilot is even higher. This
- is why higher limits for elevator forces are
- tolerated, because they can be applied more
- efficiently.

..... (1) Your definition of "stick in cement" as equalling 50 lbs of effort is purely arbitrary on your part and therefore of no practical value to any discussion.

(2) If you are saying that the joystick and control linkage multiply the force which is put by the pilot, then I agree.



Blutarski

XyZspineZyX
10-01-2003, 03:06 PM
SkyChimp wrote:
- No Tagert, complete aileron deflection DOES NOT
- always provide for a completely linear increase in
- roll rate.
-
- When you see a roll chart with a perfectly linear
- rise in roll rate, it usually represents a
- perfomance based on a calculation, one like Huckles'
- that assumes a linear rise.
-
- Actual testing will almost always result in a roll
- curve.
-
- That's the failing of Huckles' method. It's a
- guess. And guess are rarely exact.



BINGO !!!!!!!!!!



Blutarski

XyZspineZyX
10-01-2003, 03:10 PM
Nice chart on P47 test data. It would be relevant if we were discussing the P47. But it has no relationship to the matter at hand, the Bf109. You are trying to draw an inference from the results of one aircraft to prove your estimates for another. Why not choose the A6M Zero as your bench mark?


Blutarski

XyZspineZyX
10-01-2003, 03:12 PM
Buzz,


Thank you for clarifying the point on the true nature of the G2. And I too would be so very interested to see the complete test report.



Blutarski

XyZspineZyX
10-01-2003, 03:14 PM
P80!!?? probably with hydraulically boosted controls!? Give me a break.



Blutarski

XyZspineZyX
10-01-2003, 03:27 PM
Huckebein_FW wrote:
- Read again lrrp. It clearly says that the Figure 3
- with k values for various aileron config is
- determined from flight testing, not from theory.

.... So, your argument is that a single set of k values derived from flight testing aircraft X will be valid for, what, all other a/c??? Why then does the very same NASA article stipulate the empirical data will even differ from wind tunnel results? Are you sure that YOU understand the article correctly?


- Torsional rigidity is given by ribs not spars. Spars
- help countering the bending moments on the wing.
- They have a role in torsional rigidity though. From
- what I remember Bf-109 used 2 spars close together
- in what is called today a torsion box. This solution
- is considered better than the two spar wing config
- and replaced it in most of the modern aircrafts.

..... IIRC, the Bf109 wing was a rather lightweight design (helped in large degree by the fact that it did not incorporate the landing gear assemblies) constructed around a single rather generous D spar, which basically formed the forward part of the wing.


Blutarski

XyZspineZyX
10-01-2003, 03:31 PM
You are the one that posted on the box spar Huckie./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Your diagram gives the impression that the width of the box was large when in fact it was no wider than an I-beam spar.


Huckebein_FW wrote:
- How about staying on topic Milo?
-
- Do you have something more to add, regarding 109's
- high speed roll rate, beside the fact that it could
- achieve 80deg/sec at 770km/h?
-


Never mind all your calculations Huckie, produce a Messerschmitt AG or Rechlin roll rate graph compiled from test flights. Don't forget to include the differences between Flettner and non-Flettner equiped a/c.


http://www.stenbergaa.com/stenberg/west-battleline.jpg



"Only a dead 'chamber pot' is a good 'chamber pot'!"

XyZspineZyX
10-01-2003, 03:34 PM
Blottogg wrote:
- Blutarski, the kids were almost asleep, why did you
- have to wake them?


I terribly sorry, but what exactly did I do to wake them??



Blutarski

XyZspineZyX
10-01-2003, 03:39 PM
Jippo,


I think that the 90 deg/sec at 450kph (285 mph) is absolutely accepted by everyone! It's the roll rate at 750kph that is the question at hand.



Blutarski

XyZspineZyX
10-01-2003, 03:49 PM
Huckebein_FW wrote:
- Buzzsaw, to refresh your memory and Skychimp's NACA
- use for P-47 control testing an Olympic champion
- weightlifter, named Perry Ritchie. I guess for him
- it was not a problem to deflect the ailerons with
- 50lb of force. Or to pull up at 0.86 Mach. You need
- him modelled for each american fighter if you insist
- that 50lb stick force means light ailerons (or was a
- standard value.


Are you actually implying that only an Olympic weightlifter is capable of exerting 50 lbs of stick force? This will come as a major shock to a century of aircraft designers......

And, no, 50 lbs of stick force could not possibly be a standard value. Its repeated appearance in innumerable assorted test evaluations must be a coincidence, I'm sure.

Sadly, Huckebein, you are again spiralling down the toilet (oops, sorry, that's Isegrim). Let's say that you are again spiralling into that comfortable realm of intellectual dishonesty, where you either ignore uncomfortable arguments or insult the author. Either way does little for your credibility.



Blutarski

XyZspineZyX
10-01-2003, 03:58 PM
Huckebein_FW wrote:
- How about staying on topic Milo?
-
- Do you have something more to add, regarding 109's
- high speed roll rate, beside the fact that it could
- achieve 80deg/sec at 770km/h?
-
- If not we can put an end to this topic.



80 degrees per second, eh? And from where did this value come? Oh, yes .... your calculator. You have again demonstrated that you are completely impervious or unconscious of the concept of scientific objectivity. I dearly hope that a German flight performance report on the 109G series can be found. I will be highly interested in your reaction.


Blutarski

XyZspineZyX
10-01-2003, 04:10 PM
- No, what is astonishing is your inability to
- distinguish fact from fiction. That engine had
- 1720hp at sea level, I don't care what his
- designation was. With less power you can't get that
- climb rate on a SpitV.

The Spit LF IX, with Merlin 66, had a climb rate at sea level of 4,600ft/min, at a weight of 7,485lbs, with a power of 1,500hp.

You think the Spit V needed 200hp MORE for 100ft/min better climb, despite being over 1,000lbs lighter?

Here's the power to weight ratios, at sea level:

Spit LF IX, Merlin 66: 0.2 hp/lb
Spit V, Merlin 50m: 0.23 hp/lb (taking the official figure of 1480 hp), 0.27 hp/lbs (taking your figure of 1720hp)

The Spit V had 15% better power to weight ratio, at 1480hp, and climbed 2 - 3% better.

Using your figure of 1720hp, the Spit V had a 33% power advantage, and the same 2% - 3% climb advantage.

In other words, your figures don't add up, the official figures do.

XyZspineZyX
10-01-2003, 05:49 PM
SkyChimp wrote:
- All the evidence we've seen suggests
- the Bf-109 had a poor roll rate at higher speeds.

We didn`t see any evidence. We have seen though that 109s with Flettner tabs could deflect ailerons in a very impressive manner at extreme high speeds, and we have also seen evidence, both anecdotal and numerical, that the aileron forces were very light compared to other planes of the era.

Fact is, Skychimp, tagert and Blutto would like to prove the opposite, but can`t.

http://vo101isegrim.piranho.com/FB-desktopweb.jpg
'Only a dead Indianer is a good Indianer!'

Vezérünk a Bátorság, K*sérµnk a Szerencse!
(Courage leads, Luck escorts us! - Historical motto of the 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)

Flight tests and other aviation performance data: http://www.pbase.com/isegrim

XyZspineZyX
10-01-2003, 06:06 PM
RAF74BuzzsawXO wrote:
-rate of climb of
- the Bf 109G2 was superior to the that of the Tempest
- at all altitudes, (my notes: this was the Tempest
- pre-production prototype with the Sabre IIa, not the
- Sabre IIb with its higher horsepower)

Hate to sober you out, buzzy , but it was a production aircraft, and not a "pre-production prototype" which was used in the tests.


"1. Introduction.

Performance measurments have been made on Tempest V JN.731, the third production aircraft fitted with the Sabre IIA engine. The results of these tests, together with the position error correction are given in this report. "


In addition, it`s rather dubious wheter a Sabre IIB was ever fitted to a Tempest, I have never seen any such machine delivered, but I have seen a lot of wartime Tempest serial numbers that ALL had the Sabre IIA, like JN 731, HM 595, JN 734, JN 740, JN 745, JN 756, JN 763, JN 798, EJ 518 . All fitted with Sabre IIA. None with IIB. This indicates that at LEAST 60 aircraft of the JN block was with IIA, and probably many more, as subsequent HM and EJ production blocks still have Sabre IIA equipped planes.



http://vo101isegrim.piranho.com/FB-desktopweb.jpg
'Only a dead Indianer is a good Indianer!'

Vezérünk a Bátorság, K*sérµnk a Szerencse!
(Courage leads, Luck escorts us! - Historical motto of the 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)

Flight tests and other aviation performance data: http://www.pbase.com/isegrim

XyZspineZyX
10-01-2003, 06:18 PM
- In addition, it`s rather dubious wheter a Sabre IIB
- was ever fitted to a Tempest,

It hardly matters. The Tempest prototype was tested at 8.5lbs boost, the Sabre IIa was later rerated to 11lbs boost, which gave 250 - 300hp more.

XyZspineZyX
10-01-2003, 06:23 PM
Historical Tempest roll rates (at 10k ft). Stick force specified.

speed - deg/sec

150 mph : 65
200 mph : 84
250 mph : 95
300 mph : 97
350 mph : 94
400 mph : 70
450 mph : 60

British AFDU test with Bf 109G-2/trop (captured in end 1942 in already damaged condition, later repaired and flown in AFDU test with boost limited, crashed in 1944, restored later again, flown as "Black 6" in desert colours, crashed again and now on static display due to engine damage):

"Rate of Roll

48. At normal speeds there is nothing in it, but at speeds over 350 mph the Tempest could get away from the Me.109G by making a quick change of bank and direction. "


Which merely tells that the Tempest was no better in roll below 350 mph, and above 350mph, the 109G had worser roll than 94 deg/sec, which doesn`t tells much because 94 deg/sec at 350mph is an outstanding value and also true for all US and all other British fighters.

http://vo101isegrim.piranho.com/FB-desktopweb.jpg
'Only a dead Indianer is a good Indianer!'

Vezérünk a Bátorság, K*sérµnk a Szerencse!
(Courage leads, Luck escorts us! - Historical motto of the 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)

Flight tests and other aviation performance data: http://www.pbase.com/isegrim

XyZspineZyX
10-01-2003, 06:28 PM
Yet it appears that use of flettner tabs was sporadic at best, even on the Kurfurst. and even then we don't know that the ability to achieve 2/3 deflection at 770 kph translates into 'good' rollrates. Huck's 80 degrees at 770 kph is pure hopefull conjecture that ignores heaps of engineering data regarding aileron effectiveness at high speeds. It is very possible, even likely considering the 109's spar structure, that the use of flettner tabs could have caused excessive wing twist at high speeds.

What we do know is that multiple contemporary sources have noted the 109's loss of aileron effectiveness at high speeds. You and Huck like to quote Mark Hannah's evaluation of the Spanish G-10 clone but what you don't like to quote is his clear conclusion that the P-51 would have little problem dealing with the 109 if he kept his speed up and that the 109 would only be a threat in lower speed turn fight.



Vo101_Isegrim wrote:
-
- SkyChimp wrote:
-- All the evidence we've seen suggests
-- the Bf-109 had a poor roll rate at higher speeds.
-
- We didn`t see any evidence. We have seen though that
- 109s with Flettner tabs could deflect ailerons in a
- very impressive manner at extreme high speeds, and
- we have also seen evidence, both anecdotal and
- numerical, that the aileron forces were very light
- compared to other planes of the era.
-
- Fact is, Skychimp, tagert and Blutto would like to
- prove the opposite, but can`t.
-
- <img
- src="http://vo101isegrim.piranho.com/FB-desktopweb
- .jpg"> - 'Only a dead Indianer is a good Indianer!'
-
- Vezérünk a Bátorság, K*sérµnk a Szerencse!
- (Courage leads, Luck escorts us! - Historical motto
- of the 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)
-
- Flight tests and other aviation performance data:
- http://www.pbase.com/isegrim

XyZspineZyX
10-01-2003, 06:31 PM
hop2002 wrote:
-- In addition, it`s rather dubious wheter a Sabre IIB
-- was ever fitted to a Tempest,
-
- It hardly matters. The Tempest prototype was tested
- at 8.5lbs boost, the Sabre IIa was later rerated to
- 11lbs boost, which gave 250 - 300hp more.

Sabre IIa was never 'rerated' to +11lbs boost during the war. Spare us with your fantasies.

150 octane fuel, and strenghtened bearings were absolutely required to run on +11 lbs boost, and sadly they never received that with 2nd TAF. Not to mention that the Sabre`s supercharger was completely incapable to support the engine with enough oxigene to get a real gain from the increased boost more than a few hundred feets above SL anyway.Not that it would matter, considering that Tempests were just as meaningless in their numbers as Spit XIVs. The RAF pilots still had to fly those old Typhoons and MkIXs in 90% of the fighter squadrons.


http://vo101isegrim.piranho.com/FB-desktopweb.jpg
'Only a dead Indianer is a good Indianer!'

Vezérünk a Bátorság, K*sérµnk a Szerencse!
(Courage leads, Luck escorts us! - Historical motto of the 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)

Flight tests and other aviation performance data: http://www.pbase.com/isegrim

XyZspineZyX
10-01-2003, 06:41 PM
lrrp22 wrote:
-
- What we do know is that multiple contemporary
- sources have noted the 109's loss of aileron
- effectiveness at high speeds.
-


Gee, you guys are parrotting that like a magic sentence. Just care to get into those details. "multiple contemporary sources"? What are these?

Why are you just so incapable in posting any of those ?

Why do we never see your references?

Why do we only see you repeated statements, in no single case backed up by anything ?


I also have to disappoint you, the 109`s wing stucture only showed wing twist phenonmenon occur only at very high speeds, a testimony of it`s solid contruction.


- You and Huck like to
- quote Mark Hannah's evaluation of the Spanish G-10
- clone

Nope, it wasn`t a G-10 clone... it was a Buchon with Merlin engine. Try to get you facts like.


- but what you don't like to quote is his clear
- conclusion that the P-51 would have little problem
- dealing with the 109 if he kept his speed up and
- that the 109 would only be a threat in lower speed
- turn fight.

Hanna simply reffered to the fact that the P-51 was about 50 kph faster than the 109 variant he flew, and explositing this speed advantage was the way to keep the initative with the P-51. Sadly this doesn`t helps at all your or the parrot commando`s attempts to prove what they can`t prove.




http://vo101isegrim.piranho.com/FB-desktopweb.jpg
'Only a dead Indianer is a good Indianer!'

Vezérünk a Bátorság, K*sérµnk a Szerencse!
(Courage leads, Luck escorts us! - Historical motto of the 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)

Flight tests and other aviation performance data: http://www.pbase.com/isegrim

XyZspineZyX
10-01-2003, 07:12 PM
Blutarski, you're an idiot. Not only that you did not understand a word from that report, but you come here to teach NACA specialists a lesson in aerodynamics.

Take a look again at the formula, and what it really says:

pb/2V = (Cldelta/k) [(k)(Delta a)/(114.6)(Clp)]

which perfectly equivalent with

pb/2V = ((Cldelta)/(114.6)(Clp)) * (Delta a)

or pb/2V ~ const * total_aileron_deflection

This relation is valid for any plane, it says that helix angle is proportional with aileron deflection, the graph is linear. At least have you understood this?

The above relation in NACA own words: "The roll rate for a given airplane at a given control deflection was VERY NEARLY A LINEAR FUNCTION of air speed except for cases where control cable stretch appreciably limited the available aileron deflections."

This is why I posted the 2 graphs showing the linear dependence between helix angle and aileron deflection. They confirm this result perfectly. It does not matter that P-80 had boosted ailerons. P-47 was found below USAAF requirements for aileron effectiveness (helix angle). So you got two results one for a plane with bad roll performance and one with good roll performance, both confirming the linear relationship between helix angle and aileron deflection, at speeds up to transonic range (that's high enough).

This relation is valid for Bf-109 also.

pb/2V ~ const * total_aileron_deflection

The relation states for example the fact that roll rate for a speed with 2/3 aileron deflection is the same as at 2/3 that speed with full aileron deflection, in our case the roll rate at 770kmh and 2/3 aileron deflection is aprox the same with roll rate at 500kmh and full aileron deflection.

If this is not enough let's verify this relationship on P47D charts.

For example we see that at 400mph that with 10 deg total aileron deflection, the helix angle is 0.025

roll rate in this case is:

p = (0.025 * 2 * 400 * 5280/3600)/40.8 = 0.72 radians/sec = 41 degrees/sec roll rate

We know from NACA relationship that the roll rate at 400mph and 10 deg total aileron deflection should be the same with roll rate at 1/3*400=133.33mph and 30 deg total aileron deflection (aprox full aileron deflection for P47), with a value of 41 deg/sec. Now check the roll rate at 133.33mph and see that indeed 41 deg/sec aproximates very well the value in P47D roll rate chart (see chart below).

Note that stick forces are not the same at 400 and 133mph, but they do not matter as long as we know that the aileron deflection we used were possible for the pilot.


As you can see this calculation gives impressively accurate results. There is no reason why in Bf-109 case it won't be as accurate as it is in any other case.


http://naca.larc.nasa.gov/reports/1952/naca-tn-2675/0057.gif






<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

Message Edited on 10/01/0301:31PM by Huckebein_FW

XyZspineZyX
10-01-2003, 07:54 PM
Salute Isegrim

You are showing your lack of knowledge once again. The frame of the aircraft was a production model, but the engine was not.

The Sabre IIA was not used in either the Tempest or later model Typhoons.

The following were the engines used standardly in the Tempest:

Sabre IIB (also used in later Typhoons)

2420 hp at 3850 rpm at Sea Level

2045 hp at 3850 rpm at 13,750 ft

1735 hp at 3700 rpm at 17,000 ft


Sabre VI

2600 hp at 3850 rpm at 2500 ft

1970 hp at 3650 rpm at 17,000 ft


Look at the date of the test. January 8th 1944. Tempests did not fly their first operational missions until April 23rd 1944 and those were over English and Channel airspace. They did not fly their first Combat mission until June 8th 1944, when No. 56th Squadron flew a sweep over the Normandy Beachead. On that occasion they shot down 3 109G's.

Still, the test done on the Tempest are interesting in that they show the clear superiourity of this test model over German aircraft. And that is with an aircraft which did not have the later model ailerons added, or the full horsepower available to operational aircraft.

This model Tempest also was not equipped with the later model Hispano cannon, and therefore the guns protruded from the wings.

>>>>>>>>>>>


1. According to instructions from Air Ministry (D.A.T.) and from Headquarters, A.D.G.B., letter reference ADGB/S.29156/Air Tactics dated 29th February 1944 refers, tactical trials have been completed with the Tempest V. Aircraft No. JN.737 was delivered by the Hawker Aircraft Company on 8th January 1944 and was operationally loaded. The operational weight is 11,400 lbs.

2. In order to give a clear picture of the Tempest V it has been compared fully with its nearest stable companion, the Typhoon IB. In addition, tactical comparisons have been made with the Mustang III and Spitfire XIV. Combat trials have been carried out against the Me.109G, FW.190 (BMW)801D and suggestions made for combat with the new FW.190 (DB.603).

BRIEF DISCRIPTION

3. In its present form, the Tempest V is a low and medium altitude short-range fighter, armed with 4 x 20 m.m. cannon in the wings. It is fitted with a Napier Sabre II engine of approximately 2090 h.p. (same as Typhoon IB). As yet no provison has been made for the carrying of long range tanks, bombs, or R/P. In appearence it is very similar to the latest Typhoon IB except that it has a 4-bladed propeller, much thinner wings, and larger tail surfaces.

THE COCKPIT

4. The cockpit is very similar to the Typhoon. For this reaason, and because the Tempest is easier to fly, a Typhoon pilot will take to the Tempest from the moment he is airborne.

Fuel Switches

5. In the Tempest the fuel switches are different. There are three tanks - nose, main, and interspar, any of which may be selected. The main tank should be the last to be emptied, as the bottom of the tank is funnel shaped to enable the last drop to be consumed. At present there is no nose tank fitted.

Undercarriage Position Instrument

6. This is the same as that on the Typhoon, with the exception that the red lights do not go out until the undercarriage doors have locked shut, in addition to the wheel being locked up.

FLYING CHARCTERISTICS

7. The Typhoon belonging to this Unit had the "prison bar" type of cockpit. This made the Tempest seem much easier to land and take-off. In the air, the engine of the Tempest is very smooth, considerably increasing the pilots confidence. The effect of all the flying controls is far more positve, making the Tempest as delightful to fly as its smaller contemporaries, and much more pleasant than the Typhoon. It feels more solid and easier to control than most aircraft at speeds over 400 I.A.S.

(a) The rudder is more effective in preventing skid than that of the Typhoon, although it is still heavy. Less change of trim is necessary with change of speed, but considerable change of trim is still necessary with change of engine settings.

(b) The ailerons are heavier, but more positve and effective than the Typhoon, especially at high speeds. Later models of the Tempest are to have considerably lighter ailerons.

(c) The elevators are heavy also, but a great relief from the Typhoon, as they are quite positive and there is no tendency to "wind up" in a steep turn. With increase of speed there is a nose-up tendency, easily rectified with the trimming wheel.

Formation Flying.

8. Similar. There is no difficulty. The clear view increases confidence.

Low Flying

9. The Tempest is much easier to low-fly than the Typhoon and the Spitfire. It is thought that this is partly due to a better view, easier handing, and a sense of solidity.

Night Flying

10. The Tempest is very nice to handle and easy to fly at night. The exhausts cannont be seen from the cockpit and therefore cause no embarrassment. The stability of the Tempest makes it much more pleasant to fly than the Typhoon. The cockpit lighting is satisfactory, except the the undercarriage warning light is unblinkered. This can be remedied by replacing for day and night with bulb holders. The landing lamp is not very effective. For night fighting it might be necessary to fit glare-less exhaust shrouds, as the open exhaust stubs cause a glare that can be seen on a dark clear night from 1,000 feet.

Compressibility Speeds

11. Because the Tempest V increases speed so rapidly in the dive, it is not difficult to enter compressibility range at high altitudes (approaching speed of sound). This can only be done in a dive. The maximum permissible airspeeds at various heights are :-

I.A.S. Height

370 30,000
410 25,000
450 20,000
490 15,000
540 10,000

12. The following is a summary of the R.A.E's instuctions (Report No. Aero.1906) should the speeds at height be exceeded by any type of aircraft. In the dive, the nose may suddenly tend to drop. On no account must the trimming wheel be used to prevent it doing so, but only backward pressure on the stick. When the aircraft has reached a lower altitude where the speed of sound is greater, the aircraft will come out of the compressibility range and behave normally, being pulled out of the dive. Had the trimming wheel been used to prevent the nose dropping when in the compressibility range, there would have been a very sudden nose-up tendency on coming out of the compressibility range. The result of a such a sudden change of trim is liable to cause structural failure.

TACTICAL COMPARISON WITH TYPHOON IB

13. The comparison is fairly close and clear because the aircraft are fairly similar, differing chiefly in wing section only. The wing loadings are similar (37.4 lbs. Tempest, and 39.7 lbs. Typhoon)

Radius of Action

14. The Tempest, as it stands, (no nose tank or long range tanks) has approximately the same range as the Typhoon IB without long-range tanks. The fuel and oil capacities of the Tempest are 132 gallons and 14 gallons respectively, compared with 154 gallons and 16 gallons of the Typhoon. The fact that the Tempest cruises at 15-20 mph faster than the Typhoon at the same engine settings approximately cancels out the discrepancy in fuel load. A Tempest fitted with a nose tank (30 gallons) and the 45 gallon long-range tanks (252 gallons total) would have about 1 1/4 times the range of a Typhoon IB with maximum fule load (243 galls. total).

Speeds

15. According to the offical speed curves, the maximum speeds of the Tempest at all heights are 15-20 mph faster. This is also true for all intermediate settings.

Climbs

16. The Tempest climbs at a slightly steeper angle and at the same airspeed producing 200-300 ft. increase in maximum rate of climb. Because of its greater cleanliness, its zoom climb is much better.

Dive

17. For the same reasons as the zoom climb, the Tempest pulls ahead. As the speed is increased it does so more rapidly. The fact is it has the best acceleration in the dive yet seen at this Unit.

Turning Circle

18. Very Similar. Any difference appears to be in favour of the Typhoon. This is too slight to alter combat tactics.

Rate of Roll

19. The Tempest has the better rate of roll at all speeds

Conclusions

20. Taken all round, the Tempest V is a great improvment on the Typhoon IB.

Search View and Rear View

21. The all-round view from the pilot's cockpit is excellent, especially the rear view. This has been made possible by the "tear drop" hood which gives the pilot a better all-round unobstucted view than any other aircraft- Hun or friendly. It is also fitted to some Typhoons.

Sighting View and Fire-Power

22. The aircraft is fitted with the Mark II sight. The installation should be modified in some cases to produce direct reflection on to the windshield. The sighting view is about the same as the Typhoon, being approximately 4 1/2 degrees. It is also fitted to some Typhoons.

23. The Tempest is a steady gun platform. Air-to-ground the aircraft has the same slight tendency as the Typhoon to fly into the ground, being not so good as the Spitfire in this respect. The guns cannot be depressed any lower than parallel to the datum, so this defect cannot be overcome.

Armour
24. Of a similar design and installation as on the Typhoon aircraft, with the exception that the head-piece is a trifle larger in size.

Thickness of headpiece - 9 mm
Thickness of back pieces 6 m.m.

All fuel tanks are self-sealing. Bullet-proof windscreen is of "Dry-cell" type. Front side of outer gun ammunition tanks have a piece of 1/8" armour plate.

COMPARISON WITH MUSTANG III

Range and Endurance

25. By comparison the Tempest without nose tank or long-range tanks, has no range. When the extra fuel is available it should have a little more than half that of the Mustang III fitted with two 62.5 gallon long-range tanks, but without the extra 71 gallon body tank.

Maximum Speed

26. The Tempest V is 15-20 mph faster up to 15,000 ft., there is then no choice to 24,000 ft, when the Mustang rapidly pulls ahead, being about 30 mph faster at 30,000 ft.

Climbs

27. These compare directly with the results of the speed tests. At similar performance height the Tempest has a better zoom climb.

Turning Circle

28. The Tempest is not quite as good as the Mustang III.

Rate of Roll

29. The Tempest is not so good. This attribute may be improved upon later aircraft with re-designed ailerons.

Conclusions

30. The Mustang III has superior range of action and general performance above 24,000 ft. Conclusions should not be drawn below this height, but the Tempest has a much better rate of climb and speed below 10,000 feet.

COMPARISON WITH SPITFIRE XIV

Range and Endurance

31. Rough comparisons have been made at the maximum continuous cruising conditions of each aircraft (3150 revs. +4 1/2 lb/boost Tempest, 2400 revs. +7 lb. boost Spitfire XIV).

31A. The best heights of each aircraft are very different, producing the following results:-
The Tempest is faster and goes further up to 10,000 ft.
From 10,000 - 20,000 ft. both aircraft cruise at about 300 I.A.S.
Above 20,000 ft. the Tempest cannot maintain its high cruising speed and no comparisons can be made with the Spitfire XIV which increases its ground speed and range up to 29,000 ft.
These comparisons remain the same with the full fuel loads at present available (2 x 45 gall. long-range tank Tempest, 1 x 90 gall. long-range tank Spitfire).

Maximum Speed

32. From 0 - 10,000 ft. the Tempest is 20 mph faster than the Spitfire XIV. There is little to choose until 22,000 ft. when the Spitfire XIV becomes 30-40 mph faster, the Tempest's operational ceiling being about 30,000 ft. as opposed to the Spitfire XIV's 40,000 ft.

Maximum Climb

33. The Tempest is not in the same class as the Spitfire XIV. The Tempest V however, has a considerably better zoom climb, holding a higher speed throughout the manoeuvre. If the climb is prolonged until climbing speed is reached, then, of course the Spitfire XIV will begin to catch and pull ahead.

Dive

34. The Tempest gains on the Spitfire XIV.

Turning Circle

35. The Spitfire XIV easily out-turns the Tempest.

Rate of Roll

36. The Spitfire XIV rolls faster at speeds below 300 mph, but definitely more slowly at speeds greater than 350.00 mph.

Conclusions

37. The tactical attributes of the two aircraft being completely different, they require a separate handling technique in combat. For this reason, Typhoon squadrons should convert to Tempests, and Spitfire squadrons to Spitfire XIV's, and definitely never vice-versa, or each aircraft's particular advantages would not be appreciated. Regarding performance, if correctly handled, the Tempest is better below about 20,000 feet and the Spitfire XIV above that height.

COMBAT TRIALS AGAINST FW.190 (BMW.801D)

Maximum Speed

38. The Tempest is nearly 50 mph faster at all heights. It is estimated that the Tempest V may be very slightly faster than the new FW.190 (DB.603) up to 20,000 ft.

Climb

39. Except below 5,000 feet the FW.190 (BMW.801D) has a slightly better maximum rate of climb. Because of the Tempest V's speed and clean lines however, the Tempest has a markedly better zoom climb, where the speed is kept high. Against the new FW.190 (DB.603) it is estimated that the Tempest will have a markedly superior climb below 5,000 feet, but a similar maximum climb above that height.

Dive

40. The Tempest pulls away rapidly in a dive from all heights.

Turning Circles

41. There is very little difference in turning circles between the two aircraft. If anything a very slight advantage lies with the Tempest.

Rate of Roll

42. The Tempest V cannot compare with the FW 190.

Conclusions

43. Similar tactics should be used against the FW.190 as used by the Typhoon squadrons, advantage being taken of high speed. Such handling should prove most effective. The Tempest has an exceptional ground height performance even (estimated against the FW.190 (DB.603).

COMBAT TRIALS AGAINST Me.109G

Maximum Speed

44. The Tempest V is 40 - 50 mph faster up to 20,000 feet when the difference in speed rapidly diminishes.

Climb

45. The Tempest is behind the Me.109G at all heights, but being almost similar below 5,000 feet. The Tempest is only slightly better in a zoom climb if the two aircraft start at the same speed, but if the Tempest has an initial advantage, it will hold this advantage easily providing the speed is kept over 250 mph.

Dive

46. Initial acceleration of the Tempest is not marked, but a prolonged dive brings the Tempest well ahead.

Turning Circle

47. The Tempest is slightly better, the Me.109G being embarrassed by its slots opening near the stall.

Rate of Roll

48. At normal speeds there is nothing in it, but at speeds over 350 mph the Tempest could get away from the Me.109G by making a quick change of bank and direction.

Conclusions

49. In the attack, the Tempest can always follow the Me.109 except in slow, steep climb. In the combat area the Tempest should maintain a high speed, and in defense may do anything except a climb at slow speed.

TECHNICAL

Gun Harmonisation
50. Harmonisation was carried out in accordance with the pattern issued by Headquarters, Fighter Command, No.FC/G.208 dated 15.11.43.

Gun Firing
51. Two air shoots have been carried out.
First shoot. Low altitude - 100%
Second shoot. 20,000 ft. - Stoppage on Starboard inner due to insufficient recoil All other guns 100%
Re-Arming
52. Gun loading platforms are issued and used during these trials. With two Armourers only, the time taken for re-arming was as follows:-
First test - 17 minutes
Second test - 12 minutes

Operational load Port & Starboard Inner - 150 rounds
Port & Starboard Outer 140 rounds

Cine-gun Installation and Harmonisation
53. Cine-gun fitted with extension lens and harmonized center. It is impossible with the installation to harmonize a quarter from the top. The camera is fitted on the starboard side of the engine. Considerable vibration has been experienced causing the door on the cine-gun to fly open. This has been remedied by putting a 'U' shaped clip over the top of the camera. No trouble has since been experienced in any condition of flight, incorporating this modification.

Radio
54. One V.H.F. set is fitted, the control box being on the left-hand side of the cockpit.

Oxygen
55. Normal British type Oxygen is fitted, the master switch in the cockpit being on the left-hand side of the seat, as is the Typoon.

Engine Temperatures
56. The glycol radiator flap is controlled by a lever on the left. When closed the engine runs hot, and overheats quickly in the climb, so that it is necessary to climb with the flap open, when the temperature increases very slowly to maximum.

STARTING HINTS

57. As the Typhoon, care must be taken to keep the booster coil button pressed. It is a good thing after doping to pump up the carburettor pressure before pressing starter buttons.

SERVING HINTS

58. Normal Typhoon equipment can be used with the exception of gun loading platforms.

GENERAL CONCLUSIONS

59. The Tempest V is superior to the Typhoon in all respects. It is faster than any other fighter up to medium altitude and has the best zoom-climb and dive charateristics yet seen by this Unit. The ailerons have less tendency to stiffen up especially at speeds oover 350 mph, where it will out-roll any Spitfire.

60. The modification to the sight bracket (para. 22) reduces the likelihood of injury to the pilot in the event of a forced landing, and improves the foward view considerably.

<<<<<<<<<<<<<


RAF74 Buzzsaw

XyZspineZyX
10-01-2003, 08:09 PM
Salute Isegrim

Note in particular the line in the text of the above test:

"As yet no provison has been made for the carrying of long range tanks, bombs, or R/P."

All operational Tempests had provision for drop tanks.


RAF74 Buzzsaw

XyZspineZyX
10-01-2003, 08:23 PM
Isegrim,

I stand corrected regarding the Merlin vs DB605 installation .

On the other hand, Mark Hannah says:

"I like it as an aeroplane, and with familiarity I think it will give most of the allied fighters I have flown a hard time, particularly in a close, hard turning, slow speed dog-fight. It will definitely out-maneuver a P-51 in this type of flight, the roll rate and slow speed characteristics being much better. The Spitfire on the other hand is more of a problem for the '109 and I feel it is a superior close in fighter. Having said that the aircraft are sufficiently closely matched that pilot abilty would probably be the deciding factor. At higher speeds the P-51 is definitely superior, and provided the Mustang kept his energy up and refused to dogfight he would be relatively safe against the '109."

You'll of course deny it, but it is fairly obvious that Hannah is referring to handling at "higher speeds". Hmmm...the 109 is more maneuvarable than the P-51 at lower speeds but the Mustang handles better at higher speeds, where have we heard that before?

- lrrp22 wrote:
--
-- What we do know is that multiple contemporary
-- sources have noted the 109's loss of aileron
-- effectiveness at high speeds.
--
-
-
- Gee, you guys are parrotting that like a magic
- sentence. Just care to get into those details.
- "multiple contemporary sources"? What are these?
-
- Why are you just so incapable in posting any of
- those ?
-
- Why do we never see your references?
-
- Why do we only see you repeated statements, in no
- single case backed up by anything ?
-
-
- I also have to disappoint you, the 109`s wing
- stucture only showed wing twist phenonmenon occur
- only at very high speeds, a testimony of it`s solid
- contruction.
-
-
-- You and Huck like to
-- quote Mark Hannah's evaluation of the Spanish G-10
-- clone
-
- Nope, it wasn`t a G-10 clone... it was a Buchon with
- Merlin engine. Try to get you facts like.
-
-
-- but what you don't like to quote is his clear
-- conclusion that the P-51 would have little problem
-- dealing with the 109 if he kept his speed up and
-- that the 109 would only be a threat in lower speed
-- turn fight.
-
- Hanna simply reffered to the fact that the P-51 was
- about 50 kph faster than the 109 variant he flew,
- and explositing this speed advantage was the way to
- keep the initative with the P-51. Sadly this doesn`t
- helps at all your or the parrot commando`s attempts
- to prove what they can`t prove.
-
-
-
-
-
- <img
- src="http://vo101isegrim.piranho.com/FB-desktopweb
- .jpg"> - 'Only a dead Indianer is a good Indianer!'
-
- Vezérünk a Bátorság, K*sérµnk a Szerencse!
- (Courage leads, Luck escorts us! - Historical motto
- of the 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)
-
- Flight tests and other aviation performance data:
- http://www.pbase.com/isegrim

XyZspineZyX
10-01-2003, 08:28 PM
Vo101_Isegrim wrote:
-
- Historical Tempest roll rates (at 10k ft). Stick
- force specified.
-
- speed - deg/sec
-
- 150 mph : 65
- 200 mph : 84
- 250 mph : 95
- 300 mph : 97
- 350 mph : 94
- 400 mph : 70
- 450 mph : 60
-
- British AFDU test with Bf 109G-2/trop (captured in
- end 1942 in already damaged condition, later
- repaired and flown in AFDU test with boost limited,
- crashed in 1944, restored later again, flown as
- "Black 6" in desert colours, crashed again and now
- on static display due to engine damage):
-
- "Rate of Roll
-
- 48. At normal speeds there is nothing in it, but at
- speeds over 350 mph the Tempest could get away from
- the Me.109G by making a quick change of bank and
- direction. "
-
-
- Which merely tells that the Tempest was no better in
- roll below 350 mph, and above 350mph, the 109G had
- worser roll than 94 deg/sec, which doesn`t tells
- much because 94 deg/sec at 350mph is an outstanding
- value and also true for all US and all other British
- fighters.



Report states - "At normal speeds there is nothing in it", presumably meaning that the roll rates are more or less equivalent.

You re-state this to say "Which merely tells that the Tempest was no better in roll below 350 mph,"

This is not what was said. The report states "at normal speeds" and not "below 350mph". The author is not explicit as to specific speed regime. Maybe it is 300mph. Maybe it is 275mph. The report is not clear.


Report states - "... at speeds over 350 mph the Tempest could get away from the Me.109G by making a quick change of bank and direction".

You have interpreted it as: "...above 350mph, the 109G had
worser roll than 94 deg/sec, which doesn`t tells much because 94 deg/sec at 350mph is an outstanding value and
also true for all US and all other British fighters."

The report indicates that the Tempest could out-roll the 109G at speeds OVER 350mph. Unfortunately, the author of the report is again unspecific. If we guess at a speed range of, say, 375mph and interpolate a Tempest roll rate of +/- 80deg/sec, or 400mph with a Tempest roll rate of 70deg/sec, then the question becomes: how inferior was 109G2 roll rate comparison? -5 deg/sec?, or -10deg/sec?, or -20deg/sec?. We do not know.

All we really can glean from the Tempest report is that the Tempest and 109G2 were practically equal at "normal speeds" and the the Tempest had a sufficient roll superiority "above 350mph" to "get away" (disengage?) from a 109G2.

If an informed speculation may be permitted, it is likely that the 109G high speed roll rate was considerably better than the 11deg/sec displayed by the predecessor -E series.

Much as you somehow seem to believe that I desperately desire to denigrate the 109, nothing could be further from the case. I just refuse to accept circumstantial arguments or theoretical speculations in place of solid data.

Congratulations BTW for crafting a post which actually manages to omit mention of human body parts. That's progress.


Blutarski

XyZspineZyX
10-01-2003, 08:49 PM
Huckebein_FW wrote:
- Blutarski, you're an idiot. Not only that you did
- not understand a word from that report, but you come
- here to teach NACA specialists a lesson in
- aerodynamics.


Oh Huckebein, more of the same old, same old....

I hold an inestimable intellectual advantage over you. I am intellectually honest. I freely admit my ignorance in areas where feel unqualified to speak. You, on the other hand, seem not to be. You continue in the fervent belief that your ability to simply solve an equation confers expert status on the entire topic of interest.

As regards your claim the I "come here to teach NACA specialists a lesson in aerodynamics" -

Who is it who disputed the NASA statement of 507mph achieved by the P47J? YOU!

Who is it who ignores the caveats presented by the authors of the NASA article to the effect that theoretical calculations would yield over-optimistic results at high air speed compared to wind tunnel results, and that wind tunnel test results would themselves prove over-optimistic compared to actual field tests? YOU!

So, tell me again who is lecturing NASA specialists on aerodynamics.

I ask you again, why choose those particular P47 and P80 graphs to make your case. Why not an A6M roll rate graph. You are the one who claims that these "k" values are good for all aircraft! Maybe from a purely theoretical viewpoint, but not in the real world, which is a place you ought to visit sometime.

My God, man, debating with you is like shooting fish in a barrel, with the exception that at least the fish are more honest about the situation.

Your next claim will certainly be that the 109K was capable of achieving low orbit.



Blutarski

XyZspineZyX
10-01-2003, 09:02 PM
This from The Hawker Typhoon and Tempest by Francis K Mason.

Tempest V production, four batches.

Batch one, 100 aircraft, mostly series one, these had MkII cannon and the Sabre IIa and some series two. Delivered between 12-43 and 5-44.

Batch two. 300 aircraft, series two, these had Mk V cannon Sabre IIa and spring tab ailerons. Delivered between 5-44 and 9-44.

Batch three. 199 aircraft, series two, these had Mk V cannon Sabre IIb and spring tab ailerons. Delivered between 9-44 and 2-45.

Batch four. 201 aircraft, Sabre IIb plus universal armament provision and drop tank plumbing. Delivered between 1-45 and 6-45.


An example


http://hometown.aol.co.uk/JStirlingBomber/Sabre+IIB+a.jpg


The roll rates quoted for the Tempest V are for an aircraft fitted with spring tabs and come from DSIR 23/14024 Hawker Aircraft LTD Design department report no.111.



Neil.



Message Edited on 10/01/0308:04PM by NeilStirling

XyZspineZyX
10-01-2003, 09:24 PM
Even though JN729 > JN733 were the first production a/c, JN734, the 6th a/c off the line, was considered the first wholly representative a/c for Fighter Command.

JN729 > JN732 were used for various tests. Flight Report 936(Langley) on 21.6.43 using Sabre S3221 is the first I can find for JN729. S3221 was later replaced by S3334. JN730 flew in Flight Report 1063 on 12.10.43 using Sabre IIA S3335. There is no engine number for JN731 though says IIA and flew Flight Report 1067 13.10.43. Flight Report 1051 for JN732 lists a Sabre IIA engine.



It should be noted that some Typhoon in serial batchs JP, JR had their IIA engines replaced by IIB engines in 1944. Same goes for PD, RB which had some Sabre IIB engines fitted. (production finished 5.1.45)

Tempest serial batch NV had Sabre IIB engines fitted. (deliveries started 9.44, completed 2.45) Tempest with SN had the Sabre IIB fitted. (production started 1.45, ended 6.45)

ref. Francis K Mason, ISBN 0-946627-19-3


http://www.stenbergaa.com/stenberg/west-battleline.jpg



"Only a dead 'chamber pot' is a good 'chamber pot'!"

Message Edited on 10/01/0304:26PM by MiloMorai

XyZspineZyX
10-01-2003, 09:41 PM
NeilStirling wrote:
- The roll rates quoted for the Tempest V are for an
- aircraft fitted with spring tabs and come from DSIR
- 23/14024 Hawker Aircraft LTD Design department
- report no.111.


Neil,

Is this to say that the roll rates given by Isegrim were not those produced by the Tempest V which participated in the comparative test under discussion, but from a later model Tempest?


Blutarski

XyZspineZyX
10-01-2003, 11:22 PM
Blutarski wrote:
- I hold an inestimable intellectual advantage over you. I am
- intellectually honest. I freely admit my ignorance in areas where feel
- unqualified to speak.

This almost brought a tear in my eye. It's good that you finally admited that you are completely incapable to understand the subject at hand therefore you cannot criticize the oppinions of those who can. A small step forward.



- As regards your claim the I "come here to teach NACA specialists a
- lesson in aerodynamics" -

- Who is it who disputed the NASA statement of 507mph achieved by the
- P47J? YOU!

That's hilarious. Did NACA ever tested P-47J? That never happened Blutarski, unfortunatelly. We would have today a serious and publicly available test on P-47J.
That book you are reffering to, written by a NASA author decades after the P-47J test, does not engage NASA in anything. The author just quoted another source.



- Who is it who ignores the caveats presented by the authors of the NASA
- article to the effect that theoretical calculations would yield
- over-optimistic results at high air speed compared to wind tunnel
- results, and that wind tunnel test results would themselves prove
- over-optimistic compared to actual field tests? YOU!


I would have invited you to read again the article but since you are completely incapable of understanding it this won't help you at all.
Though is good to mention again that this relationship is valid for any plane in real flight conditions:

pb/2V ~ const * total_aileron_deflection



- I ask you again, why choose those particular P47 and P80 graphs to
- make your case. Why not an A6M roll rate graph.

Because those were the only graphs of helix angle vs aileron deflection I could find. And they were very good examples because P47, an aircraft with a poor roll (max helix angle 0.074, below 0.09 from USAAF requirements) and P80, one with a good roll, both prove the relationship between helix angle and aileron deflection.

Sure A6M respects the same relationship, helix angle is proportional with total aileron deflection. I am at work now, but tonight I'll do any calculation you like with that chart.



- You are the one who
- claims that these "k" values are good for all aircraft! Maybe from a
- purely theoretical viewpoint, but not in the real world, which is a
- place you ought to visit sometime.


No, they are not good for any aircraft, they are good for the aircrafts fitted with the types of ailerons included in that chart.

Also k factor has nothing to do with the linear relationship between helix angle and aileron deflection. That happens regardless of the k value for a particular aircraft
Do you see any k in this formula?

pb/2V = ((Cldelta)/(114.6)(Clp)) * (Delta a)

or this one?

pb/2V ~ const * total_aileron_deflection



k was introduced there because Cldelta alone could not be determined in measurements, only Cldelta/k could. This is why they also had to estimate k value.

Cldelta and Clp are constant for a large speed range, just like Cd0 for example. That's why they are very useful in calculations.

I remaind you that in our case (Bf109 roll) we don't need to estimate the helix angle. k does not effect in any way those calculations.



- Your next claim will certainly be that the 109K was capable of
- achieving low orbit.

No, my next claim will be that P-47D roll rate in FB is overmodelled and has to be changed. I never participated in those lengthy moaning threads about P-47 roll rate, but now I'll start a new one. I'm wondering though what was discussed there if nobody of those who participated, guys like Skychimp or Buzzsaw, had the slightest idea how to interpret the charts in NACAs report on P-47D lateral control. Those charts are marvelous, though for example there is only one chart for roll rate and it is for 30lb stick force, you can calculate from those 4 charts the roll rate vs speed at 50lb stick force very easily. Not that it matters since USAAF requirement was for a max of 30lb stick force. Only NACA was interested in testing the airplanes at higher stick force for a better understanding of the physical phenomenons involved in rolling. Air Force requirements were much more strict.


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
10-02-2003, 12:14 AM
Huckebein_FW wrote:

- you can calculate from those 4 charts
- the roll rate vs speed at 50lb stick force very
- easily.


Please, Huckles, entertain us with your numbers /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/NAA_logo.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-02-2003, 12:23 AM
Huckebein_FW wrote:
- Blutarski wrote:
-- I hold an inestimable intellectual advantage over you. I am
-- intellectually honest. I freely admit my ignorance in areas where feel
-- unqualified to speak.
-
- This almost brought a tear in my eye. It's good that
- you finally admited that you are completely
- incapable to understand the subject at hand
- therefore you cannot criticize the oppinions of
- those who can. A small step forward.


..... I just love it when you make my point for me without my having to even lift a finger to type. Again, you are totally oblivious to the concept of intellectual honesty and continue to flatter yourself in the false belief that your amateur theoretical dabblings make you some sort of expert on aircraft performance. That tear in your eye is your sub-conscious hinting that it is so sad for you.



-- As regards your claim the I "come here to teach NACA specialists a
-- lesson in aerodynamics" -
-
-- Who is it who disputed the NASA statement of 507mph achieved by the
-- P47J? YOU!
-
- That's hilarious. Did NACA ever tested P-47J? That
- never happened Blutarski, unfortunatelly. We would
- have today a serious and publicly available test on
- P-47J.
- That book you are reffering to, written by a NASA
- author decades after the P-47J test, does not engage
- NASA in anything. The author just quoted another
- source.


Please refer to the NAS website upon which the statement is posted. Read it. Then come back and tell me how NASA is so stupid as to publicly post such untrue data on their own site. This is just another example of your finest talent - weaselly little excuses which never treat the real point. What source do you you think this author quoted? Gee, perhaps it was a US government document - not that it will make any sort of impression upon your hopelessly biased little mind.



-- Who is it who ignores the caveats presented by the authors of the NASA
-- article to the effect that theoretical calculations would yield
-- over-optimistic results at high air speed compared to wind tunnel
-- results, and that wind tunnel test results would themselves prove
-- over-optimistic compared to actual field tests? YOU!
-
-
- I would have invited you to read again the article
- but since you are completely incapable of
- understanding it this won't help you at all.
- Though is good to mention again that this
- relationship is valid for any plane in real flight
- conditions:
-

Spare me the lame insults, boy genius, which apparently substitute in your world for answering direct challenges, and explain to us what the authors meant regarding the differential results to be expected between theoretical calculation, wind tunnel tests, and actual flight tests. You won't, because you cannot do so without collapsing your entire ridiculously fabricated house of cards. It's so much easier to ignore that uncomfortable little bit of intruding reality and produce the fake numbers which give you such a warm and fuzzy feeling.
-
-
-
-
-- I ask you again, why choose those particular P47 and P80 graphs to
-- make your case. Why not an A6M roll rate graph.
-
- Because those were the only graphs of helix angle vs
- aileron deflection I could find. And they were very
- good examples because P47, an aircraft with a poor
- roll (max helix angle 0.074, below 0.09 from USAAF
- requirements) and P80, one with a good roll, both
- prove the relationship between helix angle and
- aileron deflection.
-
- Sure A6M respects the same relationship, helix angle
- is proportional with total aileron deflection. I am
- at work now, but tonight I'll do any calculation you
- like with that chart.


Please enlighten us with a calculation of the roll performance of an A6M2 at, say, 300mph in the same manner as you have calculated all your wonderful results for your 109. I await your results breathlessly
-
-
-
-- You are the one who
-- claims that these "k" values are good for all aircraft! Maybe from a
-- purely theoretical viewpoint, but not in the real world, which is a
-- place you ought to visit sometime.
-
-
- No, they are not good for any aircraft, they are
- good for the aircrafts fitted with the types of
- ailerons included in that chart.
-
- Also k factor has nothing to do with the linear
- relationship between helix angle and aileron
- deflection. That happens regardless of the k value
- for a particular aircraft
- Do you see any k in this formula?
-
- pb/2V = ((Cldelta)/(114.6)(Clp)) * (Delta a)
-
- or this one?
-
- pb/2V ~ const * total_aileron_deflection
-
- k was introduced there because Cldelta alone could
- not be determined in measurements, only Cldelta/k
- could. This is why they also had to estimate k
- value.
-
- Cldelta and Clp are constant for a large speed
- range, just like Cd0 for example. That's why they
- are very useful in calculations.
-
- I remaind you that in our case (Bf109 roll) we don't
- need to estimate the helix angle. k does not effect
- in any way those calculations.


..... I refer you the the earlier post by Blottog, who is far more qualified than I to address the influence of k factor in roll rate calculations. Perhaps you missed his post.

QUOTE -
k aileron effectiveness factor, effective change in angle of attack of wing-aileron section per unit aileron deflection.

This is a factor of the aileron's effectiveness PER UNIT DEFLECTION. It does not reflect the amount an aileron can be deflected, nor the maximum roll rate produced.


(Pg. 2):

(7) Some of the large airplanes tested suffered severely from the effects of control-cable stretch in limiting the available aileron deflections, particularly at high speeds. It would also appear that the large airplanes and some of the small airplanes with fabric-covered wings lost a considerable amount of potential rolling ability through wing warping due to the torsional loads applied by the deflected ailerons.

With fabric-covered wings, the skin is no longer a stressed member. The spar is still there, and the ribs, but the spar is the only thing resisting the torsional load. Metal stressed skins stiffen the wing. Two spars and metal skin stiffen it more.

(Pg. 3):

For airplanes of the pursuit category, this amount of control appears to be required in maneuvering at high speeds. In this connection, airplanes with high stick forces may have insufficient aileron control at high speeds because the controls cannot be deflected a sufficient amount.

The authors are specifically mentioning this because the test data (and the equation derived from it) does not take this factor into account when calculating high-speed roll rates. The test data is taken over a lower (unspecified) speed range.

lrrp22 wrote:
- Huck,
-
- From your own NACA link :
-
- "The values k determined in flight are considerably
- lower than those predicted by theory and, in most
- cases, they are lower than values obtained for
- comparable aerodynamic arrangements in the wind
- tunnel."

Read again lrrp. It clearly says that the Figure 3 with k values for various aileron config is determined from flight testing, not from theory.

Also k value does not change in any way the fact that helix angle is linearly dependent with total aileron deflection.

You need to read it again Huck, and read all of it. lrrp is right.

(Pg. 4):

The values of aileron effectiveness factor k, when delta a = 30 degrees, were determined from the observed pb/2V values of the various airplanes tested in flight and are presented in figure 3 as a function of the ratio of mean aileron chord to mean wing chord.

Delta a is the angular difference between the up and down aileron, and for about half of the types tested, was their maximum deflection. Control force limits and wing torsion aren't mentioned, but considering all the aircraft tested were at delta a = 30 degrees, the speed had to be low enough where these weren't a factor. At higher speeds they would be.

(Pg. 4):

The values of k determined in flight are considerably lower than those predicted by theory and, in most cases, they are lower than values obtained for comparable aerodynamic arrangements in the wind tunnel. At least part of this effect may be accounted for on the basis of the deflection of the wing in torsion and the deflection of the aileron control system. For example, 1 degree of wing twist varying uniformly from the wing tip would reduce the apparent aileron effectiveness by about 20 percent. The wing deflections experienced by the various airplanes, however, are unknown.

Again, the authors stating that torsion and control forces are both factors they didn't consider in their equation. Just like those frictionless surfaces and massless pulleys in your high school physics equations.

The equation:

pb/2V = (Cldelta/k) [(k)(Delta a)/(114.6)(Clp)]

Was the engineers attempt to predict aileron effectiveness for an untested aircraft based on test data from known aircraft. Nowhere in the equation is there a factor for control force, wing flex or control cable stretch (or rod/bellcrank bending in the case of the 109.) Just "plugging and chugging" numbers into the equation will lead to unrealistically high roll rates because limiting forces, control and wing flex, are specifically not accounted for (as mentioned above from the article.)
-UNQUOTE


..... Here is your verison the formula -

- Do you see any k in this formula?
- pb/2V = ((Cldelta)/(114.6)(Clp)) * (Delta a)
- or this one?
- pb/2V ~ const * total_aileron_deflection



And here is the formula in its entirety -

pb/2V = (Cldelta/k) [(k)(Delta a)/(114.6)(Clp)]


No wonder you don't need the k values. It is clear, even to this "stupid" fellow, that you have simply dropped the k values from your equations. Pardon me if I say that I have my doubts about the propriety of such a practice.



- my next claim will be that P-47D roll rate in FB
- is overmodelled and has to be changed.


..... Huckebein, this is the only thing you have said in your entire post which I believe. So comical, but so sad at the same time. Perhaps you will add the k factors back in for that calculation.


Looking forward to your next attempt at a defence. I haven't done any calculus in 35 years and can still see through your thin veil of misrepresentations. If you plan a career in intellectual swindling, you will need a better approach.



Blutarski

XyZspineZyX
10-02-2003, 12:30 AM
God Dang BLUTARSKI, that was a fantastic post /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/NAA_logo.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-02-2003, 12:40 AM
Huckebein_FW wrote:
- Blutarski wrote:
-- I hold an inestimable intellectual advantage over you. I am
-- intellectually honest. I freely admit my ignorance in areas where feel
-- unqualified to speak.
-
- This almost brought a tear in my eye. It's good that
- you finally admited that you are completely
- incapable to understand the subject at hand
- therefore you cannot criticize the oppinions of
- those who can. A small step forward.


/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

I'm glad you finally admit that you are intellectually dishonest.

Geez, Huckles, did you even bother to read Bluto's statement?

/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/NAA_logo.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-02-2003, 12:47 AM
I have read in several places that the 109's cockpit was so small and cramped that a pilot was unable to stick his elbows out.

If true, it severely limits the sideways force that a man can put on a stick. The amount of theoretical aileron deflection may be a moot point.

Contrast that with the famously roomy P-47 cockpit. Plenty of room to extend the elbows and use those pectorals.

XyZspineZyX
10-02-2003, 12:59 AM
Huckles wrote:
"As a result roll rate at 770km/h and 2/3 aileron deflection is aprox the same with roll rate at 500km/h and full aileron deflection. Also note that stick forces are higher in first case than in second. So the roll rate in that case was aprox 80 deg/sec as long as the pilot had the muscle to put 2/3 aileron deflection."


===============


The other obvious problem Huck seems not to consider is that all WWII combat aircraft had a structural limitation placed on them regarding aileron deflection versus speed.

Huck said something to the effect that the Bf-109 ailerons could be deflected 2/3rds of full at 770 km/h. That's 478 miles per hour.

#1, 478 mph is above the Bf-109's dive speed limit.

#2, deflection of even 2/3rds at this speed would have resulted in structural damage to the ailerons.

In dives of over 700 km/h, things like cowlings and oils lines were known to detach from the Bf-109K-4. Even if the pilot were strong enough to do it, 2/3rds aileron deflection at 770 km/h would have resulted in severe damage.



Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/NAA_logo.jpg


Message Edited on 10/02/0304:02AM by SkyChimp

XyZspineZyX
10-02-2003, 02:04 AM
I ran into Huckie on the street the other day... And I think it is clear what his problem is.. I spoted it in a second.. See if you can figue it out from this picutre I took of Huckie

<center> http://rosecity.net/al_gore/head_up_***.jpg </center>


<div style="background:#222222;color:#e0e0e0;font-size:24px;font-weight:bold;font-face:courier;"> TAGERT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If WAR was not the ANSWER.. Than what the H was your QUESTION?
</div>
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=forum
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=discussion

XyZspineZyX
10-02-2003, 02:54 AM
This is such a classic "Famous blue stone of Galveston" thread. It's hilarious! It goes like this...."So,...what you're trying to tell me is that the Enfanta's eyes, which you have never seen, are a slightly bluer than something else....you..have...never...seen??"

Those daft calculations showing linear relationships are worthless...there is no allowance for the effects of increasing inertia and increasing drag as the speed builds up. Both those very real effects would seriously affect roll rates.

Aircraft roll rates decrease at high speeds....soo what! This is nothing new. It's not a crime! It doesn't mean the plane is crap! who cares....it was all over long ago, and now we play a game. Big deal. Just go and enjoy the game.

Now one here actually knows first hand how these A/C behaved so this third party proxy arguing is useless, pointless, and serves no purpose whatsoever.


...other than entertainment, /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Ps The Spitfire had a higher Mach value than any other WW2 prop A/C. It could be dived at .89 mach. Try that in a 109, or P51, or P47, and see what happens. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

mind you..I didn't try it for myself....but so and so say's it's true! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

"If I had all the money I've spent on drink....I'd spend it on drink!"

XyZspineZyX
10-02-2003, 02:58 AM
Well, tagert just gave the measure of the intelectual level of the people I'm talking to on this thread.

So I'll put a simple step by step procedure to understand even the most ******ed.


Relationship between helix angle and total aileron deflection given by NACA:


pb/2V = (Cldelta/k) [(k)(Delta a)/(114.6)(Clp)]

where
Cldelta/k
k
Clp

are all constants for an individual plane

so we can rewrite the above formula this way:

pb/2v ~ const * (Delta a)


where:
p - roll rate
b - wing span
v - indicated airspeed
delta a - total aileron deflection

The linear relationship from last form of the formula is described in NACA document in the following way:

"The roll rate for a given airplane at a given control deflection was VERY NEARLY A LINEAR FUNCTION of air speed except for cases where control cable stretch appreciably limited the available aileron deflections."

Is it clear until now Skychimp, Blutarski?


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

Message Edited on 10/01/0309:26PM by Huckebein_FW

XyZspineZyX
10-02-2003, 03:02 AM
Huckebein_FW wrote:
- Well, tagert just gave the measure of the
- intelectual level of the people I'm talking to on
- this thread.
-
- So I'll put a simple step by step procedure to
- understand even the most ******ed of them.
-
-
- pb/2V = (Cldelta/k) [(k)(Delta a)/(114.6)(Clp)]
-
- where
- Cldelta/k
- k
- Clp
-
- are all constants for an individual plane
-
- so we can rewrite the above formula this way:
-
- pb/2v ~ const * (Delta a)
-
-
- where:
- p - roll rate
- b - wing span
- v - indicated airspeed
- delta a - total aileron deflection
-
- The linear relationship from last form of the
- formula is described in NACA document in the
- following way:
-
- "The roll rate for a given airplane at a given
- control deflection was VERY NEARLY A LINEAR FUNCTION
- of air speed except for cases where control cable
- stretch appreciably limited the available aileron
- deflections."
-
- Is it clear until now Skychimp, Blutarski?

1.5 > 1.0



<div style="background:#222222;color:#e0e0e0;font-size:24px;font-weight:bold;font-face:courier;"> TAGERT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If WAR was not the ANSWER.. Than what the H was your QUESTION?
</div>
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=forum
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=discussion

XyZspineZyX
10-02-2003, 03:17 AM
Skychimp and Blutarski may have a chance for recovery, but you tagert, you are hopeless.


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
10-02-2003, 03:24 AM
I think Bluto owned you, Huckles.

BTW, do you still contend the Bf-109 aileron could be deflected to 2/3rds full at 770km/h? /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Please, tell us.

Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/NAA_logo.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-02-2003, 03:36 AM
Huckebein_FW wrote:
- Skychimp and Blutarski may have a chance for
- recovery, but you tagert, you are hopeless.

Still having problems with ratios?

<div style="background:#222222;color:#e0e0e0;font-size:24px;font-weight:bold;font-face:courier;"> TAGERT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If WAR was not the ANSWER.. Than what the H was your QUESTION?
</div>
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=forum
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=discussion

XyZspineZyX
10-02-2003, 03:36 AM
Absolutely, that was a test in which Bf-109 roll behaviour was measured in a high speed dive.

So what's the problem with 770km/h? 750km/h dive limit gives you at least 50km/h more for safe pull out of dive. And remember the same dive limit was cleared for Emils, but later models were strenghtened several times.

There was no problem in reaching those speeds in dive in a 109.


Now, to exit from your diversion, tell me, were you able to understand that simple explanation from my previous post?
Do you have any questions? Can I continue?


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

Message Edited on 10/01/0309:38PM by Huckebein_FW

XyZspineZyX
10-02-2003, 03:45 AM
SkyChimp wrote:
- God Dang BLUTARSKI, that was a fantastic post /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
-
- Regards,
-
- SkyChimp

Agreed 100%

I espically like this one...

>>(Pg. 3):
>>
>>For airplanes of the pursuit category, this amount of
>>control appears to be required in maneuvering at high
>>speeds. In this connection, airplanes with high stick
>>forces may have insufficient aileron control at high
>>speeds because the controls cannot be deflected a
>>sufficient amount.

Talk about comming FULL CIRCLE! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif





<div style="background:#222222;color:#e0e0e0;font-size:24px;font-weight:bold;font-face:courier;"> TAGERT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If WAR was not the ANSWER.. Than what the H was your QUESTION?
</div>
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=forum
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=discussion

XyZspineZyX
10-02-2003, 03:47 AM
Huckebein_FW wrote:
- Absolutely, that was a test in which Bf-109 roll
- behaviour was measured in high speed dive.

Ah, now we are getting somewhere. So you know of a high speed test wherein roll was measured. And what, Huckles, was the result of that test? Please post the results.

And please don't refer to Lukas Schmid's high speed dive test of the Bf-109F. His test is well known and roll was not measured. So it must be another test. One you know of. Please, Huck, post the results of that test.



- So what the problem with 770km/h. 750km/h dive limit
- gives you at least 50km/h more for safe pull out of
- dive.

The Bf-109 was into severe compressibility at that speed. But roll was still good? Boy, I'm looking forward to seeing that test result you are going to post.



- And remember the same dive limit was cleared
- for Emils, but later models were strenghtened
- several times.

How so? Enlighten us.



- There was no problem in reaching those speeds in
- dive in a 109.

Reaching those speeds was easy. Surviving those speeds in the Bf-109 was another.



- Now, to exit from your diversion, tell me, were you
- able to understand that simple explanation from my
- previous post?
- Do you have any questions? Can I continue?

I'm not following you computations, Huckles. I learned long ago that you fabricate and use incorrect dimmensions and data to derive the numbers you want. So I pay little attention to your nonsense.


BUT!...



...have I mentioned how much I'm looking forward to your posting of the results of that "test in which Bf-109 roll
behaviour was measured in high speed dive." You are in possession of the Holy Grail.



Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/NAA_logo.jpg


Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/NAA_logo.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-02-2003, 03:50 AM
SkyChimp wrote:
- BUT!...
-
-
-
- ...have I mentioned how much I'm looking forward to
- your posting of the results of that "test in which
- Bf-109 roll
- behaviour was measured in high speed dive." You are
- in possession of the Holy Grail.
-
-
-
-
- Regards,
-
- SkyChimp

Dont hold your breath!



<div style="background:#222222;color:#e0e0e0;font-size:24px;font-weight:bold;font-face:courier;"> TAGERT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If WAR was not the ANSWER.. Than what the H was your QUESTION?
</div>
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=forum
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=discussion

XyZspineZyX
10-02-2003, 04:53 AM
tagert wrote:

- Dont hold your breath!


I have faith in Huck that he will come through this time. After a year or so of being non-contributory, he's got have come up with something this time. He's got that elusive test, I just know it. And he's going to post it here. The high-speed roll test of the Bf-109. I can't wait.

Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/NAA_logo.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-02-2003, 09:07 AM
Salute Huckbein

You keep quoting this line:

"The roll rate for a given airplane at a given control deflection was VERY NEARLY A LINEAR FUNCTION of air speed except for cases where control cable stretch appreciably limited the available aileron deflections."

Well, guess what?

P-47 had control rods... Ie. no stretch.

On the other hand, 109... yep, you guessed it, cables.

Hmmm... wonder how much stretching going on... /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif


RAF74 Buzzsaw

XyZspineZyX
10-02-2003, 10:01 AM
* not to mention, the design of the wing. The wing was designed in 1935? (first delivered to LW in 1936) a time when the speeds we are discussing were not considered in the design. It had 1 "D" shaped torsion box near the leading edge, correct? (I can't host pics, mebbe someone has a cutaway) it was something like this, though....

/--------D) (Note: Not to scale) /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

now, the ailreon is at the trailing edge of the wing, correct? would this not produce a wing warp effect on an obsolete wing design pushed past its design limits? seems to me that the NACA data supports this:


"-NACA link :

-"The values k determined in flight are considerably lower than those predicted by theory and, in most cases, they are lower than values obtained for comparable aerodynamic arrangements in the wind tunnel. At least part of this effect may be accounted for on the basis of the deflection of the wing in torsion and the deflection of the aileron control system."-

*(note, I'm not saying the design was never strengthend, but you can only do so much)

* and there was a comment about 20% reduced effectiveness of ailreons if the wing has a 1% total twist from tip to root, I believe it came from the same source? the tip at the speeds we're discussing may have warped more than this, however.

Additionally, Isegrim posted this:

Historical Tempest roll rates (at 10k ft). Stick force specified.

speed - deg/sec

150 mph : 65
200 mph : 84
250 mph : 95
300 mph : 97
350 mph : 94
400 mph : 70
450 mph : 60

British AFDU test with Bf 109G-2/trop (captured in end 1942 in already damaged condition, later repaired and flown in AFDU test with boost limited, crashed in 1944, restored later again, flown as "Black 6" in desert colours, crashed again and now on static display due to engine damage):

"Rate of Roll

48. At normal speeds there is nothing in it, but at speeds over 350 mph the Tempest could get away from the Me.109G by making a quick change of bank and direction. "


"Which merely tells that the Tempest was no better in roll below 350 mph, and above 350mph, the 109G had worser roll than 94 deg/sec, which doesn`t tells much because 94 deg/sec at 350mph is an outstanding value and also true for all US and all other British fighters." Isegrim

*Actually, it means that above 350mph, the Tempest had a significantly higher rollrate than a 109, allowing it to QUICKLY change the bank and direction, ie. rolling.

This takes us back to the wing design itself. For example, isn't 350mph about the top speed of an 109 E4? Wouldn't the same wing, designed for a top speed of about 350mph (being generous, as the E4 wasn't the first 109 with wings) have problems with roll? We all know that rolling becomes harder as the design limit of the wings is reached, even the 190 had an upper limit, and it rolled like hell.

One more thing for the doubters, in reference to the Tempest rollrate data your using to try to prove your point,

Why are you using Tempest rollrate data for your discussion? Use 109 data, please.





Good hunting,
Cajun76

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."
-Aristotle

XyZspineZyX
10-02-2003, 12:53 PM
Blutarski, you woke the kids when you started this thread. Not to discourage you, and I appreciate your data, but you knew this was going to happen, didn't you? Good call on the P-80 also, it did have hydraulic boost for the ailerons (the T-33 did too, providing the instructors with much humor when they'd cut the boost while the student was flying.)

Huck, the reason I posted sections of the report's text was in the vain hope you'd read them this time. Apparently, that effort is hopeless. Blutarski, RAF74 Buzzsaw, Skychimp, et.al., can read for comprehension, why can't you? You are trying to use an equation intended to normalize aileron performance among a group of disparate aircraft under similar flight conditions, to instead extrapolate aileron performance across a single aircraft's entire flight envelope. What you're doing is the equivalent of extrapolating the linear portion of a stress/strain graph to encompass loads well in excess of a material's strength. When the going gets non-linear, you need a different equation, or test data. The authors of the report acknowledged this, why don't you seem to be able to hold the plot? Factoring out k is correct algebra, but you're still driving nails with a socket wrench. It's the wrong tool for the job. The right tool would be flight data, which hopefully Butch2k can provide. Barring that, experience and flight evaluations are the best information we've got, but you'd apparently rather ignore these as the products of "clowns" and apply math incorrectly instead.

You are right that the 109's wing torsion box will provide better torsional resistance than an I-beam of similar construction. This helps explain to me why Flettner tabs worked as well as they did when fitted. A two-spar wing structure forms a more rigid structure than a one-spar structure using a torsion box, however. Cajun76 seems to have the concept down correctly. I refer you to the slides from a basic structures lecture:

http://www.aa.washington.edu/courses/aa101/aa101_16.pdf

The front and rear spars of a two-spar design aren't free-floating in the structure, they're rigidly attached to the top and bottom wing skins, and inner and outer ribs, forming a torsion box. One that occupies considerably more of the wing chord than the 109's torsion box, making the two-spar structure more rigid (amount of material and wing dimensions being equal.) This is the same reason that hollow anti-sway bars for automobiles are stiffer than solid bars of equal material. As long as the structure doesn't deform plastically (i.e. take a permanent bend), the wider torsion box will be the stiffer one. Wing ribs help prevent this deformation in the wing skin (the ribs at either end of the box also have a substantial sheer load.) The inner ribs have lower sheer loads since they're closer to the center of the structure. By your lack of challenge to my response, can I assume you no longer think ribs are the primary structure providing torsional resistance?

Fabric covered ailerons aren't a factor in torsional resistance because the ailerons aren't supporting the torsional load of the wing. They can cause problems when the airflow gets fast enough to cause a large pressure drop in the flow, causing the fabric skin to balloon. Apparently the 190 didn't have a problem with this. What was your intention in mentioning this tangential point?

Buzzsaw, the Emil PDF manual here:

http://www.bf109.com/acrobat/bf109ehighgerman.pdf

shows control rods for most of the surfaces, and cables only for trim control. I don't know if they changed designs later, but I doubt it. Even a rod setup will have some slop in it, though much less than a cable arrangement. I would be more concerned with bending of the airframe itself affecting control inputs at high speed in the case of the 109.

Issy, apparently the roll rate data you posted was for a later Tempest with spring tabs (aka Flettner tabs.) Thanks NeilStirling for mentioning that. As such, the roll rates you provided would be better than those for the earlier aircraft without tabs, which was the case with the aircraft in Blutarski's original post. If the 109G2 (btw thanks for bringing up the limited engine boost, but that didn't affect roll rate) compared poorly to the earlier aircraft, it would have fared even worse against the tab-equipped version. Using the later Tempest data to attempt to quantify the 109's roll performance is not a valid comparison, unless you know how much the tabs helped the Tempest. I'm also glad to see you found your Prozac.

Since neither you nor Huck ever responded to my question about your engineering credentials, is it safe to assume that neither of you have any engineering experience or education (as if I wasn't already assuming this)?

Has either of you been able to find out how common Flettner tabs were on the 109? Your data diving skills are better than mine, if not your ability to set this data in proper context. Your silence on the topic leads me to believe that you haven't found anything, or that they were rare and you'd rather not bring it up.

Jippo, thanks for the data from the Finnish testing. As stated by Blutarski though, we're pretty much agreed on the aircraft's handling at this speed. We're wrapped around the maypole due to lack of pictures, flight test data, experience, science, engineering or common sense that Issy or Huck will acknowledge WRT the 109's lackluster high speed handling.

Skychimp, thanks for the kind words, but its "Blotto" not "Bluto". Bluto is the guy in the Popeye cartoons, and what Huck and/or Issy have apparently taken to calling me. Blotto (as in: drunk, sh*tfaced, pie-eyed, hammered, plowed, etc.) is the call sign I earned during the Friday night naming committee when I told them I didn't drink. The irony is only slightly funnier when 40 drunk fighter pilots are screaming "Blotto" at the top of their lungs while pelting me with empty (and not so empty) beer bottles. The Air Force has its share of guys nicknamed "Bluto" too, just not me.

Blotto

"Only the spirit of attack, born in a brave heart, will bring success to any fighter craft, no matter how technically advanced." - A. Galland

"Look, do you want the jets, or would you rather I slap the props back on?" - W. Messerschmitt

http://home.mindspring.com/~blottogg/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/14fsPatch.gif

Edited for grammar

Message Edited on 10/02/0306:08AM by Blottogg

XyZspineZyX
10-02-2003, 05:10 PM
Blottogg wrote:
- Blutarski, you woke the kids when you started this
- thread. Not to discourage you, and I appreciate
- your data, but you knew this was going to happen,
- didn't you?

In my heart of hearts I probably knew the risks of this spiralling into the circus which it indeed did. Unfortunately, intellectual honesty is a potent hot button for me. I cannot let lax logic and sophistry stand unchallenged. One of my personal failings, I guess.

But I am actually quite interested to get to the bottom of these sorts of questions if possible. Studying comparative performance of fighter aircraft is one of my modest avocations. I like to try to make sense out of all those pilot after-action reports and obtain an understanding of why they did what they did tactically. Contrary to what the Katzenjammer Kids profess to believe, I'm not invested in this in any way other than getting to something resembling the truth of the matter. The question at hand, while certainly tilted toward a conclusion, cannot yet be considered definitively answered. Essential confirming data remains missing. Perhaps Butch2k can contributre something to this line of inquiry.

In any case, thanks for the excellent summation of the case. You clearly took some time to write that tome.


Blutarski

XyZspineZyX
10-02-2003, 05:38 PM
Huckebein,

In fairness, after reading your post demonstrating that the k factor could legitimately be cancelled out of the equation in question. I concede that I was incorrect in my belief that you arbitarily deleted the k factors from your calculation.

My apologies to you on that score.

However, based upon the specific extended language of the NASA document from which you profess to be working, and Blottog's summation, it remains clear that your calculations are still producing meaningless numbers, if the true goal here is to understand the real world high speed roll behavior of later model Bf109's. Based upon what Blottog has mentioned, you are just using the wrong tools to get to where you want to go.



Blutarski



Message Edited on 10/02/0304:55PM by BLUTARSKI

XyZspineZyX
10-02-2003, 05:45 PM
Jeffrey Quill concluded the Emil rolled very poorly at high speeds, even worse than the Spitfire. He concluded this after he...er...uhm..flew it at high speed and tried to roll it. The problems were to do with fabric covered ailerons bulging at high speed, and the fact that the 109 cockpit was so tight that the pilot could not physically move the stick far enough laterally to apply enough force to effect a decent roll at high speed.

Jeffrey Quill was a very VERY experienced test pilot. But then... I didn't fly one myself..so he might have been TOTALLY wrong...and your theroetical mish mash of calculus may warp itself into correctness.

"If I had all the money I've spent on drink....I'd spend it on drink!"

XyZspineZyX
10-02-2003, 09:30 PM
Blotto, yes I'm a bachelor in Mathematics and Computer Science, I'm specialised in databases and I am a licensed Software Engineer. I worked for three years after graduation for the largest retailer in my country for heating instalations (consumer to industrial range) as a database developer. I made customisations for the ERP system used by my company, together with the original developer of the package. Now I'm US for a master in data mining. I'm working in a multidisciplinary team for a cancer research institute.

Does this make me qualified enough for reading those graphs? I guess so.



I'm convinced that this discussion will lead nowhere unless a strict control over it will be imposed. So I'll restrict myself to one answer + one question per post, otherways everybody will try to divert this discussion. I'll suggest you do the same, otherways you won't get any answer from me.



Affirmation:

NACA raport states the correctness of this linear relationship, valid up to transonic speeds:

pb/2v ~ const * total_aileron_deflection

This relationship is valid for any ww2 fighter, I gave 2 examples clearly supporting it. If you have other charts with helix angle vs aileron deflection which you think they do not respect this relationship please post them.

Keep in mind that the particular NACA report gave the formula for engineer's use in the initial stages of designing a plane, before testing it in a wind tunnel. This NACA report gives charts meant to estimate the value of CONST = Cldelta/Clp for a particular design.

Indeed this process is not a precise one, nevertheless it can give a useful estimation. BUT WE DO NOT NEED to estimate this constant. What is useful for us is the linear relationship between helix angle and aileron deflection because Cldelta/Clp value is constant up to transonic speeds. WE DO NOT ESTIMATE THE VALUE OF THIS CONSTANT, therefore our calculation is not affected by errors in determining it.

We are insterested ONLY in the fact that Cldelta/Clp is CONSTANT for a particular plane, for a wide speed range (just like other coefficients used in aerodynamics).



Question:

Are you contesting this linear relationship between helix angle and aileron deflection given by NACA?

pb/2v ~ const * total_aileron_deflection


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

Message Edited on 10/02/0304:06PM by Huckebein_FW

XyZspineZyX
10-02-2003, 10:10 PM
Huckebein_FW wrote:
- Question:
-
- Are you contesting this linear relationship between
- helix angle and aileron deflection given by NACA?
-
- pb/2v ~ const * total_aileron_deflection

Not sure, but, lets assume it is correct... and try out some stuff... And lets consider that whole 109 2/3 aileron deflection at high speeds thingie... What if the 109 could do better than 2/3 aileron deflection? That is to say what if it could obtain full aileron deflection at high speeds?

What effect would that have on the roll rate?

One might initally look at it and initally think it would improve by a third (1/3).. But when you break it down it turns out to be a half (1/2) better.

Solving for roll rate (p)

pb/2v ~ const * total_aileron_deflection
pb ~ const * total_aileron_deflection * 2 * v
p ~ (const * total_aileron_deflection * 2 * v)/b

Now taking the two cases at the same speed where

p1 = roll rate at 2/3 aileron deflection at speed v
p2 = roll rate at full aileron deflection at speed v

Than

# ~ [p2]/[p1]
# ~ [(const * total_aileron_deflection_2 * 2 * v)/b]/[(const * total_aileron_deflection_1 * 2 * v)/b]
# ~ [total_aileron_deflection_2]/[total_aileron_deflection_1]
# ~ [2/3]/[3/3]
# ~ [2/3]/[1]
# ~ 3/2
# ~ 1.5

So, if the 109 could have deflected it's ailerons fully, and not just 2/3, it would have a 1/2 better roll rate, not just 1/3 better

Put another way, if it had a roll rate of say 45 at high speeds with a 2/3 deflection, it would have had a roll rate of

67.5 = 1.5 * 45

If the pilot could have over come the stick in cement and fully deflected the ailerons

<div style="background:#222222;color:#e0e0e0;font-size:24px;font-weight:bold;font-face:courier;"> TAGERT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If WAR was not the ANSWER.. Than what the H was your QUESTION?
</div>
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=forum
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=discussion

Message Edited on 10/02/0302:35PM by tagert

XyZspineZyX
10-02-2003, 10:28 PM
Talk about deflecting the discussion./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Huckie comes along with his theoretical calculations trying to prove the 109 had a good roll rate at high speed. Issy already posted numbers for the Tempest and the British comparison testing showed the Tempest had a better roll rate than the 109 above 350mph.

Huckie until you show up with some Messerschmitt AG or Rechlin graphs you prove nothing.


http://www.stenbergaa.com/stenberg/west-battleline.jpg



"Only a dead 'chamber pot' is a good 'chamber pot'!"

XyZspineZyX
10-02-2003, 10:47 PM
MiloMorai wrote:
- Talk about deflecting the discussion./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
-
- Huckie comes along with his theoretical calculations
- trying to prove the 109 had a good roll rate at high
- speed. Issy already posted numbers for the Tempest
- and the British comparison testing showed the
- Tempest had a better roll rate than the 109 above
- 350mph.


With how much 1 deg/sec? Maybe that plane was damaged, or the pilot fatigued. Maybe in other test 109 pilot would have outrolled Tempest at any speed. A test without numbers does not prove anything, except the bias of the testers.


- Huckie until you show up with some Messerschmitt AG
- or Rechlin graphs you prove nothing.


That's a good one/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
We have the fact that Bf-109 pilot could get 2/3 of max aileron deflection at 770km/h from a Rechlin test/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif . That's a test value Milo! from it you aproximate the roll rate with acceptable precision. NACA says clearly that helix angle and aileron deflection are proportional up to high speeds.


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

Message Edited on 10/02/0305:04PM by Huckebein_FW

XyZspineZyX
10-02-2003, 10:52 PM
In the mean time I found two other NACA tests for lateral control. One on P40, the other on Spitfire. Both planes exhibit the same linear dependence between helix angle and aileron deflection.

Those are REAL tests, abundant in test values, giving the reader a clear picture of the lateral control characteristics of those planes. No connection with those staged comedies in which the brits and americans transformed their tests of captured war material.


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

Message Edited on 10/02/0305:03PM by Huckebein_FW

XyZspineZyX
10-02-2003, 11:04 PM
So Huckie what is your approximate precision calculated roll rate for 770kph?

While your doing the approximate precision calculation for 770kph, care to do the roll rates for 550kph, 600kph, 650kph and 700kph?



http://www.stenbergaa.com/stenberg/west-battleline.jpg



"Only a dead 'chamber pot' is a good 'chamber pot'!"

Message Edited on 10/02/0306:10PM by MiloMorai

XyZspineZyX
10-02-2003, 11:08 PM
CFS1 has a pretty good 109G

It's roll rate gets real slow at high speeds.

Don't know what this thread is about but just thowing in my 2c.

"The Force is strong with this one." -What an ace said of RayBanJockey during a fight when he was still a newbie.
<a href=http://www.theinformationminister.com/press.php?ID=612109283>news update</a>

XyZspineZyX
10-02-2003, 11:08 PM
I'm still amazed Huckles believes the ailerons of the Bf-109 could be deflected to 2/3rds full at 770km/h! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

I suppose he believes the plane had no structural limitations at all.

Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/NAA_logo.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-02-2003, 11:13 PM
MiloMorai wrote:
- So Huckie what is your approximate precision
- calculated roll rate for 770kph?
-
- While your doing the approximate precision
- calculation for 770kph, care to do the roll rates
- for 550kph, 650kph and 700kph?


Absolutelly, I can calculate the roll rate for 2/3 aileron deflection, at any speed below 770km/h (we know for sure that 2/3 aileron deflection were achievable up to that speed). But it won't be the max roll rate. If you wish to calculate it you'll need the maximum total aileron deflection at that particular speed.

If you accept that full aileron deflection was possible up to 450-500km/h (normally max roll rate is achieved at the highest speed at which full aileron deflection is possible for the pilot) then I can estimate it for the full speed range.


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
10-02-2003, 11:15 PM
SkyChimp wrote:
- I'm still amazed Huckles believes the ailerons of
- the Bf-109 could be deflected to 2/3rds full at
- 770km/h! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif


This is a Rechlin test Skychimp. W.Nr of the plane and the name of the test pilot are known.


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

Message Edited on 10/02/0305:16PM by Huckebein_FW

XyZspineZyX
10-02-2003, 11:33 PM
Quote by Huckbein FWand109uberalles

"What if the 109 could do better than 2/3 aileron deflection? That is to say what if it could obtain full aileron deflection at high speeds?"

The essential point you're missing is this.....never mind the maths; at high speeds, the stick became very heavy requiring a huge ammount of effort to move at all, due to the very real effects of 400mph plus winds whipping over the control surfaces preventing effective deflection of said surfaces. If you could 'theoretically' deflect those surfaces 2/3 or fully under those conditions I strongly suspect you'd be without them, or the wings, in no time.

Hence the well known, well documented, well researched, and attested to by real pilots, effect of seriously impaired roll rates at high speed.

Stick your hand out of a car window at 100mph (160kph) and feel the force on it. Then multiply the surface area of your hand by a huge ammount (to represent 2 ailerons), and the speed by 4.5. Ask yourself honestly, will you still have a hand attached to your arm?...Never mind be able to 'deflect it 2/3 or fully.'

Commonsense man, use it.


"If I had all the money I've spent on drink....I'd spend it on drink!"

XyZspineZyX
10-02-2003, 11:38 PM
EPP_Gibbs wrote:
- Quote by Huckbein FWand109uberalles
-
- "What if the 109 could do better than 2/3 aileron
- deflection? That is to say what if it could obtain
- full aileron deflection at high speeds?"


This is entirely your fabrication Gibbs.
Stick to what I write when you say you quote me.


And 2/3 aileron deflection at 770km/h was achieved in a real life test not a calculation.


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
10-02-2003, 11:51 PM
So, regardless of theoretical numbers, extrapolated ad infinitum, if you only get 2/3 deflection at 770km/h (being generous here) control cable stretching and wing warp at this speed, which the 109 was not initially designed to handle, those RL factors would seriously degrade roll performance. The doubters mention the Tempest chart is flawed now, but you were using it for your argument until it was not working for you anymore. Now it's not relevant?

Did you know that mathematically, I can fire an arrow at a target, and divide the distance by half, again and again, and mathematically, the arrow will never reach the target. Of course, if I could aim straight, in RL I will hit the target, regardless of my computations to the contrary.

Mathematically, I can fold a sheet of paper many times, but in RL, I can only fold any size sheet in half, in half , in half and so on only 6 times... try it. If your using a 8 1/2 X 11, fold the longest side in half.

Even if your right, and it was 2/3, an extrapolation like your trying to do just dosen't work, in RL. Looks great on paper, though, Salute!

Good hunting,
Cajun76

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."
-Aristotle

XyZspineZyX
10-03-2003, 12:07 AM
EPP_Gibbs wrote:
- The essential point you're missing is this.....never
- mind the maths

True.. but the point Im trying to make is that 2/3 alieron deflection is a half roll rate worse than full deflection.

For example,

p = (const * total_aileron_deflection * 2 * v)/b

p = (1 * (3/3) * 2 * 1)/1 = 2.0
p = (1 * (2/3) * 2 * 1)/1 = 1.3
p = (1 * (1/2) * 2 * 1)/1 = 1.0
p = (1 * (1/4) * 2 * 1)/1 = 0.5

2.0/1.3 = 1.54

Thus the equations predicks that the 109 will have a bad roll rate at high speeds with only 2/3 aileron deflection.


<div style="background:#222222;color:#e0e0e0;font-size:24px;font-weight:bold;font-face:courier;"> TAGERT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If WAR was not the ANSWER.. Than what the H was your QUESTION?
</div>
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=forum
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=discussion

Message Edited on 10/02/0310:02PM by tagert

XyZspineZyX
10-03-2003, 12:09 AM
Cajun76 wrote:
- So, regardless of theoretical numbers, extrapolated
- ad infinitum, if you only get 2/3 deflection at
- 770km/h (being generous here) control cable
- stretching and wing warp at this speed, which the
- 109 was not initially designed to handle, those RL
- factors would seriously degrade roll performance.
- The doubters mention the Tempest chart is flawed
- now, but you were using it for your argument until
- it was not working for you anymore. Now it's not
- relevant?
-
- Even if your right, and it was 2/3, an
- extrapolation like your trying to do just dosen't
- work, in RL. Looks great on paper, though, Salute!


I don't think that you understand my argument here. I'm not interested in the roll rate at that speed, which was already in the transonic range.

What I'm interested the most is the fact that the pilot could deflect his aileron 2/3 of full travel at that enormous speed. That clearly disqualifies the myth with the "stick in cement", and also very importantly give us the possibility to calculate the roll rate at 700km/h or 650km/h IAS, which both are high speeds but not in transonic range. At those speeds the effects you mentioned are much less manifest, Cldelta/Clp is still constant.


And your affirmation about the box spar on Bf-109 is completely incorrect. Box spar is at the middle of the distance between wing slat and aileron, there where it can give the best torsional resistance.


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

Message Edited on 10/02/0306:12PM by Huckebein_FW

XyZspineZyX
10-03-2003, 12:34 AM
Huckebein_FW wrote:

- This is a Rechlin test Skychimp. W.Nr of the plane
- and the name of the test pilot are known.


Can you post the test report? What was the roll rate achieved in the test at 2/3rd deflection at 770km/h? You said earlier this was a high speed roll test. Surely some roll rates were recorded.

Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/NAA_logo.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-03-2003, 01:07 AM
Huckebein_FW wrote:

-
-
- And your affirmation about the box spar on Bf-109 is
- completely incorrect. Box spar is at the middle of
- the distance between wing slat and aileron, there
- where it can give the best torsional resistance.
-


Are you still trying to pass off that diagram you posted as that of a 109 Huckie? The box spar of the 109 was only ~10cm wide at the wing root and even less further out the wing.

There is ~40cm to the aileron and ~30cm to the slat at the wing tip.



http://www.stenbergaa.com/stenberg/west-battleline.jpg



"Only a dead 'chamber pot' is a good 'chamber pot'!"

XyZspineZyX
10-03-2003, 01:23 AM
Actually, one spar, right in the middle would be excellent at resisting G loads, but would provide marginal torsion stability. The best *torsional* design would be a 2 spar + design, with maximum distance between the 2 or more spars. I have been looking for a cutaway wing of a 109, but so far nothing. I did find this...

http://rwebs.net/avhistory/history/p-47.htm

Go here to the wing section to see a cutaway of a wing designed for high speed, high G loads, and little torsional deflection.


And here's an article, (maybe the same one's already been refereed to, this thread is convoluted due to the doubters slipping away from the important points.) However, it gives stick forces, aileron deflections and speeds, all in a scientific evaluation of a Bf-109. No *extrapolations* I am not afraid to show my sources.

http://www.geocities.com/capecanaveral/hangar/9378/flybf109.html

Sounds like they had a healthy respect for the 109, and wanted a good evaluation so their pilots would be better prepared.

Good hunting,
Cajun76

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."
-Aristotle

XyZspineZyX
10-03-2003, 01:52 AM
Cajun76 wrote:

- I have been
- looking for a cutaway wing of a 109, but so far
- nothing.

Doo yoo meen lyke thees?

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/spar.jpg


Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/NAA_logo.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-03-2003, 03:27 AM
bump

Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/NAA_logo.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-03-2003, 06:55 AM
report no. 715
page 204
http://naca.larc.nasa.gov/reports/1941/naca-report-715/naca-report-715.pdf

<FONT FACE="courier" SIZE="3" BACKGROUND="#222222" COLOR="#e0e0e0">
The values of k determined in flight are CONSIDERABLY lower than those predicted by theory and, in most cases, they are lower than values obtained from comparable aerodynamic arrangements in the wind tunnel. At least part of this effect may be accounted for on the basis of the DEFLECTION OF THE WING IN TORSION and the deflection of the aileron control system. For example, 1? of WING TWIST varying uniformly from the wing tip would REDUCE THE APPARENT AILERON EFFECTIVENESS BY ABOUT 20 percent. The WING DEFLECTIONS experienced by various airplanes, however, are unknown. The DEFLECTIONS that occurred between the ailerons and the cockpit controls are likewise UNKNOWN. Inasmuch as aileron deflections were determined on the basis of the POSITION OF THE COCKPIT CONTROL, this fact would further tend to reduce the apparent aileron effectiveness.
</FONT>

Soneone pointed this out before, but it is worth a second look. Note that they said the aileron effectiveness (k) for real aircraft is "CONSIDERABLY LOWER THAN PREDICTED". They attribute PART of this to DEFLECTION OF THE WING IN TORSION.

This goes along with what someone posted about the flettner tabs.. In that they were not that effective, because it resulted in twisting the wing which basically canceled out most of the benefit.

Also note that they said that the aileron effectiveness (k) was, IN MOST CASES, lower for aerodynamic arrangements in wind tunnels.

Now, most wind tunnel tests back then were on scaled models of the aircraft. Those scaled models had the correct shape, but, they were very rigid, thus they would not have had the wing twist problem. So, Ill bet that the cases that were close to theory had stiff wings like the scaled models, and the ones that didn't had wings like the 109.


<div style="background:#222222;color:#e0e0e0;font-size:24px;font-weight:bold;font-face:courier;"> TAGERT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If WAR was not the ANSWER.. Than what the H was your QUESTION?
</div>
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=forum
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=discussion


Message Edited on 10/02/0310:59PM by tagert

XyZspineZyX
10-03-2003, 09:06 AM
Cajun76 wrote:
- * not to mention, the design of the wing. The wing
- was designed in 1935? (first delivered to LW in
- 1936) a time when the speeds we are discussing were
- not considered in the design. It had 1 "D" shaped
- torsion box near the leading edge, correct? (I
- can't host pics, mebbe someone has a cutaway) it was
- something like this, though....
-

AND
-
- *Actually, it means that above 350mph, the Tempest
- had a significantly higher rollrate than a 109,
- allowing it to QUICKLY change the bank and
- direction, ie. rolling.
-
- This takes us back to the wing design itself. For
- example, isn't 350mph about the top speed of an 109
- E4? Wouldn't the same wing, designed for a top
- speed of about 350mph (being generous, as the E4
- wasn't the first 109 with wings) have problems with
- roll? We all know that rolling becomes harder as
- the design limit of the wings is reached, even the
- 190 had an upper limit, and it rolled like hell.


Well, this theory works like a card castle - take out the base element and the whole thing collapses. In this case, tale out the idea that the Bf 109F/G/K wing was designed in 1935 for speed of less than 350 mph.

Which is just all the way wrong. Bf 109A to E had this old wing, however, in 1940-41 the wing was completely redesigned, practically being whole new in structure in the Bf 109 F. The wing was further strenghtened to take external stores in the G series.

In addition, Butch also mentioned a while ago, that the 109 wings showed torsion effects under roll only at very high speeds, which fact is just the coup d`grace to the "old, 1935 design wing that was just too old and not enough stiff for this".


Your attempt to conclude that the Tempest had "much higher" rate of roll at 350mph is also merely a speculation, just as before someone speculated for the Mustang not long ago.

http://vo101isegrim.piranho.com/FB-desktopweb.jpg
'Only a dead Indianer is a good Indianer!'

Vezérünk a Bátorság, K*sérµnk a Szerencse!
(Courage leads, Luck escorts us! - Historical motto of the 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)

Flight tests and other aviation performance data: http://www.pbase.com/isegrim

XyZspineZyX
10-03-2003, 09:33 AM
EPP_Gibbs wrote:
- Jeffrey Quill concluded the Emil rolled very poorly
- at high speeds, even worse than the Spitfire. He
- concluded this after he...er...uhm..flew it at high
- speed and tried to roll it. The problems were to do
- with fabric covered ailerons bulging at high speed,
- and the fact that the 109 cockpit was so tight that
- the pilot could not physically move the stick far
- enough laterally to apply enough force to effect a
- decent roll at high speed.
-
- Jeffrey Quill was a very VERY experienced test
- pilot. But then... I didn't fly one myself..so he
- might have been TOTALLY wrong...and your theroetical
- mish mash of calculus may warp itself into
- correctness.


Indeed you are right, in that Jeffrey Quill is all wrong in his conclusions. Roll rate tests between Spitfire I and Bf 109 E are well documented, and show that the Spitfire is inferior in every respect.

British tests at RAE showed the following for 200, 300, and 400 mph, for a 45 degree bank :

200mph :

109E : 1 seconds, 9 lbs stickforce required
Spit I : 1.9 seconds , 9 lbs sf.

300mph :

109E : 2 seconds, 21 lbs
Spit I : 2.1 secs, 25 lbs

400 mph :

109E : 4.3 secs, 35 lbs
Spit I : 4 secs, 55 lbs

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/spitI_109E_ailerons.jpg



It seems that unlike as Mr. Quill said, in real life the Spit I rolled HALF as fast as the 109E at 200mph, and aboout the same at 300mph and at the often qouted 400 mph, by then the Spit required ~50% more stickforce to roll at the same rather slow roll rate.


I have also seen another British pilot (Jeffrey Ethell?) who readily admitted that the Spitfire required a lot more force to roll than other fighters.

http://vo101isegrim.piranho.com/FB-desktopweb.jpg
'Only a dead Indianer is a good Indianer!'

Vezérünk a Bátorság, K*sérµnk a Szerencse!
(Courage leads, Luck escorts us! - Historical motto of the 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)

Flight tests and other aviation performance data: http://www.pbase.com/isegrim

XyZspineZyX
10-03-2003, 09:39 AM
EPP_Gibbs wrote:
- Quote by Huckbein FWand109uberalles
-
- "What if the 109 could do better than 2/3 aileron
- deflection? That is to say what if it could obtain
- full aileron deflection at high speeds?"
-
- The essential point you're missing is this.....never
- mind the maths; at high speeds, the stick became
- very heavy requiring a huge ammount of effort to
- move at all, due to the very real effects of 400mph
- plus winds whipping over the control surfaces
- preventing effective deflection of said surfaces. If
- you could 'theoretically' deflect those surfaces 2/3
- or fully under those conditions I strongly suspect
- you'd be without them, or the wings, in no time.
-
- Hence the well known, well documented, well
- researched, and attested to by real pilots, effect
- of seriously impaired roll rates at high speed.
-
- Stick your hand out of a car window at 100mph
- (160kph) and feel the force on it. Then multiply the
- surface area of your hand by a huge ammount (to
- represent 2 ailerons), and the speed by 4.5. Ask
- yourself honestly, will you still have a hand
- attached to your arm?...Never mind be able to
- 'deflect it 2/3 or fully.'
-
- Commonsense man, use it.



Very nice common sense, man, save for the part that an actually existing Bf 109G, Werknummer 18 550, flown by test pilot Williemsen, equipped with Flettner tabs, actually weighting 3330 kg, actually dived down to corrected speed of 770 km/h, 0.75 Mach, actually deflected it`s ailerons to 2/3 of their range, they actually did not come apart, the wings actually stayed, forces were the same on both sides, and there was no aileron overbalance.


Now, this is the reality. Try to live with it.


Now, can just someone prove even remotely that Flettners were not used without making himself rididuculus ? For my part, I showed factory blueprints which show the Flettners. I showed actual pictures of actual planes, a G-6/14 and K-4, I referred to Prien/Rodeike and Radinger/Otto, ALL OF THEM are showing the use of Flettner tabs on late 109s.

On the other hand, I haven`t seen any of tagert`s 50 pictures which would show 50 K-4s that doesn`t have them. Where are those pictures, where is the proof?

Only empty words you have !



http://vo101isegrim.piranho.com/FB-desktopweb.jpg
'Only a dead Indianer is a good Indianer!'

Vezérünk a Bátorság, K*sérµnk a Szerencse!
(Courage leads, Luck escorts us! - Historical motto of the 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)

Flight tests and other aviation performance data: http://www.pbase.com/isegrim

Message Edited on 10/03/0310:57AM by Vo101_Isegrim

XyZspineZyX
10-03-2003, 10:15 AM
Vo101_Isegrim wrote:
- In addition, Butch also mentioned a while ago, that
- the 109 wings showed torsion effects under roll only
- at very high speeds

Comments, Huck?

Regards,

RocketDog.

XyZspineZyX
10-03-2003, 10:39 AM
109 wing torsion is similar to what could be found in US fighter planes. No aileron reversal at high speed, which came as a surprise to US engineers in charge of evaluation the 109 aerodynamical properties.

Aileron flettner tabs, seems to have been a very rare occurence at best as it's not an official spare part. The four spare manuals i checked dated from 42 to 45 do not show the flettner.

Butch

XyZspineZyX
10-03-2003, 11:03 AM
This is a small part of test done on captured bf109e WN 1304 and published in the book Hurricane/Messerscmitt by Chaz Bower & Armond Van Ishoven
---------------------------------------------

Above 2oomph they start becoming unpleasantly heavy, and between 3oomph and 4oomph are termed `solid' by the test pilots. A pilot exerting all his strength cannot apply more than one-fifth aileron at 4oomph. Measurements of stick-top force when the pilot applied about one-flfth aileron in half a second and then held the ailerons steady, together with the corresponding time to 45 degrees bank, were made at various speeds. The results at 4oomph are given below:

Max sideways force a pilot can apply conveniently to the Me 109 stick 40lb.

Corresponding stick displacement 1/5th Time to 45-degree bank 4 seconds Deduced balance factor Kb2 - 0.145

Several points of interest emerge from these tests:

a. Owing to the cramped Me 109 cockpit, a pilot can only apply about 40lb sideway force on the stick, as against 60lb or more possible if he had more room.

b. The designer has also penalised himself by the unusually small stick-top travel of four inches, giving a poor mechanical advantage between pilot and aileron.

c. The time to 45s-degrees bank of four seconds at 4oomph,which is quite excessive for a fighter, classes the aeroplane immediately as very unmanoeuvrable in roll at high speeds.

-------------------------------------------------

I make no claims as to how accurate this information is but felt It may add to the topic at hand.


No1RAAF_Pourshot
http://members.optusnet.com.au/~andycarroll68/CA-15%20Kangaroo.jpg

No1_RAAF

XyZspineZyX
10-03-2003, 12:17 PM
Issy, Ethell was an American.

http://aafo.com/images/headers/jethell.jpg





http://www.stenbergaa.com/stenberg/west-battleline.jpg



"Only a dead 'chamber pot' is a good 'chamber pot'!"

XyZspineZyX
10-03-2003, 01:33 PM
butch2k wrote:
- 109 wing torsion is similar to what could be found
- in US fighter planes. No aileron reversal at high
- speed, which came as a surprise to US engineers in
- charge of evaluation the 109 aerodynamical
- properties.
-
- Aileron flettner tabs, seems to have been a very
- rare occurence at best as it's not an official spare
- part. The four spare manuals i checked dated from 42
- to 45 do not show the flettner.
-
- Butch
-

Butch, do you have any thoughts - or even better, data - on the roll rate of the 109 at high speed?

Regards,

RocketDog.

XyZspineZyX
10-03-2003, 01:51 PM
Interesting comment on the Flettner tabs Butch./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Issy wrote
"Now, can just someone prove even remotely that Flettners were not used without making himself rididuculus ? For my part, I showed factory blueprints which show the Flettners. I showed actual pictures of actual planes, a G-6/14 and K-4, I referred to Prien/Rodeike and Radinger/Otto, ALL OF THEM are showing the use of Flettner tabs on late 109s."

No you showed factory(??) drawings Issy NOT factory blueprintss. Drawings are not used for constructing components, blueprints are.


Since the "uber twins" seem incapable of supplying the high speed roll rates (ie. specifics) for late Me109s, I second RocketDog's request.


http://www.stenbergaa.com/stenberg/west-battleline.jpg



"Only a dead 'chamber pot' is a good 'chamber pot'!"

Message Edited on 10/03/0309:28AM by MiloMorai

XyZspineZyX
10-03-2003, 01:54 PM
Vo101_Isegrim wrote:
- Now, can just someone prove even remotely that
- Flettners were not used without making himself
- rididuculus ?

butch2k wrote:
- Aileron flettner tabs, seems to have been a very
- rare occurence at best as it's not an official spare
- part. The four spare manuals i checked dated from 42
- to 45 do not show the flettner.

I'm very confused now Isegrim.

Butch2k, who has been claimed knows far more about the 109 than Allied pilots who merely flew them for a bit, seems to disagree with you.

Who am I to believe?

RocketDog.

XyZspineZyX
10-03-2003, 03:03 PM
>lol, that some funny stuff, Isegrim. I thank you for your affirmation of the wing redesign, although you didn't use any sources besides yourself. I'm quite sure it was redesigned, regardless of your lack of fact supporting.

>I have been cruising this thread, looking at differant posts, and responses, here is a rundown of some interesting things that have been said, omitted, and just plain not explained by the doubters of 109 rollrate degredation at high speed.


-----------------------------------------------------------

(Isegrim) In addition, Butch also mentioned a while ago, that the 109 wings showed torsion effects under roll only at very high speeds, which fact is just the coup d`grace to the "old, 1935 design wing that was just too old and not enough stiff for this".


>and you said


(Isegrim) Which is just all the way wrong. Bf 109A to E had this old wing, however, in 1940-41 the wing was completely redesigned, practically being whole new in structure in the Bf 109 F. The wing was further strenghtened to take external stores in the G series.

>Isn't high speed what we're discussing? And yes, I have never seen the evidence of the redesign, only your statement.


-----------------------------------------------------------


(Isegrim) Why do we never see your references?
Why do we only see you repeated statements, in no single case backed up by anything ?


> You should repeat this to yourself more often, and let Huckbein in on it, too.



----The test for the next series of misdeductions and misinperpretations------------------------------------------

Vo101_Isegrim wrote:
-
- Historical Tempest roll rates (at 10k ft). Stick
- force specified.
-
- speed - deg/sec
-
- 150 mph : 65
- 200 mph : 84
- 250 mph : 95
- 300 mph : 97
- 350 mph : 94
- 400 mph : 70
- 450 mph : 60
-
- British AFDU test with Bf 109G-2/trop (captured in
- end 1942 in already damaged condition, later
- repaired and flown in AFDU test with boost limited,
- crashed in 1944, restored later again, flown as
- "Black 6" in desert colours, crashed again and now
- on static display due to engine damage):
-
- "Rate of Roll
-
- 48. At normal speeds there is nothing in it, but at
- speeds over 350 mph the Tempest could get away from
- the Me.109G by making a quick change of bank and
- direction. "


(Isegrim) Which merely tells that the Tempest was no better in roll below 350 mph, and above 350mph, the 109G had worser roll than 94 deg/sec, which doesn`t tells much because 94 deg/sec at 350mph is an outstanding value and also true for all US and all other British fighters.

(Cajun76) *Actually, it means that above 350mph, the Tempest had a significantly higher rollrate than a 109, allowing it to QUICKLY change the bank and direction, ie. rolling.


(Isegrim) Your attempt to conclude that the Tempest had "much higher" rate of roll at 350mph is also merely a speculation, just as before someone speculated for the Mustang not long ago.


> I couldn't have written a better response to your first statement if I tried, you should consult yourself more often on what your policy is. Your speculating yourself, and made a helluva deduction. And to highlight the topic:

> 350 mph : 94 350mph and below = normal speeds, nothing to it
> 400 mph : 70 above 350mph, right? Tempest could get away by quick change, meaning 109 wasn't rolling competitively anymore, so the 109 would be doing LESS THAN 70 degrees per second, and significantly less than 70 to be QUICKLY out rolled.

-----------------------------------------------------------


(Huckbein) Unfortunately the quality of british tests on captured german aircrafts is so poor, that most of the time you won't see any details about the configuration of the aircraft in test.


http://www.geocities.com/capecanaveral/hangar/9378/flybf109.html


> The link and article I posted was *extremely* detailed, and took almost 4 years of testing, apparently. Wouldn't you want the detailed results of your advarsary ASAP? Note: I know it was a E model, with square tips. So would not a G model with elliptical tips have slower roll? I'm mentioing this because the highspeed rollrate is the topic at hand, remember?

On May 4, 1940, a Bf.109E (Wn: 1304) was flown to RAF Boscombe Down, where it was appraised by the Aircraft and Armament Experimental Establishment (A & AEE); then later flown to the Royal Aircraft Establishment (RAE) at Farnborough for handlin gtrials, and allocated the serial number AE479. The results of the RAE's evaluation were discussed on Thursday, March 9, 1944


> This is the relevant info to this discussion:


Ailerons
At low speeds the aileron control is very good, there being a definete resistance to stick movement, while response is brisk. As speed is increased, the ailerons bevome heavier, but response remains excellent. They are at their best between 150 mph and 200 mph, one pilot describing them as an 'ideal control' over this range. Above 200 mph they start becoming unpleasantly heavy, and between 300 mph and 400 mph are termed 'solid' by the test pilots. A pilot exerting all his strength cannot apply more than one-fifth aileron at 400 mph. Measurements of stick-top force when the pilot applied about one-fifth aileron in half a second and then held the ailerons steady, together with the corresponding time to 45 degrees banbk, were made at various speeds. The results at 400 mph are given below:
Max sideways force a pilot can apply conveniently to the Bf.109 stick 40 lbs.
Corresponding stick displacement 1/5th.
Time to 45-degree bank 4 seconds.
Deduced balance factyor Kb2 - 0.145

Several points of interest emerge from these tests:
a. Owing to the cramped Bf.109 cockpit, a pilot can only apply about 40 lb sideway force on the stick, as against 60 lb or more possible if he had more room.
b. The designer has also penalized himself by the unusually small stick-top travel of four inches, giving a poor mechanical advantage between pilot and aileron.
c. The time to 45-degree bank of four seconds at 400 mph, which is quite escessive for a fighter, classes the airplane immediately as very unmaneuvrable in roll at high speeds.


-----------------------------------------------------------


(Huckbein) I don't think that you understand my argument here. I'm not interested in the roll rate at that speed, which was already in the transonic range.

What I'm interested the most is the fact that the pilot could deflect his aileron 2/3 of full travel at that enormous speed. That clearly disqualifies the myth with the "stick in cement", and also very importantly give us the possibility to calculate the roll rate at 700km/h or 650km/h IAS, which both are high speeds but not in transonic range. At those speeds the effects you mentioned are much less manifest, Cldelta/Clp is still constant.



> I've saved the very best for last. Now we come to the crutch of your whole, twisted arguments to the contrary. The house of cards, as I believe Isegrim mentioned.

> The doubters admit the test was performed at transonic ranges and they are tying to justify their belief and calculations that the 109 rolled well at high speed using the deflection angle of the aileroens.

> Gentlemen, what happens to normal control surfaces at transonic airflow speeds? Why did so many early attempts at breaking the sound barrier end in loss of controls, and destuction?

> How many lived to report that when approaching the speed of sound, the controls would suddenly "go free", allowing near full travel without control of the a/c?

> Others are much more qalified than me to use this info, I'm just a engine mechanic in the USAF.


Good hunting,
Cajun76

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."
-Aristotle

XyZspineZyX
10-03-2003, 03:19 PM
Cajun76 wrote:
- > Gentlemen, what happens to normal control surfaces
- at transonic airflow speeds? Why did so many early
- attempts at breaking the sound barrier end in loss
- of controls, and destuction?
-
- > How many lived to report that when approaching the
- speed of sound, the controls would suddenly "go
- free", allowing near full travel without control of
- the a/c?


..... My strictly amateur guess would be - probably flow separation due to shock wave effect.



Blutarski

XyZspineZyX
10-03-2003, 03:38 PM
Cajun, you're completely off this discussion. The topic is high speed roll of 109F and later models.


For you knowledge, because you don't seem to have any, F model and later use a totaly redesigned wing: different wing are, different area of ailerons, different slats, wing radiators and so on. Aerodynamically E and F models wings behave completely different.

You cannot extrapolate the results on a Emil to a combat ready 109 F and later models. Also that particular plane was most probably defective - for example slats opened incorectly - since the results in this test were later adjusted by RAE (see the diagram Isegrim has posted in the thread he opened about Spitfire roll rate).


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
10-03-2003, 04:27 PM
Obviously, you did not read the entire post. Especially the end. Once again you pick a small part of a post, exploit anything you can, and just ignore the rest. READ THE POST.

(Huckbein) For you knowledge, because you don't seem to have any, F model and later use a totaly redesigned wing: different wing are, different area of ailerons, different slats, wing radiators and so on. Aerodynamically E and F models wings behave completely different.

You cannot extrapolate the results on a Emil to a combat ready 109 F and later models. Also that particular plane was most probably defective - for example slats opened incorectly - since the results in this test were later adjusted by RAE (see the diagram Isegrim has posted in the thread he opened about Spitfire roll rate).


>Noted already

(Cajun)Note: I know it was a E model, with square tips. So would not a G model with elliptical tips have slower roll? I'm mentioing this because the highspeed rollrate is the topic at hand, remember?

> And here is the very end of the post, please read, and RESPOND.

-----------------------------------------------------------
(Cajun)> I've saved the very best for last. Now we come to the crutch of your whole, twisted arguments to the contrary. The house of cards, as I believe Isegrim mentioned.

> The doubters admit the test was performed at transonic ranges and they are tying to justify their belief and calculations that the 109 rolled well at high speed using the deflection angle of the aileroens.

> Gentlemen, what happens to normal control surfaces at transonic airflow speeds? Why did so many early attempts at breaking the sound barrier end in loss of controls, and destuction?

> How many lived to report that when approaching the speed of sound, the controls would suddenly "go free", allowing near full travel without control of the a/c?

-----------------------------------------------------------

Do I *really* need to spell out your incorrect asumption about roll rates derived from transonic manouvers? If your really the educated, unbiased man you claim to be, you'll realize your mistake.
I've done a lot more reading than posting on these boards, but I couldn't stand it any longer, to hear you push these biased theories on the boards. Let me know if you need further assistance in understanding aerodynamics.



Good hunting,
Cajun76

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."
-Aristotle

XyZspineZyX
10-03-2003, 04:37 PM
Cajun76 wrote:
- >lol, that some funny stuff, Isegrim. I thank you
- for your affirmation of the wing redesign, although
- you didn't use any sources besides yourself. I'm
- quite sure it was redesigned, regardless of your
- lack of fact supporting.
-

ROFMALOL, Cajun 76, 10 post user, never heard of the wing` redesign. How said. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif But what does that prove, other than we have another silly little man talking about he has no idea of ?

You never heard of it, big deal. Just a drop in the ocean of your ignorance.


The rest of your post is just too miserably pathetic to waste time on response.

http://vo101isegrim.piranho.com/FB-desktopweb.jpg
'Only a dead Indianer is a good Indianer!'

Vezérünk a Bátorság, K*sérµnk a Szerencse!
(Courage leads, Luck escorts us! - Historical motto of the 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)

Flight tests and other aviation performance data: http://www.pbase.com/isegrim

XyZspineZyX
10-03-2003, 04:46 PM
So, since you refuse to try and refute my post, the Bf-109 had poor roll performance at high speed. Thank you for your time. Good luck to you.

btw, I have NEVER said I wasn't ignorant of a great many things, although with each post, you prove yours.

Good hunting,
Cajun76

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."
-Aristotle

XyZspineZyX
10-03-2003, 04:47 PM
ROFMALOL !



http://vo101isegrim.piranho.com/FB-desktopweb.jpg
'Only a dead Indianer is a good Indianer!'

Vezérünk a Bátorság, K*sérµnk a Szerencse!
(Courage leads, Luck escorts us! - Historical motto of the 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)

Flight tests and other aviation performance data: http://www.pbase.com/isegrim

XyZspineZyX
10-03-2003, 05:02 PM
Vo101_Isegrim wrote:
- The rest of your post is just too miserably pathetic
- to waste time on response.

Isegrim,

How old are you?

Just curious.

Regards,

RocketDog.

XyZspineZyX
10-03-2003, 05:21 PM
RocketDog wrote:
-
- Vo101_Isegrim wrote:
-- The rest of your post is just too miserably pathetic
-- to waste time on response.
-
- Isegrim,
-
- How old are you?
-
- Just curious.


Is this on topic?
Look someplace else Rocketdog, the web has plenty of offers to satisfy your curiosities.


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
10-03-2003, 05:41 PM
Cajun76 wrote:
-
- (Cajun)Note: I know it was a E model, with square
- tips. So would not a G model with elliptical tips
- have slower roll? I'm mentioing this because the
- highspeed rollrate is the topic at hand, remember?
-


This is a excellent sample of your complete inability to talk about the subject at hand.

109F and later had much smaller ailerons than Emil, and a smaller wing area (and higher aspect ratio) allowing it to keep the ailerons fully deflected up to much higher speeds (100mph more). The max roll rate was not modified much, but it was reached at much higher speed. That means that Emil rolled better at slow speeds (like 150-200mph range) than F, but after that speed later models take the lead. This is why Emils were reported to have excellent roll at low speeds, where Gustavs were known to have a heavy roll.

In short the max roll rate was not modified much from E to G models, only the speeds at which the peak roll rate was obtained (a difference of 100mph).
It was an adjustment for newer combat tactics.

109 detractors will always say that Spifire rolls better than Gustav at slow speeds and Mustang rolls better than it at high speeds therefore Gustav has a poor roll. Nothing further from the truth. Gustav rolled excellently at the speeds it was designed to do so, and those were high speeds. Mustang rolled better only at even higher speeds, but the difference was small.


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
10-03-2003, 07:01 PM
Vo101_Isegrim wrote:

- Now, can just someone prove even remotely that
- Flettners were not used without making himself
- rididuculus?

Yes.

- For my part, I showed factory blueprints
- which show the Flettners.

Blueprints? You clearly dont know what a blueprint is.

- I showed actual pictures of actual planes, a
- G-6/14 and K-4,

I saw that "G" picture you posted, didnt see any "K"

- I referred to Prien/Rodeike and Radinger/Otto, ALL
- OF THEM are showing the use of Flettner tabs on late
- 109s.

You have a scanner right?

- On the other hand, I haven`t seen any of tagert`s 50
- pictures which would show 50 K-4s that doesn`t have
- them. Where are those pictures, where is the proof?
-
- Only empty words you have !

Empty words? Well if a picture is worth a 1000 words, then here is 1000 empty words for you.

http://www.indianamilitary.org/FreemanAAF/PLANES/0123.jpg


<div style="background:#222222;color:#e0e0e0;font-size:24px;font-weight:bold;font-face:courier;"> TAGERT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If WAR was not the ANSWER.. Than what the H was your QUESTION?
</div>
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=forum
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=discussion

XyZspineZyX
10-03-2003, 07:19 PM
butch2k wrote:

- Aileron flettner tabs, seems to have been a very
- rare occurence at best as it's not an official spare
- part. The four spare manuals i checked dated from 42
- to 45 do not show the flettner.
-
- Butch
-

Isegrim,

You must have missed my earlier post.

Can you please explain why Butch is wrong.

Thanks.

RoketDog.

XyZspineZyX
10-03-2003, 07:25 PM
So why do we have to rely on British & American reports of these AC ???

Surley the Germans did there own tests ?

Why are thoes not looked at ? Where are the Germans on this forum that can produce documentation & decifer it ?



<center><font size="7" color="red">Dedicated Server.exe Ya right!!![/i]</font>

XyZspineZyX
10-03-2003, 07:32 PM
Locust_161st wrote:
- So why do we have to rely on British & American
- reports of these AC ???
-
- Surley the Germans did there own tests ?
-
- Why are thoes not looked at ? Where are the Germans
- on this forum that can produce documentation &
- decifer it ?

Unfortntlly alot of that info was lost during the war due to the bombing... And anything that did survive was taken by the British & Americans & USSSR to decifer it.

<div style="background:#222222;color:#e0e0e0;font-size:24px;font-weight:bold;font-face:courier;"> TAGERT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If WAR was not the ANSWER.. Than what the H was your QUESTION?
</div>
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=forum
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=discussion

XyZspineZyX
10-03-2003, 07:33 PM
Quoted by Huckbein FWand109andnootherwarplanewasanygood

"EPP_Gibbs wrote:
- Quote by Huckbein FWand109uberalles
-
- "What if the 109 could do better than 2/3 aileron
- deflection? That is to say what if it could obtain
- full aileron deflection at high speeds?"


This is entirely your fabrication Gibbs.
Stick to what I write when you say you quote me."


er...that is what you wrote, take a look at your post earlier in the thread, or can you no longer remember what twaddle you've written?




"If I had all the money I've spent on drink....I'd spend it on drink!"

XyZspineZyX
10-03-2003, 07:40 PM
EPP_Gibbs wrote:
- Quoted by Huckbein
- FWand109andnootherwarplanewasanygood
-
- "EPP_Gibbs wrote:
-- Quote by Huckbein FWand109uberalles
--
-- "What if the 109 could do better than 2/3 aileron
-- deflection? That is to say what if it could obtain
-- full aileron deflection at high speeds?"
-
-
- This is entirely your fabrication Gibbs.
- Stick to what I write when you say you quote me."
-
-
- er...that is what you wrote, take a look at your
- post earlier in the thread, or can you no longer
- remember what twaddle you've written?

Actually... that "what if" was something I wrote.. Where I was showing that "if" it could have it "would" have had a 1.5 better roll rate... But it couldnt, so it didnt.



<div style="background:#222222;color:#e0e0e0;font-size:24px;font-weight:bold;font-face:courier;"> TAGERT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If WAR was not the ANSWER.. Than what the H was your QUESTION?
</div>
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=forum
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=discussion

XyZspineZyX
10-03-2003, 08:17 PM
Of all the responses I might have been expecting, like debating transonic maneuvering, aileron deflection, or getting the actual Bf-109G roll rates from the test in question, it didn't occur to me that name calling, and complete disregard for errors made by the doubters would be the subject. Nor the anal fixation of this E4 test. I'm not even talking about this E4 test anymore, the test that you are using is the subject at hand. What part of IT HAS BEEN NOTED, do you not understand?

Isegrim, if you truly believe posting rating has anything to do with a persons ability to reason and respond intelligently to posts, SkyChimp must be your hero and mentor, as you have only a measly 2000+.

As usual, you only posted part of the truth, I have a 10 PLUS rating! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

I've gotten several direct responses from Huckbein and Isegrim, both ignoring transonic maneuvering, one calling it "...too miserably pathetic to waste time on response." Not to mention, multiple posts on an error I made, admitted to, and moved on from. btw, still waiting on your proof of the redesign, what's the problem? /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif don't let this question stump you, or make you forget what I'm talking about, transonic airflow.

So your saying that transonic maneuvering, as demonstrated in the test that you're using to extrapolate the 109Gs roll rate at high speed, is now irrelevant? a waste of time?

Then please post a new test to prove your point, or post some actual roll rate data on the Bf-109G aircraft.

I have already admitted my error on 109 wing construction and E4 test. The big post I made earlier was really about the very end, if you actually read it.

Your actually going to make me spell out this transonic thing; aren't you? You're so biased that it blinds you. So be it. Laughing childishly won't change the facts. I've tried addressing the items, line by line and not firing from the hip. When I have the facts, or they are presented to me with documentation, I have no problem accepting them. I won't accept your delusions, however.

Now, to the fun part! Here's a site to get you familiar with the subject of transonic airflow.


http://aerodyn.org/

Now, I hope the doubters are armed with some more knowledge, so we can talk about transonic airflow over a control surface not designed for it. It's really simple. Basically, at the speed your test was done (transonic) the control surface in question (aileron) 2/3 deflection WAS achieved. How's about that? I agree. However, at transonic speed, shock wave effects reduce the effectiveness of the ailerons. How much? Impossible to know absolutely without pressure altitude, temperature, humidity and other aerodynamic factors.

But we DO know that aileron effectiveness is reduced at this speed, degree per second roll data is apparently not available, and extrapolations of sub-sonic speeds is not possible using data from a different flight condition.
Extrapolating roll rate from a transonic condition to a sub-sonic condition is not accurate, at all.

(Huckbein)Though is good to mention again that this relationship is valid for any plane in real flight conditions:
pb/2V ~ const * total_aileron_deflection

This is worthless when discussing transonic airflow, regular flight conditions (subsonic) don't apply anymore as the info on the site states under "High Speed Aerodynamics"

"Transonic flows are flows at speeds below the speed of sound that feature pockets of supersonic flow, as well as flows slightly above the speed of sound. The Mach number range is M=0.6÷1.2. "


"Some Transonic Effects
Above certain speeds airfoils and wings experience a phenomenon of transonic drag rise that ultimately sets a limit to the aircraft speed. The drag rise is due to the presence of shock waves and shock-induced separation. **Shock waves also have a large effect on the lift, on the structural response of the wing, **and on the noise emission."

"Shock Waves
A shock wave is a strong perturbation propagating at supersonic speeds. **At transonic speeds the shock wave is described as a discontinuity (or nearly so) of the aero- thermodynamic variables (pressure, density, velocity, entropy) in the flow**."

"Flow Separation
Flow separation at transonic speeds is generally related to the presence of the shock. One well known aspect is the boundary layer separation, others include trailing edge separation and three-dimensional separation induced by strakes."

** added to original text for emphasis. Cajun76


Unless, of course, you're saying the 109G had no problems with control effectiveness reduction at transonic speeds, the most difficult aspect of high speed flight control and entering a supersonic condition?

Good hunting,
Cajun76

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."
-Aristotle

XyZspineZyX
10-04-2003, 12:39 AM
Bump

Good hunting,
Cajun76

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."
-Aristotle

XyZspineZyX
10-04-2003, 12:40 AM
Cajun76 wrote:

- Isegrim, if you truly believe posting rating has
- anything to do with a persons ability to reason and
- respond intelligently to posts, SkyChimp must be
- your hero and mentor, as you have only a measly
- 2000+.

I am.

Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/NAA_logo.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-04-2003, 02:20 AM
http://142.26.194.131/aerodynamics1/High-Speed/Page2e.html

This is another site with excellent examples, explanations, and info about transonic conditions.

"Effect of Shock Wave Formation
When a normal shock wave forms (as shown above) we have previously learned the symptoms will be very similar to a slow speed stall. The resulting nose down pitch has been dubbed the "Mach Tuck."

If the shock wave also disrupts the airflow over either the ailerons or the elevators control may be lost. With the aircraft in a nose down attitude it will accelerate and the situation will get worse very quickly. Therefore, pilots must be ready to throttle back immediately if an accidental over speed occurs.

If the pilot does not respond positively to the over speed condition the nose down tendency will likely result in the speed increasing even more. Within a short amount of time the speed may be so high that the aircraft may not be recoverable."



So to recap, transonic airflow over conventional controls (which the Bf-109 had) causes greatly reduced or unusable controls, no matter if the controls are deflected into the air stream or not.

As this site explains: http://aerodyn.org/

**Shock waves also have a large effect on the lift, on the structural response of the wing, **

**At transonic speeds the shock wave is described as a discontinuity (or nearly so) of the aero- thermodynamic variables (pressure, density, velocity, entropy) in the flow**."

** = excerpted from original text- Cajun76


Result? 2/3 aileron deflection WAS happening, however 2/3 defection with corresponding roll was not. Control surfaces were largely ineffective.

(Huckbein)"As a result roll rate at 770km/h and 2/3 aileron deflection is aprox the same with roll rate at 500km/h and full aileron deflection. *Also note that stick forces are higher in first case than in second.* So the roll rate in that case was aprox 80 deg/sec as long as the pilot had the muscle to put 2/3 aileron deflection."

* added by Cajun76 for emphasis


Elegant, straight forward proof that the ailerons were experiencing transonic effects, relatively high deflection of control surfaces, while stick forces are reduced.

Your whole theory of extrapolation from a 770km/h transonic condition to subsonic speeds is invalid.



Good hunting,
Cajun76

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."
-Aristotle

XyZspineZyX
10-04-2003, 02:52 AM
Cajun, I already explained this. The linear relationship between helix angle and aileron deflection is valid up to transonic speeds. In transonic range a decrease in aileron effectiveness (but not a dramatic one, up to 0.7 Mach) is to be expected. But, I tell this once again, we are not interested in calculating the roll rate at such high speeds.

We're interested in the fact that ailerons could be deflected at 770km/h IAS (actually that was the purpose of the real life test - to record the aileron deflection in transonic range, not the measure the roll rates at those speeds).

Therefore we can safely asume that Bf-109 could deflect their ailerons at least 2/3 of the travel at high speeds like 650km/h or 700km/h IAS. 700km/h at sea level is 0.57 Mach, safely in subsonic range, up to 0.65 Mach there are no important wave drag effects for late war prop fighters.

That means that for 650km/h IAS we can safely apply formula given by NACA.



Because there are some "skeptics" here who think that they can question NACA expertise, here's another chart showing the linear relationship between helix angle and aileron deflection, this time for a Spitfire. I also have one for P-40.

Can we move beyond discussing this relationship?

http://home.comcast.net/~bogdandone/spit_helix.JPG



<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
10-04-2003, 03:44 AM
Huckebein_FW wrote:
- Cajun, I already explained this. The linear
- relationship between helix angle and aileron
- deflection is valid up to transonic speeds. In
- transonic range a decrease in aileron effectiveness
- (but not a dramatic one, up to 0.7 Mach) is to be
- expected. But, I tell this once again, we are not
- interested in calculating the roll rate at such high
- speeds.

I have realized this, and it is not the thrust of my post.

- We're interested in the fact that ailerons could be
- deflected at 770km/h IAS (actually that was the
- purpose of the real life test - to record the
- aileron deflection in transonic range, not the
- measure the roll rates at those speeds).

We are indeed interested in this. And at those transonic speeds, higher than normal aileron deflections were possible, with a reduced stick force. Shouldn't stick force have a correlation to aileron movement? You yourself post that there was a *reduced* stick load at test speed.

- Therefore we can safely asume that Bf-109 could
- deflect their ailerons at least 2/3 of the travel at
- high speeds like 650km/h or 700km/h IAS. 700km/h at
- sea level is 0.57 Mach, safely in subsonic range, up
- to 0.65 Mach there are no important wave drag
- effects for late war prop fighters.

Therefore we CANNOT assume that a Bf-109G could deflect their ailerons at 2/3 of total travel. Transonic deflection was above normal. Many "normal" rules don't apply at transonic airflow, that is what makes it such a dangerous region, and why a/c are specifically designed to either fly below it, ie. the Bf-109G, or above it, the SR-71.

- That means that for 650km/h IAS we can safely apply
- formula given by NACA.
-
You cannot safely plug erroneous data into a formula. If you enter false data, then you get false results. Period.
-
- Because there are some "skeptics" here who think
- that they can question NACA expertise, here's
- another chart showing the linear relationship
- between helix angle and aileron deflection, this
- time for a Spitfire. I also have one for P-40.

No one has questioned NACA expertise, I'm questioning the data you are plugging into the experts' chart. This attempt to equate yourself to NACA credentials is pretty far out there.

- Can we move beyond discussing this relationship?

Even though the basic, linear relationship you're referring to dosen't take into account RL conditions, like warping, cable stretch, fabric covered ailerons ballooning, etc., this relationship is not the debate, erroneous data plugging is.

Please post a new test to prove your point, or post some actual roll rate data on the Bf-109G aircraft.

Good hunting,
Cajun76

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."
-Aristotle

XyZspineZyX
10-04-2003, 04:08 AM
Cajun76 wrote:
-
-- We're interested in the fact that ailerons could be
-- deflected at 770km/h IAS (actually that was the
-- purpose of the real life test - to record the
-- aileron deflection in transonic range, not the
-- measure the roll rates at those speeds).
-
- We are indeed interested in this. And at those
- transonic speeds, higher than normal aileron
- deflections were possible, with a reduced stick
- force. Shouldn't stick force have a correlation to
- aileron movement? You yourself post that there was
- a *reduced* stick load at test speed.


What are you talking about? Stick forces are increasing with indicated airspeed, and also with Mach number in transonic speed range.
What do you mean by "reduced" stick load??


-
- Therefore we CANNOT assume that a Bf-109G could
- deflect their ailerons at 2/3 of total travel.
- Transonic deflection was above normal. Many
- "normal" rules don't apply at transonic airflow,
- that is what makes it such a dangerous region, and
- why a/c are specifically designed to either fly
- below it, ie. the Bf-109G, or above it, the SR-71.

This is a complete fantasy. Stick forces are not lighter in transonic range. Beside normal pressure drag given by air speed you also have wave drag in transonic range. Control forces are heavier at those speeds, there is no doubt about it.

It's absolutely safe to say that ailerons could be deflected MORE than 2/3rds the travel at 650km/h if they could be deflected this much at 770km/h.

But I'll do the calculation for 650km/h considering a max of 2/3 aileron travel. That should please everyone.


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
10-04-2003, 04:12 AM
Cajun76 wrote:
- Even though the basic, linear relationship you're
- referring to dosen't take into account RL
- conditions, like warping, cable stretch, fabric
- covered ailerons ballooning, etc., this relationship
- is not the debate, erroneous data plugging is.


The charts I posted contain values obtained in testing real aircrafts. THEY ARE NOT CALCULATED VALUES.

THE RELATIONSHIP GIVEN BY NACA IS VERIFIED IN REAL PLANES.
I posted the charts, can't you read them?


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
10-04-2003, 05:31 AM
Why do you guys fight with the uber twins you know they are right as allways.It's very funny how when one post's the other is right behind, they must be joined at the hip /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

My advise is "never start a battle of wit's when your unarmed" I'am just saying /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

No1RAAF_Pourshot
http://members.optusnet.com.au/~andycarroll68/CA-15%20Kangaroo.jpg

No1_RAAF

XyZspineZyX
10-04-2003, 06:42 AM
Huckebein_FW wrote:
- THE RELATIONSHIP GIVEN BY NACA IS VERIFIED IN REAL
- PLANES.

PURE BULL! The only thing they verified is that the k values for real AC is much much lower than calculated.


<div style="background:#222222;color:#e0e0e0;font-size:24px;font-weight:bold;font-face:courier;"> TAGERT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If WAR was not the ANSWER.. Than what the H was your QUESTION?
</div>
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=forum
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=discussion

XyZspineZyX
10-04-2003, 06:52 AM
tagert wrote:
- Huckebein_FW wrote:
-- THE RELATIONSHIP GIVEN BY NACA IS VERIFIED IN REAL
-- PLANES.
-
- PURE BULL! The only thing they verified is that the
- k values for real AC is much much lower than
- calculated.


Do you know what a linear relationship is tagert? Or they did not teach you that in school yet?

Until you come with an answer refrain yourself to post on this thread. You don't understand a single word from it.



<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
10-04-2003, 08:42 AM
tagert wrote:
- Empty words? Well if a picture is worth a 1000
- words, then here is 1000 empty words for you.

Good post and valid point, however there are two issues at play here before those thousand words hit the mark.

1. repaired captured a/c - what is the exact history? It is not rare to have a/c parts mixed after transport to the US or to have damaged parts replaced (look at the current Fw190D restoration issue where it was proven that the wings were mixed at one time).

2. german logistics in '45 meant that it wasn't rare to have mixed constructions with what was available, even a manual cannot compete against that. It happens with engines (look at Fw 190As with TS "powereggs") it happens with 109G/K wings (and engines).

Although I do not agree with the idea that the Jagdwaffe was a "built it yourself" force with pilots having a pick of choice (far from it), the logistics front is something else and sources do state clearly that they often used what was at hand to complete air frames.

Just like Luftwaffe colors those who take an interest will at some moment realize that this is far from an exact sience. Look at the US AAF as an example and you'll get the wrong idea.

Whereas the Kriegsmarine saved almost everything when it comes to archives, the Luftwaffe was most effective in destroying almost everything, we only have access to a tip of the iceberg. Some issues will NEVER be resolved from objective research from both sides, since the german material is simply gone.

People can argue here for proof and demand posts with graphs etc from Rechlin, well even if it available it might be a gem that will not be posted as a free for all.

Bottom line, if captured a/c were the benchmark, we'd have to accept that M¶lder's testflying of the Spit Mk.I proofs the pitfalls of such an approach.

Now please continue the sparring match, answering theoretical science with easy jabs...

Ruy "SPADES" Horta
http://www.xs4all.nl/~rhorta
-----------------------------
Il-2 - VEF JG 77
-----------------------------
'95-02 - WB Jagdgeschwader 53
'99-00 - DoA Jagdstaffel 18
-----------------------------
The rest is history...

http:\\www.xs4all.nl\~rhorta\brother.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-04-2003, 09:03 AM
Huckebein_FW wrote:

- THE RELATIONSHIP GIVEN BY NACA IS VERIFIED IN REAL
- PLANES.

Very good.

Now please post some data showing measurements of the Bf 109's roll rate at high speed.

Regards,

RocketDog.

XyZspineZyX
10-04-2003, 09:07 AM
RocketDog wrote:
-
- Huckebein_FW wrote:
-
-- THE RELATIONSHIP GIVEN BY NACA IS VERIFIED IN REAL
-- PLANES.
-
- Very good.
-
- Now please post some data showing measurements of
- the Bf 109's roll rate at high speed.


Bf-109 is a real plane too, Rocketdog.
It respects the same relationship (at least up to 650km/h).


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

Message Edited on 10/04/0303:11AM by Huckebein_FW

XyZspineZyX
10-04-2003, 11:21 AM
The Bf-109 is entirely a fabrication of the German High Command and Hitler. It never existed. It's all LIES AND PROPAGANDA! Lügen und Propaganda! Lügen! Lüügeen! Lüüügeeen!

If you think this untrue, then I merely reverse myself and offer this instead for all you evil conspirators who want to detract from the glorious Bf-109:


1) The Bf-109 is the greatest fighter, ever. It has been adopted by many countries today, and is the ultimate dogfighter.

2) No Bf-109 has EVER been shot down by a superior fighter. If a 109 has gone down for any reason, it was because:
A) IT'S A LIE!
B) An unskilled pilot at the controls, who inadvertently switched off the automatic KILL ENEMY feature.
C) IT'S A LIE!
D) The 109 was surrounded by at least 200 planes, the shields failed, and it's enormous ammo magazine was spent, slaughtering every enemy plane for a radius of 20 miles. Even then, it had to be rammed by 5 or more enemy planes. (Note, that was way wrong, it's Lügen und Propaganda! It took at least 7 rams...)

3) BF-109's continue to serve in other roles as well, ferrying vital supplies to Hitler's grandson on the moon, and rescuing kitty cats from trees.


I can't reason with you, Huckbein and Isegrim, so I've decided to join you. The Uber Twins are gone, replaced with the Terrible Three! *goosebumps* anyone?

ALL HAIL THE 109, AND TREMBLE UNDER ITS HOLY MIGHT!



/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Good hunting,
Cajun76

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."
-Aristotle

XyZspineZyX
10-04-2003, 03:01 PM
Tagert:

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/109/Bf109K-4_Wrk330130.jpg


Bf 109 K-4 Wrk. 330 130. Flettner on the aileron are clearly visible.

Now, since you said that you will show me 50 picture of Ks w/o Flettners for every I show with one, start digging up photos.


http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/109/Varjas%20W-sorozatu%20G-6v-14%20Flettnerlappal.jpg



Another one : G-6/G-14 with Flettners. The Flettners you and your buddies say never were on.

Show me now 50 G-6/G-14 pictures now w/o Flettners.


http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/109/K4drawingtypesheet.jpg


http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/109/Kfactory%20drawing.jpg


http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/109/WingFlettnerG14-K4.jpg


Speaks for itself. Flettners are clearly visibile on all drawings.

Now, you show me 150 drawings that does`t have them.

So you homework is :

Post
-50 pcitures of 109K
-50 pictures of 109G
-150 drawings of 109K without flettner tabs. At least you said it can be easily done.



tagert wrote:
-
-- On the other hand, I haven`t seen any of tagert`s 50
-- pictures which would show 50 K-4s that doesn`t have
-- them. Where are those pictures, where is the proof?
--
-- Only empty words you have !
-
- Empty words? Well if a picture is worth a 1000
- words, then here is 1000 empty words for you.
-
<img
- src="http://www.indianamilitary.org/FreemanAAF/PLA
- NES/0123.jpg">


Brilliant find, dear tagert, altough if you would accept a small hint, try to post pictures of K-4s when you want to prove K-4s didn`t have Flettners, as this plane is clearly a 109G (DF loop antenna is well forward, no rectangular wing fairings, small tailwheel etc.), probably a G-10, and not a K-4.


http://vo101isegrim.piranho.com/FB-desktopweb.jpg
'Only a dead Indianer is a good Indianer!'

Vezérünk a Bátorság, K*sérµnk a Szerencse!
(Courage leads, Luck escorts us! - Historical motto of the 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)

Flight tests and other aviation performance data: http://www.pbase.com/isegrim

XyZspineZyX
10-04-2003, 05:05 PM
butch2k wrote:

-
- Aileron flettner tabs, seems to have been a very
- rare occurence at best as it's not an official spare
- part. The four spare manuals i checked dated from 42
- to 45 do not show the flettner.
-
-

Isegrim, what do you not comprehend in this statement by Butch2k?

Are you saying Butch2k is "making himself rididuculus"

"Now, can just someone prove even remotely that Flettners were not used without making himself rididuculus ?"


Your so called drawings are not official factory BLUEPRINTS. The drawings could be wishful thinking on whomever drew them.

Your pic of W.Nr. 330... is a factory test a/c not an a/c alloted to a combat JG.




Message Edited on 10/04/0311:18AM by roachclip

XyZspineZyX
10-04-2003, 05:33 PM
roachclip wrote:
- Your so called drawings are not official factory
- BLUEPRINTS. The drawings could be wishful thinking
- on whomever drew them.

Exactally

- Your pic of W.Nr. 330... is a factory test a/c not
- an a/c alloted to a combat JG.

Huh... I figured as much, the uniform and ac markings didnt look right... but.. how did you find out it was 330 and used in factory tests?

<div style="background:#222222;color:#e0e0e0;font-size:24px;font-weight:bold;font-face:courier;"> TAGERT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If WAR was not the ANSWER.. Than what the H was your QUESTION?
</div>
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=forum
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=discussion

XyZspineZyX
10-04-2003, 05:40 PM
Cajun76 wrote:
- The Bf-109 is entirely a fabrication of the German
- High Command and Hitler. It never existed. It's
- all LIES AND PROPAGANDA! Lügen und Propaganda!
- Lügen! Lüügeen! Lüüügeeen!
-
- If you think this untrue, then I merely reverse
- myself and offer this instead for all you evil
- conspirators who want to detract from the glorious
- Bf-109:
-
-
- 1) The Bf-109 is the greatest fighter, ever. It has
- been adopted by many countries today, and is the
- ultimate dogfighter.
-
- 2) No Bf-109 has EVER been shot down by a superior
- fighter. If a 109 has gone down for any reason, it
- was because:
- A) IT'S A LIE!
- B) An unskilled pilot at the controls, who
- inadvertently switched off the automatic KILL ENEMY
- feature.
- C) IT'S A LIE!
- D) The 109 was surrounded by at least 200 planes,
- the shields failed, and it's enormous ammo magazine
- was spent, slaughtering every enemy plane for a
- radius of 20 miles. Even then, it had to be rammed
- by 5 or more enemy planes. (Note, that was way
- wrong, it's Lügen und Propaganda! It took at least
- 7 rams...)
-
- 3) BF-109's continue to serve in other roles as
- well, ferrying vital supplies to Hitler's grandson
- on the moon, and rescuing kitty cats from trees.
-
-
- I can't reason with you, Huckbein and Isegrim, so
- I've decided to join you. The Uber Twins are gone,
- replaced with the Terrible Three! *goosebumps*
- anyone?
-
- ALL HAIL THE 109, AND TREMBLE UNDER ITS HOLY MIGHT!

Hurry someone contact a MOD it looks like Huckie or Iggie go a hold of Cajun76 password! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

<div style="background:#222222;color:#e0e0e0;font-size:24px;font-weight:bold;font-face:courier;"> TAGERT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If WAR was not the ANSWER.. Than what the H was your QUESTION?
</div>
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=forum
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=discussion

XyZspineZyX
10-04-2003, 06:07 PM
tagert wrote:

-
- Huh... I figured as much, the uniform and ac
- markings didnt look right... but.. how did you find
- out it was 330 and used in factory tests?
-
-

It says so in the caption and from the white number on the fin../i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

This photo was taken from the Prien/Rodeike 109 book, pg166. On pg 176 there is a photo of 330255, produced 125 a/c after 330130, which has no Flettner tabs for the ailerons.

XyZspineZyX
10-04-2003, 06:28 PM
roachclip wrote:
- butch2k wrote:
-
-- Aileron flettner tabs, seems to have been a very
-- rare occurence at best as it's not an official spare
-- part. The four spare manuals i checked dated from 42
-- to 45 do not show the flettner.
--
--
-
- Isegrim, what do you not comprehend in this
- statement by Butch2k?
-
- Are you saying Butch2k is "making himself
- rididuculus"
-
- "Now, can just someone prove even remotely that
- Flettners were not used without making himself
- rididuculus ?"


I believed that this thread can go no more ridiculus, or that more human bodywaste can show up.

I was wrong. I didn`t take the existence of the most pathetic member of this board, Mr. roachlip. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif



- Your so called drawings are not official factory
- BLUEPRINTS. The drawings could be wishful thinking
- on whomever drew them.

ROFMALOL. You can`t even read. Or you can self dillude yourself to an extent where you go blind and deaf, and your intelligence drops to half, to 30 IQ points. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif


-
- Your pic of W.Nr. 330... is a factory test a/c not
- an a/c alloted to a combat JG.
-


LOL. It`s the 130th serially produced aircraft. And sorry again, it wasn`t anykind of "testhack" or prototype, as your wishful thinking would like it to be, but a serially produced aircraft that were choosen to do test on it in the factory.


Come on, reply something. Show us in your next post that you can be EVEN MORE stupid and pathethic. I know you will succeed in that. You always do.


http://vo101isegrim.piranho.com/FB-desktopweb.jpg
'Only a dead Indianer is a good Indianer!'

Vezérünk a Bátorság, K*sérµnk a Szerencse!
(Courage leads, Luck escorts us! - Historical motto of the 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)

Flight tests and other aviation performance data: http://www.pbase.com/isegrim

XyZspineZyX
10-04-2003, 06:36 PM
tagert wrote:
- roachclip wrote:
-- Your so called drawings are not official factory
-- BLUEPRINTS. The drawings could be wishful thinking
-- on whomever drew them.
-
- Exactally


LOL, roachlip, you are honoured, tagert can lick your butt clean, too, until it`s shining blinds the sun !

Good work tagert, I rejoice that you found a position that suits your capabilities the best : to humbly lick every a$$ clean pronto ! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif



-
-- Your pic of W.Nr. 330... is a factory test a/c not
-- an a/c alloted to a combat JG.
-
- Huh... I figured as much, the uniform and ac
- markings didnt look right... but.. how did you find
- out it was 330 and used in factory tests?


ROFMALOL, some guys can`t even read a caption! A truly challenging task ! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

LOL, this is the avarage quality of the allied fanboys in this thread.. I wonder if we would multiply their IQ rates all together, would it even slip over 100 points ? Doubtful.

Now, let`s sit back and see what pathethically stupid hypothesis will born from the pea sized brain of c.roach! Tagert will like it to a *deep* extent, no doubt about that ! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

http://vo101isegrim.piranho.com/FB-desktopweb.jpg
'Only a dead Indianer is a good Indianer!'

Vezérünk a Bátorság, K*sérµnk a Szerencse!
(Courage leads, Luck escorts us! - Historical motto of the 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)

Flight tests and other aviation performance data: http://www.pbase.com/isegrim

XyZspineZyX
10-04-2003, 06:44 PM
roachclip wrote:
-
- tagert wrote:
-
--
-- Huh... I figured as much, the uniform and ac
-- markings didnt look right... but.. how did you find
-- out it was 330 and used in factory tests?
--
--
-
- It says so in the caption and from the white number
- on the fin../i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
-
- This photo was taken from the Prien/Rodeike 109
- book, pg166. On pg 176 there is a photo of 330255,
- produced 125 a/c after 330130, which has no Flettner
- tabs for the ailerons.

Ah, roger, I didnt see Iggies post until after I read yours, I thought you were talking about that "G" pic with the flettner tabs.. That K Iggie posted is not of flettner tabs, it is the clamps they typically put on aircraft when they get parked, and dont want to have the wind blowing around the controls and slamming the stick around... Dont belive me? Note, there is NO TAB.. just the clamp... *AND* note that there is a clamp on the elevator too!

<div style="background:#222222;color:#e0e0e0;font-size:24px;font-weight:bold;font-face:courier;"> TAGERT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If WAR was not the ANSWER.. Than what the H was your QUESTION?
</div>
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=forum
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=discussion

XyZspineZyX
10-04-2003, 06:46 PM
Please, for Christ's sake, Isegrim, it ROTFLMAO, not ROFMALOL. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif


BTW, Isegrim. I'm going to a Hungarian resaurant this weekend. Never been to one. What are some good Hungarian dishes?

Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/NAA_logo.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-04-2003, 06:50 PM
tagert wrote:

-
- Ah, roger, I didnt see Iggies post until after I
- read yours, I thought you were talking about that
- "G" pic with the flettner tabs.. That K Iggie posted
- is not of flettner tabs, it is the clamps they
- typically put on aircraft when they get parked, and
- dont want to have the wind blowing around the
- controls and slamming the stick around... Dont
- belive me? Note, there is NO TAB.. just the clamp...
- *AND* note that there is a clamp on the elevator
- too!


I knew they will make up something... as usual, LOL. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Let`s see.. the German language factory drawing is just someone`s wishful thinking... so is the a/c type sheet drawing... /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif ... initally they said the 109s didn`t have flettners, then they said the K had but the lae Gs didn`t, then again they changed it when they saw the G-14 picture and said that *caugh-caugh* those are Flettners indeed, but... but they are LOCKED ! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif Then, they saw the Flettners on the K, and now they say those aren`t flattners at all, just clamps (clamps, clamps, clamps. And LOCKED clamps, did I forget to mention? /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif ), and it`s merely a coincidence that they are on the ailerons, worser, they are at the exact place where Flettners are, and horribile dictu, they look all the same as Flettners. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

But they are not. Says the two idiot here. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

http://vo101isegrim.piranho.com/FB-desktopweb.jpg
'Only a dead Indianer is a good Indianer!'

Vezérünk a Bátorság, K*sérµnk a Szerencse!
(Courage leads, Luck escorts us! - Historical motto of the 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)

Flight tests and other aviation performance data: http://www.pbase.com/isegrim

XyZspineZyX
10-04-2003, 06:58 PM
SkyChimp wrote:
- Please, for Christ's sake, Isegrim, it ROTFLMAO, not
- ROFMALOL. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
-
-
- BTW, Isegrim. I'm going to a Hungarian resaurant
- this weekend. Never been to one. What are some
- good Hungarian dishes?
-
- Regards,
-
- SkyChimp
-

Try some gulash soup, that you will like for sure. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

You can try some p¶rk¶lt w.paprika... or fish soups. But otherwise, traditional hungarian dishes are usually heavy, and fat-rich.. but I can`t think that there should be too many "special" food here, it`s basically what you will find in European kitchens. For wine, try Tokaji Aszu (now that`s a must-have), if they have one. Quality of other Hung. wines differ greatly, it`s a matter of luck wheter you get a bad or good one.

In any case, try a gulash, and a Tokaji Aszu wine, these two surely won`t cause any disappointment.

http://vo101isegrim.piranho.com/FB-desktopweb.jpg
'Only a dead Indianer is a good Indianer!'

Vezérünk a Bátorság, K*sérµnk a Szerencse!
(Courage leads, Luck escorts us! - Historical motto of the 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)

Flight tests and other aviation performance data: http://www.pbase.com/isegrim

XyZspineZyX
10-04-2003, 07:07 PM
Vo101_Isegrim wrote:

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/109/Bf109K-4_Wrk330130.jpg


-
- Bf 109 K-4 Wrk. 330 130. Flettner on the aileron are
- clearly visible.

Ah, sorry Iggie.. but that is not a flettner tab, those are parking locks. They use them when parked for periods of time to keep the wind from blowing the controls serfaces around and thus kicking the stick around in the pit. Note the elevator has a clamp/lock also.. Oh heck let me draw you a picuture.

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/bf109k4_023-swfoto.jpg


- Another one : G-6/G-14 with Flettners. The Flettners
- you and your buddies say never were on.
-
- Show me now 50 G-6/G-14 pictures now w/o Flettners.

Again? How many times do I have to post this one?

http://www.indianamilitary.org/FreemanAAF/PLANES/0123.jpg


- Speaks for itself. Flettners are clearly visibile on
- all drawings.

Speaks for drawings.. I can show you LOTS OF DRAWINGS of things that Germans wanted to do and never did.

- Now, you show me 150 drawings that does`t have them.
-
- So you homework is :
-
- Post
--50 pcitures of 109K
--50 pictures of 109G
--150 drawings of 109K without flettner tabs. At least you said it can be easily done.

Ok here is a good start

http://forums.ubi.com/messages/message_view-topic.asp?name=us_il2sturmovik_gd&id=yxwqa

- Brilliant find, dear tagert, altough if you would
- accept a small hint, try to post pictures of K-4s
- when you want to prove K-4s didn`t have Flettners,
- as this plane is clearly a 109G (DF loop antenna is
- well forward, no rectangular wing fairings, small
- tailwheel etc.), probably a G-10, and not a K-4.

Duh.. I was showing you that there were G's after the G-6 pic of yours that didnt have flettner tabs.

<div style="background:#222222;color:#e0e0e0;font-size:24px;font-weight:bold;font-face:courier;"> TAGERT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If WAR was not the ANSWER.. Than what the H was your QUESTION?
</div>
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=forum
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=discussion

XyZspineZyX
10-04-2003, 07:14 PM
Ah heck, you being you probally wont know how to use the link.. So here Ill make it easy for you

Here is a clear picture of the 109K posted earlier that shows the parking clamps.. Which are not to be confused with Flettner Tabs:
http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/bf109k4_023-swfoto.jpg


Here is a clear picture of the boys standing around as Iggie pulls the stick in the pit:

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/bf109k4_033-swfoto.jpg



Here is a good one:

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/bf109k4_026-swfoto.jpg


Here is a picture of how most 109Ks ended up after meeting a P51:

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/bf109k4_001-swfoto.jpg


Here is a K with the aileron deflected, but no break in the edge of the aileron.. which had there been a Flettner tab it would have:

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/bf109k4_006-swfoto.jpg


And another:

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/bf109k4_007-swfoto.jpg


And another:
http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/bf109k4_008-swfoto.jpg


And another:

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/bf109k4_009-swfoto.jpg


And another:

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/bf109k4_013-swfoto.jpg


And another two of the same:

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/bf109k4_025-swfoto.jpg

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/bf109k4_011-swfoto.jpg


<div style="background:#222222;color:#e0e0e0;font-size:24px;font-weight:bold;font-face:courier;"> TAGERT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If WAR was not the ANSWER.. Than what the H was your QUESTION?
</div>
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=forum
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=discussion

Message Edited on 10/04/0311:15AM by tagert

XyZspineZyX
10-04-2003, 07:20 PM
LOL, tagert, you can parrot it so well, that I almost believed it !

http://www.indianamilitary.org/FreemanAAF/PLANES/0123.jpg

This is the picture of a G-10 that tagert wanted to sell as a K-4 intitially.... funny, tagert cannot tell a K from G, still, he can tell wheter a Flettner tab is locked, or what else should it be instead!

And yes, you can post it again as many times you want, it will never become a K-4, as it is a G-10 or G-14/AS.



http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/109/Bf109K-4_Wrk330130.jpg


Bf 109 K-4 Wrk. 330 130. Flettner on the aileron are clearly visible. Our good old parrot of course tells they are clamps, and of course, sure taggy, you can`t tell a G-10 from K.

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/109/Varjas%20W-sorozatu%20G-6v-14%20Flettnerlappal.jpg

This is a G-6 or G-14 with a first line unit... funny, even it has Flettner tabs !


http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/109/K4drawingtypesheet.jpg


Now, this is the drawomg for K-4 from the OFFICIAL aircraft type sheet. Funny, what do we see again ? Flettners!


http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/109/Kfactory%20drawing.jpg

Messerscmitt factory drawing of the control surfaces on the K series... Flettners clearly visible (of course according to our final word on everything, these are just wishful thinking of some. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif )


http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/109/WingFlettnerG14-K4.jpg

Now, here`s what Prien/Rodeike has to say on the wing of the G-14 and K-4. Funny, taggy missed that part in Rodeike`s book, of course, he was too busy to find a few exceptations that didn`t have Flettners, probably because of field repairs.


Speaks for itself. Flettners are clearly visibile on all drawings. Now of course taggy had to work hard to find a few Ks that doesn`t have, he had to include the same plane multiple times, make up stories about "parking clamps", try to sell a G-10 as a K-4, and show several pictures on which the area where Flettner tabs area isn`t visible at all, so he could claim they are not there.


Still, making up stories is one big leap forward from just licking everybody`s a$$ who hates 109s and German aircraft in general.

http://vo101isegrim.piranho.com/FB-desktopweb.jpg
'Only a dead Indianer is a good Indianer!'

Vezérünk a Bátorság, K*sérµnk a Szerencse!
(Courage leads, Luck escorts us! - Historical motto of the 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)

Flight tests and other aviation performance data: http://www.pbase.com/isegrim ( <A HREF=)" target=_blank>http://www.pbase.com/isegrim</a>

http://vo101isegrim.piranho.com/FB-desktopweb.jpg
'Only a dead Indianer is a good Indianer!'

Vezérünk a Bátorság, K*sérµnk a Szerencse!
(Courage leads, Luck escorts us! - Historical motto of the 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)

Flight tests and other aviation performance data: http://www.pbase.com/isegrim

XyZspineZyX
10-04-2003, 07:25 PM
tagert wrote:
- Ah heck, you being you probally wont know how to use
- the link.. So here Ill make it easy for you
-
- Here is a clear picture of the 109K posted earlier
- that shows the parking clamps.. Which are not to be
- confused with Flettner Tabs:

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/bf109k4_023-swfoto.jpg


Oh sure, taggy, you will certainly not confuse them with Flettner tabs, because you have no idea how those look like. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif


-
- Here is a K with the aileron deflected, but no break
- in the edge of the aileron.. which had there been a
- Flettner tab it would have:
-

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/bf109k4_006-swfoto.jpg

ROFLOL! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Taggy can`t even tell a deflected flap apart from deflected ailerons, LOL. Clearly seen on the picture, the ailerons are in neutral position, the flaps are in landing position together with radiators.. the ailerons themselves fully covered with snows.

Taggy`s conclusion: there are no Flettner tabs ! And if there are, they are parking clamps. And if not, they locked.

Whatever. Keep trying. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif



http://vo101isegrim.piranho.com/FB-desktopweb.jpg
'Only a dead Indianer is a good Indianer!'

Vezérünk a Bátorság, K*sérµnk a Szerencse!
(Courage leads, Luck escorts us! - Historical motto of the 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)

Flight tests and other aviation performance data: http://www.pbase.com/isegrim

XyZspineZyX
10-04-2003, 07:27 PM
LOL, just like old homecoming week/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif Goulash brained Isegrim has not changed at all. With all the preoccupation with butts and licking from him, he could be a sexual pervert.

WARNING, WARNING: keep you children well away from Isegrim.


Yet ambulance chaser, the 255th a/c (W.Nr. 330255) does not have Flettner aileron tabs./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Now goulash brain here are some EXAMPLES of BLUEPRINTS:

http://www.f4ucorsair.com/tdata/leftwing.jpg

http://www.f4ucorsair.com/tdata/cockpit.jpg

http://www.f4ucorsair.com/tdata/aftfuse.jpg



Are you really that stupid? The caption says "flown by the Messerschmitt factories in various trials". And you riduculed tagert because he could not read,/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif take some reading lessons goulash brain. The only one with an IQ of 30 around here is you goulash brain.


So you are calling Butch2k "ridiculous". Nice./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif What you know about the 109 compared to Butch2k would not even be the sixe of the toe jamb you removed from between your 4th and 5th toes./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
10-04-2003, 07:30 PM
Vo101_Isegrim wrote:
- Oh sure, taggy, you will certainly not confuse them
- with Flettner tabs, because you have no idea how
- those look like.

LOL! I love to see you squrm! What else are you going to ignore?

- Taggy can`t even tell a deflected flap apart from
- deflected ailerons, LOL. Clearly seen on the
- picture, the ailerons are in neutral position, the
- flaps are in landing position together with
- radiators.. the ailerons themselves fully covered
- with snows.

Not neutral, look to the left near the wing tip, you can see it is slightly up.

- Taggy`s conclusion: there are no Flettner tabs ! And
- if there are, they are parking clamps. And if not,
- they locked.


Hehehehhe god I love it when you are provin wrong! You really fall apart fast!


<div style="background:#222222;color:#e0e0e0;font-size:24px;font-weight:bold;font-face:courier;"> TAGERT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If WAR was not the ANSWER.. Than what the H was your QUESTION?
</div>
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=forum
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=discussion

XyZspineZyX
10-04-2003, 07:53 PM
tagert, this goulash brained Isegrim is trully something else alltogether. A mule/donkey/*** could not be as stubborn and stupid./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

butch2k wrote:
- Aileron flettner tabs, seems to have been a very
- rare occurence at best as it's not an official spare
- part. The four spare manuals i checked dated from 42
- to 45 do not show the flettner.

Here the resident 109 expert says the Flettner aileron tabs were 'very few and far between' but goulash brain insists that they were very common. I know who I would believe, and it ain't Dizzy Issy./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Your correct, he does squirm more when he is "on the ropes". You know he is "on the ropes" by the increase in the insults.

XyZspineZyX
10-04-2003, 08:04 PM
roachclip wrote:
- tagert, this goulash brained Isegrim is trully
- something else alltogether. A mule/donkey/*** could
- not be as stubborn and stupid

LOL! Agreed 100% Too bad too.. because he sometimes provides useful info.. But his closed mind on the 109s makes him and what he says suspect.


- butch2k wrote:
-- Aileron flettner tabs, seems to have been a very
-- rare occurence at best as it's not an official spare
-- part. The four spare manuals i checked dated from 42
-- to 45 do not show the flettner.
-
- Here the resident 109 expert says the Flettner
- aileron tabs were 'very few and far between' but
- goulash brain insists that they were very common. I
- know who I would believe, and it ain't Dizzy
- Issy.

Same here! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif


- Your correct, he does squirm more when he is "on the
- ropes". You know he is "on the ropes" by the
- increase in the insults.

Sad aint it? It does seem to be an inverse equation.. ie The more wrong he is the more butt licking comments he tosses out. Strange.. he does seem to be hung up on the bung for some reason.. Oh well, his problem not mine.


<div style="background:#222222;color:#e0e0e0;font-size:24px;font-weight:bold;font-face:courier;"> TAGERT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If WAR was not the ANSWER.. Than what the H was your QUESTION?
</div>
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=forum
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=discussion

XyZspineZyX
10-04-2003, 08:22 PM
I hate to agree with Isegrim http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif, but fair is fair. I've looked through my books (I have several on the Bf-109 as well as several Osprey books replete with photos of Bf-109s) and tabs are present on the majority of the planes depicted (that can be seen clearly).

I'm not sure what Butch's definition of "few and far between" is, but if he means they were present on half or most, I would agree. Otherwise, I'd have to say that if the number of photos that exist depicting tabs is any indication, Butch may very well be wrong on this one.

Sorry.


Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/NAA_logo.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-04-2003, 09:30 PM
SkyChimp

Butch2k:
"Aileron flettner tabs, seems to have been a very rare occurence at best as it's not an official spare part. The four spare manuals i checked dated from 42 to 45 do not show the flettner."

Now why would there be no spare parts listed for a piece that was so common?

Compare the photo goulash brain posted and the drawing on pg 122/123 in the Radinger/Otto book which is a much better drawing (not a blueprint) than the GA drawing on pg 124 which goulash brain posted. The Flettner tab is NOT next to the aileron/flap line. tagert's observation that it is a locking device rings true. Notice the Flettner linkage is on the bottom of the wing while in the photo of 330130, the 'bump' is on the top. W.Nr. 330255 shows no aileron Flettner tabs. This is in the same W.Nr. series as 330130.

I don't know which Osprey Aces books you are looking in but in #29, 37, 50 I could find no aileron Flettner tab 109s. Are you sure you are not mistaking the mass conter balance?




Message Edited on 10/04/0303:35PM by roachclip

XyZspineZyX
10-04-2003, 10:02 PM
SkyChimp wrote:
- I hate to agree with Isegrim /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif , but fair is fair.
- I've looked through my books (I have several on the
- Bf-109 as well as several Osprey books replete with
- photos of Bf-109s) and tabs are present on the
- majority of the planes depicted (that can be seen
- clearly).
-
- I'm not sure what Butch's definition of "few and far
- between" is, but if he means they were present on
- half or most, I would agree. Otherwise, I'd have to
- say that if the number of photos that exist
- depicting tabs is any indication, Butch may very
- well be wrong on this one.
-
- Sorry.
-
-
-
- Regards,
-
- SkyChimp

Oh dont be sorry! I would love to find a picture of a K any K with them! Do you have a scanner of those? Which Osprey book are you talking about by the way? What page?

As for what percentage of K's had them.. Dont think we will really ever know for sure. One can draw conclusions though.. If the parts book does not list them.. And you can find pictures without them.. It means that it was defintally NOT a STANDARD!

Consider that with the FACT that they 1st showed up way back on a G-6... if they were so GREAT they would have adopted them and made them STANDARD.. But they didnt.. So, that tells me they were not that great.

And just to be clear... we are talking about the flettner tabs, not the standard tabs

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/WingFlettnerG14-K4.jpg


The flettner tab is the one on the right, with the linkage and flush with the edge, the *tab* used for trim is the one to the left, and not flush


<div style="background:#222222;color:#e0e0e0;font-size:24px;font-weight:bold;font-face:courier;"> TAGERT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If WAR was not the ANSWER.. Than what the H was your QUESTION?
</div>
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=forum
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=discussion

Message Edited on 10/04/03 02:05PM by tagert

Message Edited on 10/04/0303:10PM by tagert

XyZspineZyX
10-04-2003, 10:38 PM
Ok Tagert, you're correct. I was confusing the two.

I've looked some more and you appear to be correct. Few pictures have them.



Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/NAA_logo.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-04-2003, 11:14 PM
SkyChimp wrote:

- Ok Tagert, you're correct. I was confusing the two.

Not hard to do! They are simular and close toghter.

- I've looked some more and you appear to be correct.
- Few pictures have them.

Few? Any? If any, please, give me a book and page number, I would love to see ANY "K" with them!!

<div style="background:#222222;color:#e0e0e0;font-size:24px;font-weight:bold;font-face:courier;"> TAGERT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If WAR was not the ANSWER.. Than what the H was your QUESTION?
</div>
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=forum
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=discussion

XyZspineZyX
10-05-2003, 12:57 AM
tagert wrote:

- Few? Any? If any, please, give me a book and page
- number, I would love to see ANY "K" with them!!

Looked. Can't do it. They just aren't there.

Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/NAA_logo.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-05-2003, 01:31 AM
On behalf of Isegrim:



U,U,U,U,U, YOUR WRONG! they do exist...just keep repeating.... YOUR WRONG, INFIDELS! CLAMPS ARE FLETTNERS,AND I CAN PROVE IT.....but how, they're on to me
*lick* Daddy, what am I gonna do? *lick* THEY"RE EVERYWERE, I CAN SEEEE THEM..... maybe if i curl into a little ball, they can't see me......yeeeesss, safe now, safe from all the bad people, precious.....gollum! gollum! my precious.....we hates them, dosen't we precious?..... nasssty hurtful truths they give uss, gollum!

Good hunting,
Cajun76

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."
-Aristotle

XyZspineZyX
10-05-2003, 01:37 AM
Cajun76 wrote:
- On behalf of Isegrim:
-
-
- U,U,U,U,U, YOUR WRONG! they do exist...just keep
- repeating.... YOUR WRONG, INFIDELS! CLAMPS ARE
- FLETTNERS,AND I CAN PROVE IT.....but how, they're on
- to me
- *lick* Daddy, what am I gonna do? *lick* THEY"RE
- EVERYWERE, I CAN SEEEE THEM..... maybe if i curl
- into a little ball, they can't see me......yeeeesss,
- safe now, safe from all the bad people,
- precious.....gollum! gollum! my precious.....we
- hates them, dosen't we precious?..... nasssty
- hurtful truths they give uss, gollum!
-
- Good hunting,
- Cajun76

rotflmao!


- "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to
- entertain a thought without accepting it."
--Aristotle

Dang.. I like that! Too bad we dont see more of that around here! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif


<div style="background:#222222;color:#e0e0e0;font-size:24px;font-weight:bold;font-face:courier;"> TAGERT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If WAR was not the ANSWER.. Than what the H was your QUESTION?
</div>
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=forum
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=discussion

XyZspineZyX
10-05-2003, 04:26 AM
SkyChimp wrote:
-
- tagert wrote:
-
-- Few? Any? If any, please, give me a book and page
-- number, I would love to see ANY "K" with them!!
-
- Looked. Can't do it. They just aren't there.
-
- Regards,
-
- SkyChimp

Same here.. I cant find one picture of a 109K with flettner tabs on the ailerons. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif Which is not to say that there are not any.. Just that they were not a standard.

On that note, I took a look at the 3 different drawings that iggie was trying to pass off as blue prints.. He should be very VERY happy that these are not blue prints, in that they too show NO STANDARD!! Note how each drawing is very differnt in size and locations of the flettner tab.

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/differanceindrawings.jpg

Keep in mind I had to rotate and stretch them to all be the same size, so, there is a little error there due to that. But not enough to account for the size and locatiion deltas.



<div style="background:#222222;color:#e0e0e0;font-size:24px;font-weight:bold;font-face:courier;"> TAGERT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If WAR was not the ANSWER.. Than what the H was your QUESTION?
</div>
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=forum
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=discussion

XyZspineZyX
10-05-2003, 10:44 AM
Blue Prints...

The word makes me laugh in this community, since even Oleg tends to misuse the word its probably to be expected. I've never seen a single blue print presented on this forum.

A blue print is an official factory drawing with exact measurements and details, mainly for the purpose of said exact measurement, not some third party line drawing to show how the a/c looked in detail (but with the factory specific background, thus not exact by any means).

For instance you can spot the use of NON-factory line drawings in the Fw190A series since the a/c conforms to the linedrawings presented in Squadron/Signal books, unfortunately these have a number of errors (both in measurements and details) like the engine cowling (hey - do I hear something linking that again to the whole windscreen+Revi debate?). Wether the linedrawing came from S/S or somewhere else, it is clear that the word BLUE PRINT is out of place.

So repeat after me: LINE DRAWING

even better would be LINE DRAWING from STATE SOURCE SAID DRAWING.

When people do manage to present WW2 line drawings, they are often from manuals etc, and again LACKING the detail of TRUE blue prints, hence they are authentic line drawings but nothing more.

So be carefull when measuring and comparing from these third party line drawings, they might be correct on first glance.

However keep in mind that even developers sometimes forget to make a clear distinction /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Ruy "SPADES" Horta
http://www.xs4all.nl/~rhorta
-----------------------------
Il-2 - VEF JG 77
-----------------------------
'95-02 - WB Jagdgeschwader 53
'99-00 - DoA Jagdstaffel 18
-----------------------------
The rest is history...

http:\\www.xs4all.nl\~rhorta\brother.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-05-2003, 10:48 AM
tagert wrote:
-
- As for what percentage of K's had them.. Dont think
- we will really ever know for sure. One can draw
- conclusions though.. If the parts book does not list
- them.. And you can find pictures without them.. It
- means that it was defintally NOT a STANDARD!
-
- Consider that with the FACT that they 1st showed up
- way back on a G-6... if they were so GREAT they
- would have adopted them and made them STANDARD.. But
- they didnt.. So, that tells me they were not that
- great.



Roflol! The comedy becomes more and more fun!

Sh*thead and A$$licker Tongue tells the one and only truth, ROFLOL.

They indeed have good fantasies, as they are now developing about the 50th theory about why 109 were bad bad bad ! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Intitially they said a 109E is the same thing as a 109G or K. It took a mere couple of hundred posts to beat into the brain hussars that they are different... LOL. Of course good old A$$licker Tongue does what any honest $$licker Tongue should do. Not to say that would be stupid, he got in return what he wanted from Sh*thead. Just like two hot g*y-brothers, when will be the wedding ? /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Now, let`s get serious. Then they moved away from that part, because even they realized that parrotting the same thing would show them even more stupid than they are. So they moved on the 'cement' controls. It didn`t took long until they fled from that field when confronted with the Flettner G-6 tests, of course they covered their retreat with the usual BS, a, it was locked, b, that was a prototype only c, it didn`t even existed. LOL. Too bad, because just right away they had to confront a first line unit G-6/G-14 with those bad-bad Flettners. Of course again they had the answers ready, it wasn`t really a Flettner tabs, but then they realized that`s just too pathetic even from them, and started to tell those are loccckkkkeedd... [eyes turn out]. ROFLOL, of course Sh*thead, you would be the first I`d ask, you know so much. At least you can lie, or wasn`t it you who in desperation posted a G-10 picture to "prove" the Ks didn`t have it ? Didn`t work m8, not that it could demolish your reputation any further.

Then he moved on, a looked hard for pictures that showed Ks from the early Wrknummer batch, most of them from JG77, w/o Flettners. And of course, he went blind denial,making up his "parking clamps" story for a change (the locky locked tabs must have been boring it seems). Still, he was a bit of a trouble, as he still didn`t gave any answer, that if the Flettners weren`t standard on Ks, despite that they are listed by

-the GLC charts,
-the Messerscmitt drawing,
-on the drawings of Prien/Rodeike,
-Otto/Radinger,
-JaPo,
-Klaus Niska,
-and also in the K-4 Handbuch.....


No less than 7 (!!!) different sources all state the same, yet Sh*thead`s conclusion is that they were never fitted! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Now of course he felt that this is just too much to be denied at one time, so he developed another pathetic theory, this time, that "G-6s were the first equipped with Flettners"... oh, really? Or is the G-6 YOU SAID that NEVER EVER HAD THEM? Sources or references? There are none, it`s something that just pours out of him, empty words again! Fact is, that aileron Flettners were developed for the K series, they were just retrotfitted to older models, just as other K goodies, tall tailwheel, aerodynamic cowling, large wheel fairings etc.

Still, he must have felt this is still not enough, too much BS, not convincing anybody. So, he came up with the ultimate "proof" : On two drawings, the size of Flettners is a few milimeters different... LOL. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif But good enough for him to parrot: no standard, no standard, lockeed, locked, locked, removed, never introduced, while spinning in a mad dervish dance, LOL.


http://vo101isegrim.piranho.com/FB-desktopweb.jpg
'Only a dead Indianer is a good Indianer!'

Vezérünk a Bátorság, K*sérµnk a Szerencse!
(Courage leads, Luck escorts us! - Historical motto of the 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)

Flight tests and other aviation performance data: http://www.pbase.com/isegrim

XyZspineZyX
10-05-2003, 11:11 AM
In defense of Taggert and Butch2K most photographic evidence seems to support that flettner tabs were RARE on ailerons.

This from judging from for instance two Bf 109K specialist works.

Messerschmitt
Bf 109K
JaPo

Messerschmitt
Bf 109K
Camouflage & Markings
JaPo

Actually with Butch2Ks comment on lack of representation in the spares manual, it is very likely that few Ks were ever produced with this tab.

Now I am for accuracy.

Give the 109s what they are due, if they show a weaker performance in some area, correct it, but if the average 109K had no aileron Flettner tabs, leave it out of the sim.

I only wish that said reasoning would count for all a/c...model the grey and average. the workhorses, not the exotics and specials.

Ruy "SPADES" Horta
http://www.xs4all.nl/~rhorta
-----------------------------
Il-2 - VEF JG 77
-----------------------------
'95-02 - WB Jagdgeschwader 53
'99-00 - DoA Jagdstaffel 18
-----------------------------
The rest is history...

http:\\www.xs4all.nl\~rhorta\brother.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-05-2003, 01:13 PM
Huck, thanks for your education background. It explains your math and data skills, and gives me a frame of reference for discussions, too. Thanks also for the Spitfire diagram. Sorry for stealing your bandwidth, but for those who don't want to scroll back:

http://home.comcast.net/~bogdandone/spit_helix.JPG


Sorry to bring this up again, but I've got a couple of points to mention about it. Even though it's for a Spitfire, the aircraft are contemporaries, and hopefully somewhat similar. The slope of pb/2V is roughly linear, but they only have data for speeds up to 295 mph. I wish they'd included a higher speed run. For the 295 mph plot, there is a slight flattening of the slope, or the value of V (velocity) is increasing a little faster than p (roll in radians/sec). Also important to note is that at 295 mph, the Spitfire pilot can't get more than about 20 deg. of aileron deflection. This is why I'm saying that the article here:

http://naca.larc.nasa.gov/reports/1941/naca-report-715/naca-report-715.pdf

can't be extrapolated to high speeds. I re-read the article but couldn't find any reference to the relationship holding true through the transonic range. Have I missed that reference in the article? The authors do mention aeroelastic effects as being one source of error not accounted for in the equation, resulting in lower test rates than predicted. This seems to be the case for the Spitfire in both deflection and rate. That the report used data for 30 deg. aileron deflection indicates to me (based on the Spitfire data) that the NACA report did in fact use lower speed data for all their aircraft in order to get a uniform 30-degree deflection among types.

Butch2k, thanks for the input on the Flettner tabs. I had gotten the feeling that they were the exception rather than the rule. Tagert, the pic you highlighted shows a tab on the aileron, but a control lock on the elevator. While the rudder tab shown earlier had an external control rod, the ailerons had rods that were anchored to the interior of the wing (this is the more usual arrangement for spring or Flettner tabs.) The rudder arrangement has a more expedient "bolted on" look to it, and may not be representative of the final version (though "final version" implies a more organized modification approach than I believe existed at that point in the war.)

Cajun76, good work. I don't know which motors you work on in the USAF, but you deserve to bend wrenches on a quality GE product (the F-110 being a personal favorite.) As far as transonic effects go, you may be right, but I don't think we're getting into critical Mach. Using the conversion chart here:

http://naca.larc.nasa.gov/reports/1943/naca-wr-l-473/

And the values of 770 kph IAS (478 mph), Standard Day conditions, and 30,000 ft. altitude (anybody have the real numbers for this test flight so I don't have to guess?) I get about 0.705 Mach. This is a little too low to have made transonic flow much of a factor. Anyone have Mcrit handy for the 109?

Flettner tabs (when fitted) would have reduced control forces, likely enough to make 2/3 stick travel possible. What we don't know is how that translated to roll rate, given real world wing torque, control flex and skin ballooning. Had the ailerons been submerged in separated turbulent flow downstream from a wing shock wave, the ailerons would have moved fairly freely, but would have produced little or no roll. I'm pretty sure the pilot would have mentioned this fact after RTB. "Mach buzz" would have been even more fun. This is where the upper and lower shock waves don't match up (they rarely do), and is more common on the elevators (which is why all-moving stabilators got so popular in the late 40's.) As one wave moves back and hits the hinge line, it produces a rapid change in pressure on one surface of the aileron, moving it. This changes the camber of that section of wing, moving the shock waves, changing the pressure distribution, and moving the aileron again. This happens very quickly and repeatedly, hence its description as a "buzz". And no, I don't believe this was a problem on the 109 (though it may have been on aircraft with other compressibility problems like the P-38, P-47, P-51 and Tempest.)

Issy, please get back on the medication. You're never very convincing, but my time spent reading your threads is inversely proportional to their scatological content.

Blotto

"Only the spirit of attack, born in a brave heart, will bring success to any fighter craft, no matter how technically advanced." - A. Galland

"Look, do you want the jets, or would you rather I slap the props back on?" - W. Messerschmitt

http://home.mindspring.com/~blottogg/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/14fsPatch.gif

XyZspineZyX
10-05-2003, 01:22 PM
Rhorta, this is an example of a factory blueprint (posted on a previous page)

http://www.f4ucorsair.com/tdata/aftfuse.jpg


It is only one page of what makes up the complete package of factory blueprints.

...........

Isegrim, you only produced DRAWINGS, and inconsistant ones at that. So that you understand the difference, when one is looking to have a house built one looks first at drawings with minimul info on the floorplan. When one builds that house, one uses BLUEPRINTS with all the details required for construction of said house. What you have posted are 'floor plans' drawings.

In your pic of 330130, why is it that what you claim to be a Flettner tab is seen on the upper surface of the wing when the linkage for the Flettner tab is really on the bottom of the wing?

Notice that 330255 from the same W.Nr. series does not have any Flettner aileron Flettner tabs.



Message Edited on 10/05/0307:49AM by roachclip

XyZspineZyX
10-05-2003, 01:29 PM
My bad. Upon further review of the videotape... er pictures, I think Tagert and roachclip are right. The aileron looks to have a control clamp on it, too (upper and lower surfaces.) The G-6/G-14 pic is a better shot of a Flettner tab.

Blotto

"Only the spirit of attack, born in a brave heart, will bring success to any fighter craft, no matter how technically advanced." - A. Galland

"Look, do you want the jets, or would you rather I slap the props back on?" - W. Messerschmitt

http://home.mindspring.com/~blottogg/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/14fsPatch.gif

XyZspineZyX
10-05-2003, 02:12 PM
Thanks for the GE endorsment, but my entry scores were higher than those for straight jets. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif I bend wrenches on the Rolls Royce T56-A-7 and -15 turboprop engines on the C-130 Hercules. Just one quick thing however, the reference I used stated transonic effects can be experianced from 0.6-1.2 Mach. I would think, though, that to get those effects starting at 0.6 would require a rather thick wing with pronounced chanber to get the relative airflow over the top of the wing supersonic.

Good hunting,
Cajun76

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."
-Aristotle

XyZspineZyX
10-05-2003, 02:38 PM
Cajun76, that's okay, the Herc guys need closer watching than the Viper drivers anyway.

Yes you're right. At 0.6 Mach you'd need a pretty large camber to get the local flow supersonic. Possibly around the canopy, though not a factor for control obviously. I don't know what the Mcrit for the 109 was, but I'm guessing it's in the 0.75-0.85 range.

Blotto

"Only the spirit of attack, born in a brave heart, will bring success to any fighter craft, no matter how technically advanced." - A. Galland

"Look, do you want the jets, or would you rather I slap the props back on?" - W. Messerschmitt

http://home.mindspring.com/~blottogg/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/14fsPatch.gif

Edited for spelling

Message Edited on 10/05/0307:40AM by Blottogg

XyZspineZyX
10-05-2003, 04:36 PM
More information here,

http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=94380&perpage=50&highlight=109 roll&pagenumber=2

The NACA roll data for FW190, Spit and Typhoon comes from the R.A.E and in the case of the FW190 (I have a copy of the report in front of me) taken at speeds between 200mph A.S.I and 400mph A.S.I. R.A.E Technical Note No.Aero 1231 goes on to state,

"On all these aircraft instrumental records of rolling performance have been obtained at the R.A.E similar to those under discussion for the F.W.190."

Those being 10,000ft and 50lbs stick force

Neil.

XyZspineZyX
10-05-2003, 05:14 PM
Roachclip,

Although these are original technical drawings, they are not blue prints for the purpose of exact measurements for manufacturing.

Granted they are very nice (!!) and as such better than third part post war linedrawings, but again these are not factory blue prints.

And don't get me wrong, I'd be happy to have the complete set and they would be helpfull and be more than accurate enough for the purpose of flight sim development.

Ruy "SPADES" Horta
http://www.xs4all.nl/~rhorta
-----------------------------
Il-2 - VEF JG 77
-----------------------------
'95-02 - WB Jagdgeschwader 53
'99-00 - DoA Jagdstaffel 18
-----------------------------
The rest is history...

http:\\www.xs4all.nl\~rhorta\brother.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-05-2003, 05:23 PM
Vo101_Isegrim wrote:
- Roflol! The comedy becomes more and more fun!
-
- Sh*thead and A$$licker Tongue tells the one and only
- truth, ROFLOL.
-
- They indeed have good fantasies, as they are now
- developing about the 50th theory about why 109 were
- bad bad bad ! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
-
- Intitially they said a 109E is the same thing as a
- 109G or K. It took a mere couple of hundred posts to
- beat into the brain hussars that they are
- different... LOL. Of course good old A$$licker
- Tongue does what any honest $$licker Tongue should
- do. Not to say that would be stupid, he got in
- return what he wanted from Sh*thead. Just like two
- hot g*y-brothers, when will be the wedding ? /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
-
- Now, let`s get serious. Then they moved away from
- that part, because even they realized that
- parrotting the same thing would show them even more
- stupid than they are. So they moved on the 'cement'
- controls. It didn`t took long until they fled from
- that field when confronted with the Flettner G-6
- tests, of course they covered their retreat with the
- usual BS, a, it was locked, b, that was a prototype
- only c, it didn`t even existed. LOL. Too bad,
- because just right away they had to confront a first
- line unit G-6/G-14 with those bad-bad Flettners. Of
- course again they had the answers ready, it wasn`t
- really a Flettner tabs, but then they realized
- that`s just too pathetic even from them, and started
- to tell those are loccckkkkeedd... [eyes turn out].
- ROFLOL, of course Sh*thead, you would be the first
- I`d ask, you know so much. At least you can lie, or
- wasn`t it you who in desperation posted a G-10
- picture to "prove" the Ks didn`t have it ? Didn`t
- work m8, not that it could demolish your reputation
- any further.
-
- Then he moved on, a looked hard for pictures that
- showed Ks from the early Wrknummer batch, most of
- them from JG77, w/o Flettners. And of course, he
- went blind denial,making up his "parking clamps"
- story for a change (the locky locked tabs must have
- been boring it seems). Still, he was a bit of a
- trouble, as he still didn`t gave any answer, that if
- the Flettners weren`t standard on Ks, despite that
- they are listed by
-
--the GLC charts,
--the Messerscmitt drawing,
--on the drawings of Prien/Rodeike,
--Otto/Radinger,
--JaPo,
--Klaus Niska,
--and also in the K-4 Handbuch.....
-
-
- No less than 7 (!!!) different sources all state the
- same, yet Sh*thead`s conclusion is that they were
- never fitted! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
-
- Now of course he felt that this is just too much to
- be denied at one time, so he developed another
- pathetic theory, this time, that "G-6s were the
- first equipped with Flettners"... oh, really? Or is
- the G-6 YOU SAID that NEVER EVER HAD THEM? Sources
- or references? There are none, it`s something that
- just pours out of him, empty words again! Fact is,
- that aileron Flettners were developed for the K
- series, they were just retrotfitted to older models,
- just as other K goodies, tall tailwheel, aerodynamic
- cowling, large wheel fairings etc.
-
- Still, he must have felt this is still not enough,
- too much BS, not convincing anybody. So, he came up
- with the ultimate "proof" : On two drawings, the
- size of Flettners is a few milimeters different...
- LOL. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif But good enough for
- him to parrot: no standard, no standard, lockeed,
- locked, locked, removed, never introduced, while
- spinning in a mad dervish dance, LOL.

You know... I was going to respond to this line by line.. Just to show you your errors.. but I think you did a fine job of that all by yourself.. Like the 109 in a hard fast dive.. Iggie is going in and cant pull out!



<div style="background:#222222;color:#e0e0e0;font-size:24px;font-weight:bold;font-face:courier;"> TAGERT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If WAR was not the ANSWER.. Than what the H was your QUESTION?
</div>
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=forum
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=discussion

XyZspineZyX
10-05-2003, 06:11 PM
Rhorta, the example posted IS an example of a blueprint, though not one with dimensions and other necessary info required for constructing a component.

The example is a part of the Vought blueprint package required in the construction and assembly of the Corsair.

XyZspineZyX
10-05-2003, 06:24 PM
Blottogg wrote:
- Cajun76, that's okay, the Herc guys need closer
- watching than the Viper drivers anyway.
-
- Yes you're right. At 0.6 Mach you'd need a pretty
- large camber to get the local flow supersonic.
- Possibly around the canopy, though not a factor for
- control obviously. I don't know what the Mcrit for
- the 109 was, but I'm guessing it's in the 0.75-0.85
- range.
-
- Blotto

http://109lair.hobbyvista.com/index1024.htm

You are right, if you take a look at the report about the tall fin in divetests on late 109s there.
In this tests they mentioned a reached mach number of 0.805 in 7km altitude- but this was probably not the max mach number, or at least they reported neither troubles nor that this was the max machnumber. Pity the test is in german, very interesting to read, but hard to translate.. to hard for me- sorry.
Also Interesting, but not belonging to this thread they started to pull out of this dive at 4500m and leaveld at around 2750m, without using the trim, if it was set to the right value/deg. before. Or with a wrong setting it was not a problem to pull out with using of trim but then it was dangerous cause of a fast blackout- they had to push the stick forward then while leaveling...

JG53 PikAs Abbuzze
I./Gruppe

http://www.jg53-pikas.de/
http://mitglied.lycos.de/p123/Ani_pikasbanner_langsam.gif

XyZspineZyX
10-05-2003, 09:34 PM
Well, we have seen the faul attempts of 109 bashers, and their true face.

We have corrected their many mistakes and showed the errors of their ignorance nicely.

We have showed them 109E is not a 109F, G, or K, of which tagert etc. were absolutely not aware of.

We have showed them all the design changes they were unawere of regarding the controls and wing structure, of which tagert etc. were absolutely not aware of.

We have showed documents that proved the real roll speed of 109F/G/K.

We have shown pilot opinions which all underlined this.

We have showed them that the 109G`s roll rate was excellent, and required only minimal stick forces compared to other a/c, like P-47, P-51 and especially the Spitfire.

We have crushed their attempts to make up qoutes and re-write history.

We have corrected their beliefs regarding the first combat appearance of the 109K, of which tagert etc. were absolutely not aware of.

We have utterly crushed their attempts to "prove" Flettners were never used on 109s. Originally they said they were never used; then they said they were used on prototypes only, then they said they were used on Ks, but not on Gs.

We have showed the use of Flettners on Bf109G.

We have crushed tagert`s attempt to make up pictures of Ks, trying to sell G-10s as K-4.

We have crushed their mutliple attempts where they tried to make up stories about how these were "no longer used".

We have showed actual pictures of Bf 109Gs and Ks, we have showed actual factory drawings of 109K, which showed the Flettners being used clearly.

We have reffered to the BF 109K-4 manual, which list the Flettner tabs on ailerons.

We have shown with exact calculatios the possible high speed roll rate of 109s at extreme airspeeds, and they show excellent.


109 bashers did none of this.

They didn`t show any document, drawing, they didn`t know the plane construction itself, they falsified pictures, and the words of pilots. They changed their arguement constantly, always denied every single fact until they were forced to accept them under the weight of overwhelming evidence. Then, they posed as if they were always saying that; but we well remember as tagert denied ANY kind of use of Flettners, any change in the design. Later he changed all that, and posed as if he would have always said that. Miserable indeed.

Still, 109 bashers could provide NO SINGLE, again NOTHING to prove the "poor" roll rate at high speed. Their tools are fabrication, lies, manipulation and denial, endless repeating of that.


Due to the overwhelming evidence on hand, and the total lack of it on the other, one can only conclude that that the Bf 109 from the F series onwards had excellent roll rate, which it kept well into the high speed limit, thanks to the very rigid structure of it`s wing, solid aileron control, redesign of the ailerons themselves, and the use of Flettner tabs on late war machines.


http://vo101isegrim.piranho.com/FB-desktopweb.jpg
'Only a dead Indianer is a good Indianer!'

Vezérünk a Bátorság, K*sérµnk a Szerencse!
(Courage leads, Luck escorts us! - Historical motto of the 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)

Flight tests and other aviation performance data: http://www.pbase.com/isegrim

XyZspineZyX
10-05-2003, 09:40 PM
Vo101_Isegrim wrote:
-
-
- Well, we have seen the faul attempts of 109 bashers,
- and their true face.
-
- We have corrected their many mistakes and showed the
- errors of their ignorance nicely.
-
- We have showed them 109E is not a 109F, G, or K, of
- which tagert etc. were absolutely not aware of.
-
- We have showed them all the design changes they were
- unawere of regarding the controls and wing
- structure, of which tagert etc. were absolutely not
- aware of.
-
- We have showed documents that proved the real roll
- speed of 109F/G/K.
-
- We have shown pilot opinions which all underlined
- this.
-
- We have showed them that the 109G`s roll rate was
- excellent, and required only minimal stick forces
- compared to other a/c, like P-47, P-51 and
- especially the Spitfire.
-
-
- We have crushed their attempts to make up qoutes and
- re-write history.
-
- We have corrected their beliefs regarding the first
- combat appearance of the 109K, of which tagert etc.
- were absolutely not aware of.
-
- We have utterly crushed their attempts to "prove"
- Flettners were never used on 109s. Originally they
- said they were never used; then they said they were
- used on prototypes only, then they said they were
- used on Ks, but not on Gs.
-
- We have showed the use of Flettners on Bf109G.
-
- We have crushed tagert`s attempt to make up pictures
- of Ks, trying to sell G-10s as K-4.
-
-
- We have crushed their mutliple attempts where they
- tried to make up stories about how these were "no
- longer used".
-
- We have showed actual pictures of Bf 109Gs and Ks,
- we have showed actual factory drawings of 109K,
- which showed the Flettners being used clearly.
-
- We have reffered to the BF 109K-4 manual, which list
- the Flettner tabs on ailerons.
-
- We have shown with exact calculatios the possible
- high speed roll rate of 109s at extreme airspeeds,
- and they show excellent.
-
-
- 109 bashers did none of this.
-
- They didn`t show any document, drawing, they didn`t
- know the plane construction itself, they falsified
- pictures, and the words of pilots. They changed
- their arguement constantly, always denied every
- single fact until they were forced to accept them
- under the weight of overwhelming evidence. Then,
- they posed as if they were always saying that; but
- we well remember as tagert denied ANY kind of use of
- Flettners, any change in the design. Later he
- changed all that, and posed as if he would have
- always said that. Miserable indeed.
-
- Still, 109 bashers could provide NO SINGLE, again
- NOTHING to prove the "poor" roll rate at high speed.
- Their tools are fabrication, lies, manipulation and
- denial, endless repeating of that.
-
-
- Due to the overwhelming evidence on hand, and the
- total lack of it on the other, one can only conclude
- that that the Bf 109 from the F series onwards had
- excellent roll rate, which it kept well into the
- high speed limit, thanks to the very rigid structure
- of it`s wing, solid aileron control, redesign of the
- ailerons themselves, and the use of Flettner tabs on
- late war machines.


WOW kind of has that IRAQ'ie Minister feel to it! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif


<div style="background:#222222;color:#e0e0e0;font-size:24px;font-weight:bold;font-face:courier;"> TAGERT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If WAR was not the ANSWER.. Than what the H was your QUESTION?
</div>
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=forum
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=discussion

XyZspineZyX
10-05-2003, 09:42 PM
Show us your documents that prove poor roll rate of 109 tagert.


The big empty words of you - we have a surplus of that already.

http://vo101isegrim.piranho.com/FB-desktopweb.jpg
'Only a dead Indianer is a good Indianer!'

Vezérünk a Bátorság, K*sérµnk a Szerencse!
(Courage leads, Luck escorts us! - Historical motto of the 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)

Flight tests and other aviation performance data: http://www.pbase.com/isegrim

XyZspineZyX
10-05-2003, 09:45 PM
As for the reality :

"A more precise Messerschmitt document (Rollwendigkeit 109 F [Me 109G]) on the matter shows roll rate as following:

425 km/h - 84 deg./sec.
480 km/h - 95 deg./sec.
550 km/h - 109 deg./sec.

HaNS 109"

based on :

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/109F_rollrate.jpg



Facts are better than fantasies.

http://vo101isegrim.piranho.com/FB-desktopweb.jpg
'Only a dead Indianer is a good Indianer!'

Vezérünk a Bátorság, K*sérµnk a Szerencse!
(Courage leads, Luck escorts us! - Historical motto of the 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)

Flight tests and other aviation performance data: http://www.pbase.com/isegrim

XyZspineZyX
10-05-2003, 09:54 PM
Another nail the basher`s coffin:

Linear increase with speed is absolutely possible with good aileron design, provided they could be deflected against the force of air.

As the NACA noted regarding Spitfire VA ailerons effectivness:

"The effectiveness of the ailerons increased almost linearly with deflection all the way up to maximum position. The value of pb/2V obtained for a given ailerons deflection was nearly the same in speeds and conditions tested. It may be concluded, therefore, that there was very little reduction in aileron effectiveness either by separation of flow near minimum speeds or by wing twist at high speed."

More here :

http://forums.ubi.com/messages/message_view-topic.asp?name=us_il2sturmovik_gd&id=yxyaf



The limitation factor on the Spitfire was not it`s reduced ailerons effectiness, but the pilot`s inability to deflect them because of high stick forces (this proved to be preventive above 130 mph). IF he could deflect them still, he could obtain linearly greater roll rates (up to a certain point).

Bf 109F/G/K had no such problems. 80-90 degree/sec roll rate could be obtain with just 20 lbs stickforce at 450 kph. That`s only half the available force. There was plenty of reserve force to keep the ailrons deflected.

Bf 109s with Flettner tabs show this ability well, being able to deflect the ailerons 2/3s even at 770 kph.

Wing twist was neither a problem with the 109s rigid wings, which were showed similiar strenght vs. torsion as much heaver US design, to the surprise of US engineers.



http://vo101isegrim.piranho.com/FB-desktopweb.jpg
'Only a dead Indianer is a good Indianer!'

Vezérünk a Bátorság, K*sérµnk a Szerencse!
(Courage leads, Luck escorts us! - Historical motto of the 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)

Flight tests and other aviation performance data: http://www.pbase.com/isegrim

XyZspineZyX
10-05-2003, 10:06 PM
Hmm, where did the bashers suddenly go ? Funny, I noticed that, whenever the facts show up, they suddenly disappear. Strange. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

http://vo101isegrim.piranho.com/FB-desktopweb.jpg
'Only a dead Indianer is a good Indianer!'

Vezérünk a Bátorság, K*sérµnk a Szerencse!
(Courage leads, Luck escorts us! - Historical motto of the 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)

Flight tests and other aviation performance data: http://www.pbase.com/isegrim

XyZspineZyX
10-06-2003, 12:13 AM
"Now I am for accuracy.

Give the 109s what they are due, if they show a weaker performance in some area, correct it, but if the average 109K had no aileron Flettner tabs, leave it out of the sim."

..

Nyup.. nyup..

We have in the game...

planes flying with MK103s
four different Mig-3 variants
an experimental rocket plane
La-7s armed with three Beresin 20mms
field-modded Hurricanes and P-40s
Yak-9K which was produced only a handful..


So..

What was the reason that the Flettner Tabs should be left out of modelling again? I don't really understand.






-----------
Due to pressure from the moderators, the sig returns to..

"It's the machine, not the man." - Materialist, and proud of it!

Message Edited on 10/06/0308:14AM by kweassa

XyZspineZyX
10-06-2003, 12:23 AM
What is with that washed out fuzzy document you posted goulash brain?

Typical of goulash brain that he posts something that requires one to have to Superman vision to read.

XyZspineZyX
10-06-2003, 01:36 AM
Blottogg wrote:
- Sorry to bring this up again, but I've got a couple
- of points to mention about it. Even though it's for
- a Spitfire, the aircraft are contemporaries, and
- hopefully somewhat similar. The slope of pb/2V is
- roughly linear, but they only have data for speeds
- up to 295 mph. I wish they'd included a higher
- speed run. For the 295 mph plot, there is a slight
- flattening of the slope, or the value of V
- (velocity) is increasing a little faster than p
- (roll in radians/sec). Also important to note is
- that at 295 mph, the Spitfire pilot can't get more
- than about 20 deg. of aileron deflection. This is
- why I'm saying that the article here:
-
- <a
- href="http://naca.larc.nasa.gov/reports/1941/naca-
- report-715/naca-report-715.pdf"
- target=_blank>http://naca.larc.nasa.gov/reports/19
- 41/naca-report-715/naca-report-715.pdf</a>
-
-
- can't be extrapolated to high speeds. I re-read the
- article but couldn't find any reference to the
- relationship holding true through the transonic
- range.

That's my oppinion also: one CANNOT apply that formula in transonic range for accurate results.

But we can do it up to 400mph, which is well below transonic range. So we can apply the formula for 400mph and 2/3 aileron deflection (we know for sure that it was possible) and get a good estimation of Bf109 at high speeds.

Do you agree?


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
10-06-2003, 03:23 PM
kweassa wrote:
- "Now I am for accuracy.
-
- Give the 109s what they are due, if they show a
- weaker performance in some area, correct it, but if
- the average 109K had no aileron Flettner tabs, leave
- it out of the sim."
-
-
- ..
-
-
- Nyup.. nyup..
-
-
- We have in the game...
-
-
- planes flying with MK103s
-
- four different Mig-3 variants
-
- an experimental rocket plane
-
- La-7s armed with three Beresin 20mms
-
- field-modded Hurricanes and P-40s
-
- Yak-9K which was produced only a handful..
-
-
-
- So..
-
-
- What was the reason that the Flettner Tabs should
- be left out of modelling again? I don't really
- understand.

In this case you are barking up the wrong tree, since I would consider myself fairly interested in the Luftwaffe (understatement) otoh I am interested in a hardcore realistic sim, across the board, meaning grey workhorses and no exotics.

So for all means remove the MK 103s, Russian Rocket planes and MiG-3Us etc etc etc

Ruy "SPADES" Horta
http://www.xs4all.nl/~rhorta
-----------------------------
Il-2 - VEF JG 77
-----------------------------
'95-02 - WB Jagdgeschwader 53
'99-00 - DoA Jagdstaffel 18
-----------------------------
The rest is history...

http:\\www.xs4all.nl\~rhorta\brother.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-06-2003, 03:28 PM
Vo101_Isegrim wrote:
-
-
- Hmm, where did the bashers suddenly go ? Funny, I
- noticed that, whenever the facts show up, they
- suddenly disappear. Strange.


Yes, where have you disappeared to in the Flettner tab thread by tagert? /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Did you not like Butch2k's latest post?

XyZspineZyX
10-06-2003, 04:11 PM
Isegrim,

Thank you for finally posting a piece of documentary data. Perhaps this discussion can now move ahead. Can you provide a little background information on when/where/how physical a/c test was performed?


Blutarski

XyZspineZyX
10-06-2003, 04:14 PM
Tagert wrote:
- WOW kind of has that IRAQ'ie Minister feel to it!

..... More like a Nuremburg rally. I'm beginning to worry about this guy.



Blutarski

XyZspineZyX
10-16-2003, 02:58 PM
"sigh" *bump*


Huckebein_FW wrote:
- Blottogg, you I enjoy watching you waisting your
- time copying the whole article.
-
- To answer you very shortly fabric covered ailerons
- of Fw190 managed to give it the best roll rate of
- all ww2 fighters. And the torsion box is not just 2
- spars close together, making the regular 2 spar wing
- stronger. Torsion box is exactly what the name says,
- a box, 2 vertical spars connected by 2 horizontal
- spars, making it stronger than a simple 2 spar wing.
- American designers could not use it because they
- opted for wing tanks.
-
- <img
- src="http://www.bath.ac.uk/~en0yt/wings/torsion%20
- box.gif">
-
-
- Now if you want to prove that torsion box is less
- stronger than the simple 2 spars config, go ahead,
- prove your engineering skills. I could use a good
- laugh.
-
-
- Now getting back to the point:
-
- pb/2V = (Cldelta/k) [(k)(Delta a)/(114.6)(Clp)]
-
- NACA gives the formula this way because from testing
- they have the following values: Cldelta/k, k and
- Clp.
- But you can write the above this way:
-
- pb/2V = ((Cldelta)/(114.6)(Clp)) * (Delta a)
-
- which gives the linear dependence between helix
- angle and total aileron deflection, confirmed by
- test flights
-
- So the basic calculation: 2/3 aileron deflection at
- 770km/h gives aprox the same roll rate as full
- aileron deflection at 500km/h, which is aprox 80
- deg/sec, is correct.
-
- The german test pilot who deflected the ailerons to
- 2/3 deflection at 770km/h obtained aprox 80deg/sec
- roll rate. I don't think that he was an Olympic
- champion weightlifter/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
-
-
- <center> <img
- src="http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-m
- ain.jpg"> </center>
-
- Message Edited on 10/01/03 08:19AM by
- Huckebein_FW



Good hunting,
Cajun76

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."
-Aristotle


Good hunting,
Cajun76

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."
-Aristotle

XyZspineZyX
10-16-2003, 09:17 PM
Bump! Page 3 for the box spar Huckbein never drew, by hand on on a PC.

Good hunting,
Cajun76

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."
-Aristotle

XyZspineZyX
10-16-2003, 11:18 PM
Isegrim,


I've asked before, but when do you plan to provide the citation information on this 109F roll rate data which you presented? Report number? Pilot? Test date? a/c Wk Nummer? Anything? I'd like to see something before accepting these figures completely.

If these are just more theoretical calculations from anothe enthusiast, they no not live up to the definition of "facts".


Blutarski



Vo101_Isegrim wrote:
-
-
- As for the reality :
-
- "A more precise Messerschmitt document
- (Rollwendigkeit 109 F [Me 109G]) on the matter shows
- roll rate as following:
-
- 425 km/h - 84 deg./sec.
- 480 km/h - 95 deg./sec.
- 550 km/h - 109 deg./sec.
-
- HaNS 109"
-
- based on :
-
<img
- src="http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/109F_rol
- lrate.jpg">
-
-
-
- Facts are better than fantasies.
-
- <img
- src="http://vo101isegrim.piranho.com/FB-desktopweb
- .jpg">
- 'Only a dead Indianer is a good Indianer!'
-
- Vezérünk a Bátorság, K*sérµnk a Szerencse!
- (Courage leads, Luck escorts us! - Historical motto
- of the 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)
-
- Flight tests and other aviation performance data:
- http://www.pbase.com/isegrim

XyZspineZyX
10-16-2003, 11:22 PM
Huckebein_FW wrote:
Torsion box is exactly what the name says,
- a box, 2 vertical spars connected by 2 horizontal
- spars, making it stronger than a simple 2 spar wing.
- American designers could not use it because they
- opted for wing tanks.

Not completely true, sir. Go here -


http://rwebs.net/avhistory/history/p-47.htm


There is nary a wing tank to be seen.



Blutarski