PDA

View Full Version : Post War Review of the Me-109 series



Pages : [1] 2

XyZspineZyX
09-13-2003, 03:55 AM
GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS:
------------------------
The characteristics of the two Me-109 models of historical interest, the "E" and the "G". The E formed the backbone of the German fighter strength during the Battle of Britain, its opposition being the Spitfire I and Hurricane I. The "G" was the prevailing type in 1944 during the Battle of Europe and its main opponents were the Spit Fourteen, the thunderbolt and the Mustang. So it is worth while to explore more fully the characteristics of the me-109 because it was the the most highly propagandized. While it was a worthy opponent in 1939 it was outclassed by 1942; by 1944 it was manifestly obsolete.

An intact me-109E with wing cannons was captured by the French in the summer of 1940 and was flown to England for flight test and evaluation. There were three stages of development prior to the G.
First was an early version of the 109 flying in 1938 with a 670 hp Jumo 210 engine, a fixed pitch wooden prop and two synchronized guns. Second was a variable pitch two-bladed prop model and the addition of two wing guns.
First was the E model, with a far more powerful engine, the DB601, which was an inverted V-12 of 1100 hp with direct fuel injection driving a 3-blade variable pitch prop. Its wing structure was beefed up, but in the process of "designing" in the additional engine and structural weight, the engineers screwed up the center of gravity, and 60 pounds of PERMANENT BALLAST had to be added to the rear of the fuselage to get the C.G. back. As a pilot and an engineer I can only be sympathetic with the 109 pilots. Who needs that kind of millstone around his neck in a fighter? Pilots had NOTHING to say about the design faults of airplanes in Germany. They had DAMN LITTLE to say about them in England or in this country, at that time. Designer didn't have to fly their mistakes; they just produced them. Most of them didn't know how to fly and didn't want to learn, but more about that later.

In size the Me-109, all models, was the smallest fighter produced by Germany or the Allies. That gave it a high wing loading for that time, about 32 lb/sp ft for the E. The Spit I and Hurricane I were about 25 lb/sq ft at their normal combat weight. The 109-G was about 38 lb/sq ft as compared to 35 lbs for the p-51-B.

The fastest "G" subtype was the G-10, capable of 344 mph at SL or 428 mph at 24,000 ft. with a meager range of 350 miles and an endurance of 55 minutes, but it wasn't introduced until the spring of 1944. Too little, too late, and still lacking in range and endurance.

GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS: ENGINE AND PROPELLER:
---------------------------------------------
In principle, the DB601 and 605 series engines were the same as the Allison or Merlin, except they were inverted and had direct fuel injection; otherwise they were 12 cylinder, 60 degree Vee, glycol cooled engines. the prop was a 10.2 foot, 3 blade variable pitch mechanism of VDM design. Here is another major difference between their design approach and ours. The pitch on the Me-109 prop could be set at any value between 22.5 and 90 degrees, a visual pitch indicator being provided for the pilot. There was no provision for automatically governing the rpm. We did just the opposite, using a constant speed governor and flying by a constant tachometer indication of rpm. For any flight condition the rpm remained constant. We did not know, or care, what the blade angle setting was.

GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS: WINGS AND CONTROLS:
--------------------------------------------
The wings had straight leading and trailing edge taper and no geometric twist from root to tip. The airfoil section had a 2 percent camber with the maximum thickness at the 30% chord position. The E thickness ratio was 14.8 percent at the root and 10.5 percent at the tip. all of that was standard design practice for the mid-1930s. What was new for fighter design was the leading edge slats which ran 46% of the span. There was no damping device fitted to the slat mechanism, they'd BAND open at 120 mph with the airplane clean or at 100 mph with gear and flaps down, Each control surface was mass balanced. Another unusual feature was that as the flaps were lowered, the ailerons automatically drooped, coming down 11 degrees for the full flap movement of 42 degrees.

There were no movable trim tab controls on the ailerons or rudder, although both had fixed tabs that could be bent on the ground. Pitch trim was affected by changing the stabilizer incidence through a range of 12 degrees. The design scheme was that both the flaps and the stabilizer were coordinated mechanistically from two 12 inch wheels mounted concentrically on the left side of the pilot's seat. By twirling both wheels in the same direction the pilot could automatically compensate for the change of pitch trim due to lowering or raising the flaps. Differential coordination could be set by moving one wheel relative to the other.

GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS: PERFORMANCE EVALUATION:
------------------------------------------------
The first surprise you would get in planning a test hop with the Me-109 is that you're limited to about an hour with some aerobatics at combat power, because the internal fuel capacity is only 88 gallons; with a drop tank, the "G" carried a total of 154 gallons. I'll never understand whey the fuel capacity designed in Liftoff fighters was so limited. It was a major design deficiency that contributed to their loss of the air war, but even more puzzling is the fact that it could have been quickly changed for the better anytime from 1940 onward, but it wasn't.

Takeoff was best done with 30 degrees of flaps. The throttle could be opened quickly without loading or choking up the engine. In fact, the Daimler Benz engine was the best thing about that airplane. The stick had to be HELD HARD FORWARD to get the tail up, and it was advisable to let the airplane fly itself of. If it was pulled off at low speed the left wing would not respond and on applying aileron the wing would lift and fall again with the aileron snatching a little. If no attempt was made to pull it off quickly, the takeoff run was short and the initial climb good.

The absence of a rudder trim control in the cockpit was a bad feature at speeds able cruise or in dives above 300 mph the pilot needed a VERY HEAVE FOOT on the port rudder pedal for trimmed flight with no sideslip which is ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL FOR GUNNERY. The pilot's left leg quickly tired while keeping this load on, and this affected his ability to put on more left rudder for a turn at 300 mph or above. CONSEQUENTLY, AT HIGH SPEEDS, THE 109 COULD TURN FAR MORE READILY TO THE RIGHT THAN TO THE LEFT.

FLIGHTING QUALITIES:
--------------------
A series of mock dogfight were conducted by the British in addition to flight test and the following was revealed:

FLIGHTING QUALITIES: Dives
--------------------------
If the airplane was trimmed for level flight, a heavy push on the stick was needed to hold it in a dive at 400 mph. If it was trimmed into the dive, recovery was difficult unless the trim wheel was wound back, due to the excessive heaviness of the elevator forces.

FLIGHTING QUALITIES: Ailerons
-----------------------------
At low speed, the ailerons control was good, response brisk. As speed increased the ailerons became TOO HEAVY but the response was good up to 200mph. Between 200 mph and 300 mph they became UNPLEASANT. Over 300 mph they became IMPOSSIBLE. At 400 mph the stick FELT LIKE IT WAS SET IN A BUCKET OF CEMENT. A pilot exerting all his strength could not apply more than ONE FIFTH aileron at 400 mph; that's 5 degrees up and 3 degree down. The aileron situation at high combat speeds might be summarized in the following way:

1) Due to the cramped cockpit a pilot could only apply about 40 pounds side force on the stick as compared to 60 pounds or more possible inf he had more elbow room.
2) Messerschmitt also PENALIZED the pilot by designing in an unusually small stick top travel of plus or minus 4 inches, giving very poor mechanical advantage between pilot and aileron.
3) At 400 mph with 40 pound side force and ONLY one fifth aileron displaced, it required 4 SECONDS to get into a 45 degree ROLL or BANK. That IMMEDIATELY CLASSIFIES THE AIRPLANE AS BEING UNMANAGEABLE AND UNACCEPTABLE AS A FIGHTER.

The very bad maneuverability at high speeds of the Me-109 quickly became KNOWN to the RAF pilots in 1940. On many locations 109 pilots were LED TO SELF DESTRUCTION when on the tail of a Hurricane or Spitefire at MODERATE or LOW altitudes. The RAF pilot would do a snappy half roll and "split ess" pull out, from say 3000 feet. In that heat and confusion of the movement the 109 pilot would follow, only to discover that he DIDN'T HAVE ENOUGH ALTITUDE TO RECOVER DUE TO HIS HEAVY ELEVATOR FORCES and go straight into the ground or the Channel without a shot being fired.

FLIGHTING QUALITIES: Turning Radius
-----------------------------------
At full throttle, at 12,000 feet, the minimum turning radius without loss of altitude was about 890 feet for the Me-109E with its wing loading of 32 pound per square foot. The corresponding figure for the Spit I or Hurricane was about 690 feet with a wing loading of 25 pounds.

FLIGHTING QUALITIES: Summary
----------------------------
*GOOD POINTS
1) Reasonable top speed and good rate of climb to 20,000 feet.
2) Engine did not cut out under negative "g" also reliable.
3) Good control response at low speeds.
4) Easy stall, not precipitous.

*BAD POINTS
1) Ailerons and elevator far too heavy at high speed.
2) Poor turning radius.
3) Absence of rudder trim control in cockpit.
4) Aileron snatch (grabbing -- uneven airflow) when slats opened.
5) Cockpit too cramped.
6) Visibility poor from cockpit.
7) range and endurance inadequate.

While the 109 may have been a WORTHY OPPONENT in the Spanish Civil War or during the Battle of France in early 1940, it became a MARGINAL airplane against the Spits during the attack on Britain in September of that year. by 1942 , even with the appearance of the "G" it was definitely OBSOLETE. However, the Germans contained to produce it as the BACKBONE of the Liftoff fighter forces. The attitude of the Nazi high command was that THIS IS GOING TO BE A QUICK "BLITZ" WAR and if they lost three 109s for every Spitfire shot down, that was acceptable. In fact, in 1940 the official policy was laid down that the development of all aircraft types requiring more that 6 months for completion was PROHIBITED. They'd turn out the existing design like hot cakes and swamp the RAF with production

That doesn't say much for any charitable concern they should have had for the unnecessary loss of pilots caused by going into combat with a SUBSTANDARD AIRPLANE. But, after all, no one has eve said that the Fuehrer and Goering had any anxiety about their pilots or troops. Quite the contrary, the record of history shows that they had NONE.

Furthermore, no designer in that period would pretend that he could stretch the combat effectiveness of a fighter for 7 YEARS. 1935 to 1942, without MAJOR changes in power plant o aerodynamics, or better yet, going to a new design. Technology in design in than era was changing too fast. The reader might well say, "The Spitfire was certainly a long line of fighters, about 10 years, how come?"

The Spitfire was an AERODYNAMICALLY CLEAN AIRPLANE to START WITH, having a total drag coefficient of 0.021 at cruise. The Me-109 had a coefficient of 0.036; drag coefficients are the measure of an airplanes's EFFICIENCY and of the horsepower REQUIRED to HAUL 'EM AROUND. Like golf scores, the LOWER the BETTER, and NO FUDGING.

The British, in particular the staff at Vickers Supermarine, HAD DONE THEIR HOMEWORK in aerodynamics and put out a CLEAN airplane that had the potential of LONGEVITY and increased performance. They had only to wait for the Rolls-Royce to pump up the horsepower of the Merlin, which they did, by going from 790 hp in 1934 to well over 2,000 hp by 1945. The Merlin, in my opinion, was the best achievement in mechanical engineering in the fist half of the century.

Messerschmitt practically IGNORED THE SUBJECT OF LOW DRAG aerodynamics and ONE CAN TELL THAT by and inspection of the 109E or G. The fact is evident even in close-up photographs. IT WAS AERODYNAMICALLY THE MOT INEFFICIENT FIGHTER OF ITS TIME. That's puzzling thing when one realizes that much of the original work on t high speed drag and turbulent surface friction was done in Germany in the 20s and 30s. Messerschmitt was surrounded by it. Further, the work in England and the U.S. in this field was in the open literature, at least until 1938.

I also suspect, again from the record of history, that WILDLY MESSERSCHMITT WAS TOO BUSY BECOMING A DIRECTOR of Messerschmitt A.G. to concentrate on IMPROVING his status as an INGENIEUR.

Having going this far, let me carry this affront to Messerschmitt's engineering reputation one step further.

An airplane factory can get things doe awfully fast, in any country and in any language, once the engineers and sheet metal benders understand what is wanted. every factory has a development shot or its equivalent, which is a full scale model or prototype shop with 100 or 200 old pros in every skill. Having that many coffee drinkers, pipe smokers and yarn spinners around on the payroll, let's clobber 'em with a bundle of shop drawing on a clean up of the Me-109. Object: to make it a 400 mph plus airplane. Time... 30 days. The information and techniques required are currently available as of 1940. It's all written up in unclassified reports.

1) Cancel the camouflage paint and go to smooth bar metal. Besides the weight, about 50 pounds, the grain size is too large when it dries and it causes turbulent friction over the entire airplane surface. That may take a phone call to the brass. They're emotional about paint jobs. "Image," you know.
2) Modify the cockpit canopy. Remove the inverted bathtub that's on there now and modify as necessary to fit the Me-209-VI canopy. That's the airplane that set the world speed record in 1939.
3) Get rid of the wing slats. Lock them closed and hand fit a strip, upper and lower surface, that will close the sheet metal gaps between the slat and the wing structure. That gap causes the outboard 15 feet of each wing to be totally turbulent.
4) As aerodynamic compensation for locking the slats, set up jigs and fixtures on the assembly line to put in 2 degrees of geometric twist from root to tip, know as "washout".
5) Modify coolant scoop inlet fairings. The square corners that are there now induce an unnecessary am mount of drag. Also lower inlet 1 to 2 inches below the wing surface to get it out of the turbulence of the wing surface.
6) Install complete wheel well fairing that cover the openings after the gear is retracted.
7) Retract tail wheel.

All of the above could have been done in 30 days but it wasn't. I don't' know why. Someone would have to ask Willy... it's for him to say.


<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
09-13-2003, 03:55 AM
GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS:
------------------------
The characteristics of the two Me-109 models of historical interest, the "E" and the "G". The E formed the backbone of the German fighter strength during the Battle of Britain, its opposition being the Spitfire I and Hurricane I. The "G" was the prevailing type in 1944 during the Battle of Europe and its main opponents were the Spit Fourteen, the thunderbolt and the Mustang. So it is worth while to explore more fully the characteristics of the me-109 because it was the the most highly propagandized. While it was a worthy opponent in 1939 it was outclassed by 1942; by 1944 it was manifestly obsolete.

An intact me-109E with wing cannons was captured by the French in the summer of 1940 and was flown to England for flight test and evaluation. There were three stages of development prior to the G.
First was an early version of the 109 flying in 1938 with a 670 hp Jumo 210 engine, a fixed pitch wooden prop and two synchronized guns. Second was a variable pitch two-bladed prop model and the addition of two wing guns.
First was the E model, with a far more powerful engine, the DB601, which was an inverted V-12 of 1100 hp with direct fuel injection driving a 3-blade variable pitch prop. Its wing structure was beefed up, but in the process of "designing" in the additional engine and structural weight, the engineers screwed up the center of gravity, and 60 pounds of PERMANENT BALLAST had to be added to the rear of the fuselage to get the C.G. back. As a pilot and an engineer I can only be sympathetic with the 109 pilots. Who needs that kind of millstone around his neck in a fighter? Pilots had NOTHING to say about the design faults of airplanes in Germany. They had DAMN LITTLE to say about them in England or in this country, at that time. Designer didn't have to fly their mistakes; they just produced them. Most of them didn't know how to fly and didn't want to learn, but more about that later.

In size the Me-109, all models, was the smallest fighter produced by Germany or the Allies. That gave it a high wing loading for that time, about 32 lb/sp ft for the E. The Spit I and Hurricane I were about 25 lb/sq ft at their normal combat weight. The 109-G was about 38 lb/sq ft as compared to 35 lbs for the p-51-B.

The fastest "G" subtype was the G-10, capable of 344 mph at SL or 428 mph at 24,000 ft. with a meager range of 350 miles and an endurance of 55 minutes, but it wasn't introduced until the spring of 1944. Too little, too late, and still lacking in range and endurance.

GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS: ENGINE AND PROPELLER:
---------------------------------------------
In principle, the DB601 and 605 series engines were the same as the Allison or Merlin, except they were inverted and had direct fuel injection; otherwise they were 12 cylinder, 60 degree Vee, glycol cooled engines. the prop was a 10.2 foot, 3 blade variable pitch mechanism of VDM design. Here is another major difference between their design approach and ours. The pitch on the Me-109 prop could be set at any value between 22.5 and 90 degrees, a visual pitch indicator being provided for the pilot. There was no provision for automatically governing the rpm. We did just the opposite, using a constant speed governor and flying by a constant tachometer indication of rpm. For any flight condition the rpm remained constant. We did not know, or care, what the blade angle setting was.

GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS: WINGS AND CONTROLS:
--------------------------------------------
The wings had straight leading and trailing edge taper and no geometric twist from root to tip. The airfoil section had a 2 percent camber with the maximum thickness at the 30% chord position. The E thickness ratio was 14.8 percent at the root and 10.5 percent at the tip. all of that was standard design practice for the mid-1930s. What was new for fighter design was the leading edge slats which ran 46% of the span. There was no damping device fitted to the slat mechanism, they'd BAND open at 120 mph with the airplane clean or at 100 mph with gear and flaps down, Each control surface was mass balanced. Another unusual feature was that as the flaps were lowered, the ailerons automatically drooped, coming down 11 degrees for the full flap movement of 42 degrees.

There were no movable trim tab controls on the ailerons or rudder, although both had fixed tabs that could be bent on the ground. Pitch trim was affected by changing the stabilizer incidence through a range of 12 degrees. The design scheme was that both the flaps and the stabilizer were coordinated mechanistically from two 12 inch wheels mounted concentrically on the left side of the pilot's seat. By twirling both wheels in the same direction the pilot could automatically compensate for the change of pitch trim due to lowering or raising the flaps. Differential coordination could be set by moving one wheel relative to the other.

GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS: PERFORMANCE EVALUATION:
------------------------------------------------
The first surprise you would get in planning a test hop with the Me-109 is that you're limited to about an hour with some aerobatics at combat power, because the internal fuel capacity is only 88 gallons; with a drop tank, the "G" carried a total of 154 gallons. I'll never understand whey the fuel capacity designed in Liftoff fighters was so limited. It was a major design deficiency that contributed to their loss of the air war, but even more puzzling is the fact that it could have been quickly changed for the better anytime from 1940 onward, but it wasn't.

Takeoff was best done with 30 degrees of flaps. The throttle could be opened quickly without loading or choking up the engine. In fact, the Daimler Benz engine was the best thing about that airplane. The stick had to be HELD HARD FORWARD to get the tail up, and it was advisable to let the airplane fly itself of. If it was pulled off at low speed the left wing would not respond and on applying aileron the wing would lift and fall again with the aileron snatching a little. If no attempt was made to pull it off quickly, the takeoff run was short and the initial climb good.

The absence of a rudder trim control in the cockpit was a bad feature at speeds able cruise or in dives above 300 mph the pilot needed a VERY HEAVE FOOT on the port rudder pedal for trimmed flight with no sideslip which is ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL FOR GUNNERY. The pilot's left leg quickly tired while keeping this load on, and this affected his ability to put on more left rudder for a turn at 300 mph or above. CONSEQUENTLY, AT HIGH SPEEDS, THE 109 COULD TURN FAR MORE READILY TO THE RIGHT THAN TO THE LEFT.

FLIGHTING QUALITIES:
--------------------
A series of mock dogfight were conducted by the British in addition to flight test and the following was revealed:

FLIGHTING QUALITIES: Dives
--------------------------
If the airplane was trimmed for level flight, a heavy push on the stick was needed to hold it in a dive at 400 mph. If it was trimmed into the dive, recovery was difficult unless the trim wheel was wound back, due to the excessive heaviness of the elevator forces.

FLIGHTING QUALITIES: Ailerons
-----------------------------
At low speed, the ailerons control was good, response brisk. As speed increased the ailerons became TOO HEAVY but the response was good up to 200mph. Between 200 mph and 300 mph they became UNPLEASANT. Over 300 mph they became IMPOSSIBLE. At 400 mph the stick FELT LIKE IT WAS SET IN A BUCKET OF CEMENT. A pilot exerting all his strength could not apply more than ONE FIFTH aileron at 400 mph; that's 5 degrees up and 3 degree down. The aileron situation at high combat speeds might be summarized in the following way:

1) Due to the cramped cockpit a pilot could only apply about 40 pounds side force on the stick as compared to 60 pounds or more possible inf he had more elbow room.
2) Messerschmitt also PENALIZED the pilot by designing in an unusually small stick top travel of plus or minus 4 inches, giving very poor mechanical advantage between pilot and aileron.
3) At 400 mph with 40 pound side force and ONLY one fifth aileron displaced, it required 4 SECONDS to get into a 45 degree ROLL or BANK. That IMMEDIATELY CLASSIFIES THE AIRPLANE AS BEING UNMANAGEABLE AND UNACCEPTABLE AS A FIGHTER.

The very bad maneuverability at high speeds of the Me-109 quickly became KNOWN to the RAF pilots in 1940. On many locations 109 pilots were LED TO SELF DESTRUCTION when on the tail of a Hurricane or Spitefire at MODERATE or LOW altitudes. The RAF pilot would do a snappy half roll and "split ess" pull out, from say 3000 feet. In that heat and confusion of the movement the 109 pilot would follow, only to discover that he DIDN'T HAVE ENOUGH ALTITUDE TO RECOVER DUE TO HIS HEAVY ELEVATOR FORCES and go straight into the ground or the Channel without a shot being fired.

FLIGHTING QUALITIES: Turning Radius
-----------------------------------
At full throttle, at 12,000 feet, the minimum turning radius without loss of altitude was about 890 feet for the Me-109E with its wing loading of 32 pound per square foot. The corresponding figure for the Spit I or Hurricane was about 690 feet with a wing loading of 25 pounds.

FLIGHTING QUALITIES: Summary
----------------------------
*GOOD POINTS
1) Reasonable top speed and good rate of climb to 20,000 feet.
2) Engine did not cut out under negative "g" also reliable.
3) Good control response at low speeds.
4) Easy stall, not precipitous.

*BAD POINTS
1) Ailerons and elevator far too heavy at high speed.
2) Poor turning radius.
3) Absence of rudder trim control in cockpit.
4) Aileron snatch (grabbing -- uneven airflow) when slats opened.
5) Cockpit too cramped.
6) Visibility poor from cockpit.
7) range and endurance inadequate.

While the 109 may have been a WORTHY OPPONENT in the Spanish Civil War or during the Battle of France in early 1940, it became a MARGINAL airplane against the Spits during the attack on Britain in September of that year. by 1942 , even with the appearance of the "G" it was definitely OBSOLETE. However, the Germans contained to produce it as the BACKBONE of the Liftoff fighter forces. The attitude of the Nazi high command was that THIS IS GOING TO BE A QUICK "BLITZ" WAR and if they lost three 109s for every Spitfire shot down, that was acceptable. In fact, in 1940 the official policy was laid down that the development of all aircraft types requiring more that 6 months for completion was PROHIBITED. They'd turn out the existing design like hot cakes and swamp the RAF with production

That doesn't say much for any charitable concern they should have had for the unnecessary loss of pilots caused by going into combat with a SUBSTANDARD AIRPLANE. But, after all, no one has eve said that the Fuehrer and Goering had any anxiety about their pilots or troops. Quite the contrary, the record of history shows that they had NONE.

Furthermore, no designer in that period would pretend that he could stretch the combat effectiveness of a fighter for 7 YEARS. 1935 to 1942, without MAJOR changes in power plant o aerodynamics, or better yet, going to a new design. Technology in design in than era was changing too fast. The reader might well say, "The Spitfire was certainly a long line of fighters, about 10 years, how come?"

The Spitfire was an AERODYNAMICALLY CLEAN AIRPLANE to START WITH, having a total drag coefficient of 0.021 at cruise. The Me-109 had a coefficient of 0.036; drag coefficients are the measure of an airplanes's EFFICIENCY and of the horsepower REQUIRED to HAUL 'EM AROUND. Like golf scores, the LOWER the BETTER, and NO FUDGING.

The British, in particular the staff at Vickers Supermarine, HAD DONE THEIR HOMEWORK in aerodynamics and put out a CLEAN airplane that had the potential of LONGEVITY and increased performance. They had only to wait for the Rolls-Royce to pump up the horsepower of the Merlin, which they did, by going from 790 hp in 1934 to well over 2,000 hp by 1945. The Merlin, in my opinion, was the best achievement in mechanical engineering in the fist half of the century.

Messerschmitt practically IGNORED THE SUBJECT OF LOW DRAG aerodynamics and ONE CAN TELL THAT by and inspection of the 109E or G. The fact is evident even in close-up photographs. IT WAS AERODYNAMICALLY THE MOT INEFFICIENT FIGHTER OF ITS TIME. That's puzzling thing when one realizes that much of the original work on t high speed drag and turbulent surface friction was done in Germany in the 20s and 30s. Messerschmitt was surrounded by it. Further, the work in England and the U.S. in this field was in the open literature, at least until 1938.

I also suspect, again from the record of history, that WILDLY MESSERSCHMITT WAS TOO BUSY BECOMING A DIRECTOR of Messerschmitt A.G. to concentrate on IMPROVING his status as an INGENIEUR.

Having going this far, let me carry this affront to Messerschmitt's engineering reputation one step further.

An airplane factory can get things doe awfully fast, in any country and in any language, once the engineers and sheet metal benders understand what is wanted. every factory has a development shot or its equivalent, which is a full scale model or prototype shop with 100 or 200 old pros in every skill. Having that many coffee drinkers, pipe smokers and yarn spinners around on the payroll, let's clobber 'em with a bundle of shop drawing on a clean up of the Me-109. Object: to make it a 400 mph plus airplane. Time... 30 days. The information and techniques required are currently available as of 1940. It's all written up in unclassified reports.

1) Cancel the camouflage paint and go to smooth bar metal. Besides the weight, about 50 pounds, the grain size is too large when it dries and it causes turbulent friction over the entire airplane surface. That may take a phone call to the brass. They're emotional about paint jobs. "Image," you know.
2) Modify the cockpit canopy. Remove the inverted bathtub that's on there now and modify as necessary to fit the Me-209-VI canopy. That's the airplane that set the world speed record in 1939.
3) Get rid of the wing slats. Lock them closed and hand fit a strip, upper and lower surface, that will close the sheet metal gaps between the slat and the wing structure. That gap causes the outboard 15 feet of each wing to be totally turbulent.
4) As aerodynamic compensation for locking the slats, set up jigs and fixtures on the assembly line to put in 2 degrees of geometric twist from root to tip, know as "washout".
5) Modify coolant scoop inlet fairings. The square corners that are there now induce an unnecessary am mount of drag. Also lower inlet 1 to 2 inches below the wing surface to get it out of the turbulence of the wing surface.
6) Install complete wheel well fairing that cover the openings after the gear is retracted.
7) Retract tail wheel.

All of the above could have been done in 30 days but it wasn't. I don't' know why. Someone would have to ask Willy... it's for him to say.


<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
09-13-2003, 08:11 AM
Sounds like a "The Best of the Breed", Airpower, July, 1976 Vol. 6 No. 4 by Col. "Kit" Carson " review.

Read some answers here http://mitglied.lycos.de/luftwaffe1/index.html
then link
Why Col. "Kit" Carson was wrong.

Describes very detailed some parts of your post .)

XyZspineZyX
09-13-2003, 08:15 AM
Looks like WILDLY MESSERSCHMITT has a stuck caps lock key.

Thx for the info. I didn't know the ailerons drooped when you lowered the flaps. Too bad it doesn't do that in FB.

I am now accepting donations to buy the smilies a new home.
http://www.smiliedb.de/s/sdb06894.gif http://www.smiliedb.de/s/sdb57471.gif http://www.smiliedb.de/s/sdb11726.gif http://www.smiliedb.de/s/sdb75733.gif http://www.smiliedb.de/s/sdb80477.gif http://www.smiliedb.de/s/sdb64472.gif http://www.smiliedb.de/s/sdb59442.gif http://www.smiliedb.de/s/sdb80347.gif http://www.smiliedb.de/s/sdb73057.gif http://www.smiliedb.de/s/sdb48642.gif http://www.smiliedb.de/s/sdb24962.gif http://www.smiliedb.de/s/sdb72600.gif http://www.smiliedb.de/s/sdb72327.gif http://www.smiliedb.de/s/sdb10373.gif http://www.smiliedb.de/s/sdb70750.gif

XyZspineZyX
09-13-2003, 08:33 AM
a little bit too biased for my taste.
clever brits , stupid germans http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

http://www.bayern.de/Layout/wappen.gif

Bavaria is one of the oldest European states.
It dates back to about 500 A.D., when the Roman Empire was overcome by the onslaught of Germanic tribes. According to a widespread theory, the Bavarian tribe had descended from the Romans who remained in the country, the original Celtic population and the Germanic invaders.

Bavarian History : http://www.bayern.de/Bayern/Information/geschichteE.html#kap0

Message Edited on 09/13/0307:35AM by Boandlgramer

XyZspineZyX
09-13-2003, 08:39 AM
Still, the Bf-109K-4 was only able to reach 710km/h with a 2000hp engine, and a very light airframe. That's pretty poor when the consideably heavier P-51 was able to manage 703km/h with 300 hp less engine, and 800kg more mass.

That implies a certain degree of aerodynamic ineffeciency.

Harry Voyager

http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0YQDLAswcqmIpvWP9dLzZVayPXOmo6IJ16aURujNfs4dDETH84 Q6eIkCbWQemjqF6O8ZfvzlsvUUauJyy9GYnKM6!o3fu!kBnWVh BgMt3q2T3BUQ8yjBBqECLxFaqXVV5U2kWiSIlq1s6VoaVvRqBy Q/Avatar%202%20500x500%20[final).jpg?dc=4675409848259594077

XyZspineZyX
09-13-2003, 08:43 AM
but still faster , Harry /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

http://www.bayern.de/Layout/wappen.gif

Bavaria is one of the oldest European states.
It dates back to about 500 A.D., when the Roman Empire was overcome by the onslaught of Germanic tribes. According to a widespread theory, the Bavarian tribe had descended from the Romans who remained in the country, the original Celtic population and the Germanic invaders.

Bavarian History : http://www.bayern.de/Bayern/Information/geschichteE.html#kap0

XyZspineZyX
09-13-2003, 08:48 AM
well .. its odd so many german aces decided to stay with the obviously pathetic me109 when offered 190's considering its many shortcomings

possibly they just liked a challenge




<center> http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0SQDLAtUWiWZ3BKw19!aryp7v3C1h1DuNwpHOOuqhlraGSyMAY KiPEOZAA1OBgsLu*Sa0UQ2my0PiFyvNkJ5K7Clsoy7yNtEvOXY nHDuPNiotpZACY2oJxw/aircraftround.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
09-13-2003, 08:57 AM
WTE_Galway ........that is odd... a lot of top aces kept there 109 even if his the unit was equiped with 190 but what is odd is that all reports iv read no one thought the 109 better than the 190 even allied pilot testing..... i must come to the conclusion that it was that they were comfortable due to hrs flown in that bird .and a great pilot in a lesser plane will beat a poor pilot in a better plane..

U.S. infantry 84-91

Message Edited on 09/13/0301:13AM by tenmmike

XyZspineZyX
09-13-2003, 08:58 AM
Allthough ME-109 wasn't such a great plane, brits lost more fighters than germans in BoB. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

About the speed... Many german fighter aces ordered their planes waxed to gain more speed. Later USAF pilots did the same.

Finally... If german planes were so lowsy, how could they shoot so many russian and allied planes down? Were they better pilots perhaps?

/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

SheerLuck Holmes

XyZspineZyX
09-13-2003, 09:07 AM
hope this thread is not going in :

a) the german AC are Uber

or

b) the germans had just crap .



mostly it turns in such an way .

http://www.bayern.de/Layout/wappen.gif

Bavaria is one of the oldest European states.
It dates back to about 500 A.D., when the Roman Empire was overcome by the onslaught of Germanic tribes. According to a widespread theory, the Bavarian tribe had descended from the Romans who remained in the country, the original Celtic population and the Germanic invaders.

Bavarian History : http://www.bayern.de/Bayern/Information/geschichteE.html#kap0

XyZspineZyX
09-13-2003, 09:14 AM
BBB_Hyperion wrote:
- Sounds like a "The Best of the Breed", Airpower,
- July, 1976 Vol. 6 No. 4 by Col. "Kit" Carson "
- review.

Close, it was from PURSUE & DESTROY Copyright 1978 by Leonard Kit Carson. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

- Read some answers here <a
- href="http://mitglied.lycos.de/luftwaffe1/index.ht
- ml"
- target=_blank>http://mitglied.lycos.de/luftwaffe1/
- index.html</a>

Will do, thanks!

- then link Why Col. "Kit" Carson was wrong.

We will see! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Could be battle of the biases! 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 09/13/0301:22AM by tagert

XyZspineZyX
09-13-2003, 09:18 AM
SheerLuckHolmes wrote:
- Allthough ME-109 wasn't such a great plane, brits
- lost more fighters than germans in BoB.

More experance, vets from Spanish War? Could explain the early US losses in the P39 and P40 vs German IRON too?

- About the speed... Many german fighter aces ordered
- their planes waxed to gain more speed. Later USAF
- pilots did the same.

Maybe?

- Finally... If german planes were so lowsy, how could
- they shoot so many russian and allied planes down?
- Were they better pilots perhaps?
-
- SheerLuck Holmes

More experance, vets from Spanish War? Could explain the early US losses in the P39 and P40 vs German IRON 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
09-13-2003, 09:29 AM
tenmmike wrote:
- WTE_Galway ........that is odd... a lot of top aces
- kept there 109 even if his the unit was equiped with
- 190 but what is odd is that all reports iv read no
- one thought the 109 better than the 190 even allied
- pilot testing..... i must come to the conclusion
- that it was that they were comfortable due to hrs
- flown in that bird .and a great pilot in a lesser
- plane will beat a poor pilot in a better plane..
-
- U.S. infantry 84-91
-
- Message Edited on 09/13/03 01:13AM by tenmmike



The above statement is to a certain extend false, since the Russians always regarded the Bf 109-series higher then their Fw 190 counterparts. Certainly tactical doctrine playing a large part in judging the merrits of an aircraft.

So whereas the Western Allies seem to judge the Fw 190 as the superior fighter, the Soviets show more respect towards the Bf 109, which up to the G-2 they regard as superior and afterwards as equal or at least a dangerous adversary.

Indeed Kit Carson's reports cannot be considered to be objective in anyway, not for the 109 nor the 190 and to some extend they are even flawed.

Also interesting to see that whatever approach the Germans took they are criticized. In tank production they were supposed to go for proven techniques and numbers and in aircraft production they were to go for development instead. I am sure that if they had taken the opposite road they would have been equally criticized.

Ironically the RLM is also criticized for developing TOO many types at the same time...so both cases are being pressed.

I guess 20/20 isn't enough, so people try to cover both sides of the coin http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.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

Message Edited on 09/13/0310:38AM by rhorta

XyZspineZyX
09-13-2003, 09:30 AM
Tagerts at Rechlin, the testings got some different views on the same a/c. Just some weeks after that French captured E-3 testing, the Germans made similar testing at Rechlin with a Hurrcane Mk.Ia, Spitfire Mk.Ia (2pitch prop) an a E-4. M¶lders was one of the testers too./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

He, M¶lders, stated to the Hurrican a "lazy" behaviour at the ailerons and generally high stick forces. To the Spitfire, indeed, he stated to be just close to the E-4, but generally still slghtly inferior.

Be honest, that E-4 at it is in FB is surely not the same as the Germans had at BoB - that's for sure./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif



"......und mein Herz steigt wie ein Falke in die Lüfte!"

EJGr.Ost Kimura

http://www.jagdgruppe-ost.de/image/ejgrost.gif

XyZspineZyX
09-13-2003, 09:30 AM
tagert wrote:
- SheerLuckHolmes wrote:
-- Allthough ME-109 wasn't such a great plane, brits
-- lost more fighters than germans in BoB.
-
- More experance, vets from Spanish War? Could explain
- the early US losses in the P39 and P40 vs German
- IRON too?
-
-- About the speed... Many german fighter aces ordered
-- their planes waxed to gain more speed. Later USAF
-- pilots did the same.
-
- Maybe?
-
-- Finally... If german planes were so lowsy, how could
-- they shoot so many russian and allied planes down?
-- Were they better pilots perhaps?
--
-- SheerLuck Holmes
-
- More experance, vets from Spanish War? Could explain
- the early US losses in the P39 and P40 vs German
- IRON too?
-

No offence guys... just wanted to get you to think ( and perhaps realise ) that every plane had it's drawbacks and advances.. you just have to learn to use our own planes good points.
This is excatly what G.Rall told in June when I happened to see him.
So basically it is the man inside the plane, not the plane itself

Cheers SheerLuck Holmes

XyZspineZyX
09-13-2003, 09:53 AM
The the old SWOTF manual, there was a quote by one of the German 109 aces on the 190. It read to the effect that the 190 was certainly a superior aircraft to the 109, but once you had flown 100+ missions in the 109, you didn't like it very much.

In the end, most WWII dogfights were determined by a combination of skill, and luck. Luck you couldn't control, but if you knew your plane inside and out, and understood how best to exploit it's strengths against your enemies weaknesses, you invariably won the fight.

The 109 was a compeditive aircraft, despite its weaknesses, and some clever engineering managed to keep it that way, despite being a design grounded in the same era as the P-40. As Boandlgramer pointed out, the 109K-4 was still faster, even if it wasn't by much, and required considerably more of the engine to do so.

In the hands of a true experten, compeditive was all that was needed.

At the beginning of the war, the LW had some of the most skilled aviators in the world, from their time in the Spanish Civil War, and Germanies early conquests in Europe. In the Battle of Britian, the RAF, with mostly green pilots, had to face a seasoned and battled hardened LW. It is a testament to the doggest tenacity of the British, that they were the first nation to stop the Nazi juggernaut.

The pilot situation on the Eastern Front was far worse at the start of the war. Most of the innovative, and intelligent leaders in the VVS had been killed in Stalin's purges. The officers that remained were mostly skilled at keeping their heads attached to their shoulders, a useful trait under Stalin, but not highly applicable to war. Recruits were even worse off. Most were given only enough training to know how to get the aircraft off the ground, and know which end the bang came out of when the fired the guns. It is amazing that the VVS wasn't crippled by non-combat related losses considering how poorly its pilots were trained.

When you are dealing with that large a difference in pilot skill, plane performance becomes nearly a nonissue.

Still, it doesn't change that the 109 was a 1930's design, pulled to fit into the 1940s. Curtiss managed to do that with the P-40 too, but the USAAF didn't feel it was worth pursuing. They did manage to get 675km/h out of a 1425hp engine though. It would have been interesting to see how it would have managed with a 2000hp DB605.

Harry Voyager

http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0YQDLAswcqmIpvWP9dLzZVayPXOmo6IJ16aURujNfs4dDETH84 Q6eIkCbWQemjqF6O8ZfvzlsvUUauJyy9GYnKM6!o3fu!kBnWVh BgMt3q2T3BUQ8yjBBqECLxFaqXVV5U2kWiSIlq1s6VoaVvRqBy Q/Avatar%202%20500x500%20[final).jpg?dc=4675409848259594077

XyZspineZyX
09-13-2003, 09:56 AM
BBB_Hyperion wrote:
- Describes very detailed some parts of your post .)

Thanks again! Very cool read.. The guys sounds a bit miffed at Ol Carson. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif But I can see how they both jump around a bit to make thier points.. When I read the part about paint or no paint.. You could really see Carons.. bias. That is another way to look at is would be to realise that what was true for the USAAF was not true for the Lw.

The Lw saw can trails of B17s.. green camo aint much help! Thus the B17s dumped the paint.. And our fighters, for the most part parked in England were not being straifed like the Lw stuff was..

And for that guys web sight.. he dings Carson for that one and only Emily the French handed over.. And the tests done on it.. Does he not realise that Carson wrote that book some 30 year later and had access to all the during and post war tests done by the likes of the NACA on Lw aircraft?

One thing for sure.. There is no one answer on some of these issues. But all interesting reads!

Again, thanks for the link! Looks like Carson re-hashed some of his data in his later books



<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
09-13-2003, 09:59 AM
SheerLuckHolmes wrote:
- No offence guys...

None taken.. In that noting the experance played a part basically show that we did realise it and know that Rall, like Chuck knew that it is the man not the machine that will be the great equalizer and/or advantage maker. /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
09-13-2003, 10:11 AM
tagert wrote:
- First was the E model, with a far more powerful
- engine, the DB601, which was an inverted V-12 of
- 1100 hp with direct fuel injection driving a 3-blade
- variable pitch prop. Its wing structure was beefed
- up, but in the process of "designing" in the
- additional engine and structural weight, the
- engineers screwed up the center of gravity, and 60
- pounds of PERMANENT BALLAST had to be added to the
- rear of the fuselage to get the C.G. back.

This I noticed somewhat. A lot of WW2 planes had
balance, e.g. the Spitfire (Spitfire IX, 'TARE' Weight -
5 standard ballast weights of 17.5 lb. in tail)
So the 109 having ballast was not unusual, and would
also be a mark against the Spitfire.

XyZspineZyX
09-13-2003, 10:16 AM
SheerLuckHolmes wrote:
- Allthough ME-109 wasn't such a great plane, brits
- lost more fighters than germans in BoB

True but it was good enough and the brits had very poor tactics to start with ,also the brits had to kill bombers making them a softer target kind of what ended up happening to the germans once daylight bombing started.

And finaly it comes down to who see's who first and I would suppose a plane like the 109 would be harder to spot at a distance being as small as it was .

No1RAAF_Pourshot


http://members.optusnet.com.au/~andycarroll68/mybaby.jpeg.JPG

Ride it like ya stole it.

XyZspineZyX
09-13-2003, 10:53 AM
I am from UK and are not biased at all against german AC and i think that in BOB if it wasnt for the 109's measly 15 mins flying time once it reached the english coast the BOB could have turned out very differently indeed....

The RAF were lucky in my opinion, many people think that it was won by plane and pilot superiority but it wasn't.

XyZspineZyX
09-13-2003, 11:53 AM
johno__UK wrote:
- I am from UK and are not biased at all against
- german AC and i think that in BOB if it wasnt for
- the 109's measly 15 mins flying time once it reached
- the english coast the BOB could have turned out very
- differently indeed....


Plus later tying the 109s to close escort at essentially
the same altitude as the bombers meant that they could
not pounce on the RAF fighters attacking the bombers,
and could not use their dive advantage.

XyZspineZyX
09-13-2003, 12:01 PM
the best plane is the one know

XyZspineZyX
09-13-2003, 05:30 PM
amen,to that.

After it was refeuled i climbed in.With many manipulations the mechcanics started the turbines.I followed their actions with the greatest of interest.The first one started quite easily.the second caught fire.In no time the whole engine was on fire.Luckily as a fighter pilot i was used to getting quickly out of the cockpit.The fire was quickly put out.The second plane caused no trouble - Adolf Galland (first time in a ME262)

XyZspineZyX
09-13-2003, 05:47 PM
HarryVoyager wrote:
- Still, the Bf-109K-4 was only able to reach 710km/h
- with a 2000hp engine, and a very light airframe.
- That's pretty poor when the consideably heavier P-51
- was able to manage 703km/h with 300 hp less engine,
- and 800kg more mass.
-
- That implies a certain degree of aerodynamic
- ineffeciency.
-
- Harry Voyager


Save the fact that the Bf 109 K-4 only used 1565 PS (=apprx. 1520 HP) to get 710 kph at 7500m, Harry. At least according to the luftwaffe.

So the only thing that one can imply from your post is that you lack basic data, and also not very much familiar with the "Changes in power output as altitude changes" subject.. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

The DB 605 was not turbosupercharged, so power output varied with altitude considerably, as typical with mechanical SCs.

At SL, it put out 2000 PS, and 2040 or so at 600m. Then it started to fall back slowly as the second SC speed was initiated, reaching 1800 PS at 4900m, and 1600 at 6000m. Then it fell back sharply (6000 was the rated altitude) and at 10 000 meter, power out put was only 950 PS or so. Still, at thise altitude, this was good enough to reach 675 km/h according charts. Interesting to compare that at SL, 2000PS was required for 607 km/h... More dense air, you know...


So hardly there`s "aerodynamic ineffiency".. on the contrary, the 109 airframe was one of the best, producing very little drag, yet having good turn and handling characteritics.


Back on the original article, the guy has some serious lack of knowladge at hand. And I was very nice to him... funny that he doesn`t know that almost all the improvements he calls for, like retractable tailwheel, wheel fairing, more aerodynamic canopy, removal of tail braces etc. were all actually implemented sooner or later...


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 09/13/0306:58PM by Vo101_Isegrim

XyZspineZyX
09-13-2003, 06:11 PM
Vo101_Isegrim wrote:
- Save the fact that the Bf 109 K-4 only used 1565 PS
- (=apprx. 1520 HP) to get 710 kph at 7500m, Harry. At
- least according to the luftwaffe.

Good point - power drops off at altitude, which is
when comparing the 109 to P47 I compared engine powers
at sea level. Question is - what did the Merlin develop
at 7500m?

- So hardly there`s "aerodynamic ineffiency".. on the
- contrary, the 109 airframe was one of the best,
- producing very little drag, yet having good turn and
- handling characteritics.

Low total drag, but a fairly high drag coefficient.
The total drag was thus low largely due to small size,
but the airframe was not that efficient compared to
the next generation of aircraft (1940s rather than 1930s
design).

XyZspineZyX
09-13-2003, 06:14 PM
Vo101_Isegrim wrote:
- Save the fact that the Bf 109 K-4 only used 1565 PS
- (=apprx. 1520 HP) to get 710 kph at 7500m, Harry. At
- least according to the luftwaffe.

Good point - power drops off at altitude, which is
when comparing the 109 to P47 I compared engine powers
at sea level. Question is - what did the Merlin develop
at 7500m?

If we look at sea level, we get the P51B at 387mph,
and the 109G (-10?) at about 350mph.

- So hardly there`s "aerodynamic ineffiency".. on the
- contrary, the 109 airframe was one of the best,
- producing very little drag, yet having good turn and
- handling characteritics.

Low total drag, but a fairly high drag coefficient.
The total drag was thus low largely due to small size,
but the airframe was not that efficient compared to
the next generation of aircraft (1940s rather than 1930s
design). See sea level comparasion with the P51 above -
the P51 was bigger, but managed a higher speed with less
engine power, which implies a more efficient design with
total drag being lower, as well as drag coefficient.

XyZspineZyX
09-13-2003, 06:38 PM
HarryVoyager wrote:
- Still, the Bf-109K-4 was only able to reach 710km/h
- with a 2000hp engine, and a very light airframe.
- That's pretty poor when the consideably heavier P-51
- was able to manage 703km/h with 300 hp less engine,
- and 800kg more mass.
-
- That implies a certain degree of aerodynamic
- ineffeciency.


Terribly incorrect. The weight of ww2 fighter has little influence on its max speed, because induced drag at max speed counts for less than 5% of the total drag. This is why all ww2 fighters reached the aprox the same max speed on full internal fuel or only on half of it.



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

XyZspineZyX
09-13-2003, 06:42 PM
And the original article is filled with ignorant bias. Every single paragraph is filles with awful mistakes or misrepresentations. It was discussed here a few times, once made a 10 page thread.


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

XyZspineZyX
09-13-2003, 06:58 PM
AaronGT wrote:
- Vo101_Isegrim wrote:
-- Save the fact that the Bf 109 K-4 only used 1565 PS
-- (=apprx. 1520 HP) to get 710 kph at 7500m, Harry. At
-- least according to the luftwaffe.
-
- Good point - power drops off at altitude, which is
- when comparing the 109 to P47 I compared engine
- powers
- at sea level. Question is - what did the Merlin
- develop
- at 7500m?


Sorry, I dunno. The problem is, that altough I have static power curves for Merlin, my dynamic ones a, only show up to around 22kft b, only for the effect of 400mph... but I would say maybe somewhat less, as DB 605D still took advantage from MW 50.

However, the Mustang is very special case, and very efficient at reaching high speeds with modest power. Best example of that being the Spitfire, a more orthodox design, which had ~ same wing area, and still it was some 60 kph slower at that altitude with same engine.

-
- If we look at sea level, we get the P51B at 387mph,
- and the 109G (-10?) at about 350mph.
-

That`s one awfully fast P-51B, I`d say it`s one running at +25lbs for 1940 HP at SL. The one test I have for P-51D shows 359 mph at SL with 1690HP, and 370mph at 1940HP.

The 350 mph figure for 109G-10 matches my chart for 1800 PS (roughly 1750-70 HP). But also there`s the G-14, which was some 5-6 mph faster than G-10 at the same power, even if less aerodynamic (13mm HMG bulges)... which shows there are other reasons than just aiframe aerodynamics, namely: differnt propellors and prop. effiency..

Anyway, these figures show that P-51B and D had less drag than Bf 109G-10 or G-14, whereas the 109K had less or apprx. the same as P-51D.



-
-- So hardly there`s "aerodynamic ineffiency".. on the
-- contrary, the 109 airframe was one of the best,
-- producing very little drag, yet having good turn and
-- handling characteritics.
-
- Low total drag, but a fairly high drag coefficient.
- The total drag was thus low largely due to small
- size,
- but the airframe was not that efficient compared to
- the next generation of aircraft (1940s rather than
- 1930s
- design).

Effiency = Results / Power used. What is achieving the same capabilities with a small sized airframe if not effiency?

- See sea level comparasion with the P51
- above -
- the P51 was bigger, but managed a higher speed with
- less
- engine power, which implies a more efficient design
- with
- total drag being lower, as well as drag coefficient.
-

Re. Drag coefficient. Frankly, I have seen all sorts of CD0 for the 109 K, the lowest being .0185 est. from original drag docs, very good, the highest being .024 was a rough calculation from basic data. As far as the coefficient goes, I have never seen anything else than those related to wing area, and this makes poor comparisions with different wing and fusalge design, especially that the proportion of drag created by wing also varies significantly..

i.e from the NACA server:

"The zero-lift drag coefficient, although useful as a measure of comparative aerodynamic refinement, has a basic limitation because the coefficient is based on wing area, and, for a given wing area, many different fuselage and tail sizes may be employed. Thus, differences in zerolift drag coefficients may be interpreted as a difference in aerodynamic refinement when the difference may result from a significant difference in the ratio of wetted area to wing area. "

So personally, I would give it a rest until I see some real data, preferably compared to wetted area, or even better, frontal area during flight, which is supposed to be the scientific method for aerodynamic shape.

As for the P-51, it`s a special case, and also illustrates why wingarea-related CD0s are flawed. The plane had it`s wings designed for low drag at high speeds, and of course the stucture was well designed, too. Still, at lower airspeeds, the "more aerodynamic" statement isn`t that much true, as there`s much less gain from (near-)laminar flow at low speed, most wings being capable of maintaining it at that time.

Enough for today, it`s a very complicated matter...

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
09-13-2003, 08:37 PM
Harry Voyager, Your post is what I have always wished people would understand. Comparing aircraft & comparing kills achieved with sid aircraft are 2 very different things.
In the US & UK the Germans get a lot of credit for their technology but most people are not aware that their TACTICS are responsible for thier successses on the battlefield.

of course Carson was biased he was a US fighter pilot.not a diplomat. They demanded a different kind of performance from their planes-range being paramount for ex. He felt that the short range & poor instrument flying ability of the 109 were enough to exclude it as a useful fighter. It certainly would have been useles to the USAAF during the time when Carson flew.

Perhaps he was trying to debunk some ideas popular at the time that the German planes were super weapons of sorts.
Don't dismiss Everything he says because of his bias. Just try to understand it so you can make an accurate acessment of the 109.

The fact is most American pilots who had the opportunity to fly the 109 did not like it. many of their reasons are trivial-it was cramped etc. It was a different breed from planes that Ami's were used to. And of course it was from an erlier generation. the one thing that is startling to me is that in contrast every pilot account i've read of flying the Spitfire is full of praise. With the exception of Molders who remarks that it is too easy to fly (i think he said childishly simple to fly )!

The 109 was a great plane but with it's share of problems.

PS I don't know that all that many German aces were offered to fly any plane they wanted on the Eastern front, each squadron flew one type & various types would have been a maintenance problem I'd think.
In the West leaders often preferred 190s against the american bombers & in JG26 Top Guns of the Luftwaffe pilots really didn't want to give up their FWs for 109s despite the 109s better altitude performance.



Message Edited on 09/13/0303:02PM by Saburo_0

XyZspineZyX
09-13-2003, 09:02 PM
AaronGT wrote:

- powers
- at sea level. Question is - what did the Merlin
- develop
- at 7500m?


I don't have a power for exactly 7,500 meters (24,606 feet). The following numbers are at combat power on 100/130 grade fuel - 67" hg. On 150 grade the manifold pressure could be increased to 80.8 lbs" hg


V-1650-3 (P-51B and early C)
1,330 hp at 29,000

V-1650-7 (late P-51C and P-51D)
1,505 hp at 19,250


Regards,

SkyChimp

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

XyZspineZyX
09-13-2003, 09:10 PM
There is also a fairly new thread on Butch's site you can check out.

Also here for DB605 engines

http://mitglied.lycos.de/luftwaffe1/aircraft/lw/DB605_varianten.pdf

Must read German and some of the scans are hard to read.

http://a1276.g.akamai.net/7/1276/734/625ed428e022ef/www.harley-davidson.com/PR/MOT/2004/Softail/images/DOM/img_Softail_FXST.jpg

http://www.redneckengineering.com/photogallery/photo23581/curves-done-03.jpg


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

XyZspineZyX
09-14-2003, 07:05 AM
I apologize in advance for the long post. The link posted by BBB_Hyperion hit my pseudo-science nerve, and the obsessive-compulsive in me had to respond. I am merely trying to head off misconceptions, and reinforce correct conclusions, but fully expect the 109 fans to respond. If you've got good data, by all means bring it on. But please save the "109 is greatest fighter in the world because I love it" stuff for your therapist.

Why "Kampfflugzeuge und Technik des 2. WK website writers should probably not be allowed to design aircraft. Bias in reporting.
Col. Carson's original text is in quotes. The (unnamed) critic's comments are in normal text, with his original typos. My comments are in parentheses, prefixed with "Blotto:".

About the aerodynamic efficienz: The efficienz of the 109 airframe was proven very early in 1937, when a Emil airframe was prepared and a DB-601 engine was tuned to deliver 1700PS. This machine reached 611km/h at sealevel, world record. Except for a very careful surface finish, all difference to the serial 109E were a different spinner, no weapons, and a modified hood (This is not the 209, also called 109R, which reached later a much higher speed). Even 8 years later this speed was barely reached with such a power. (Blotto: What was the weight of this aircraft? How much gas did it carry for the record attempts? Were the radiators open or closed? There's a lot of gaming to be done with record attempting aircraft. I wouldn't use this as a proof of aerodynamic efficiency for the production aircraft any more than I would use Rare Bear or Diablo to indicate performance of the F8F or Mustang.)
The aerodynamic efficienc of the 109 was based on several reasons. The three most important were:
- Small overall surface, especially wingarea. To compensate for the high wingloading during takeoff and landing, very efficient slats and flaps system was installed. (Blotto: True, leading and trailing edge devices would help compensate for high wing loading during takeoff and landing. But there are tradeoffs in weight, complexity and parasitic drag due to seams between the devices and wing.) The usually turbulent flow in the tail section lead to a very low overall surface area in this area. (How exactly does perpetually turbulent flow reduce the need for control surface area? Would this include the externally braced horizontal tail?)
- Inverted V-engine, giving the airframe an larger angle to the usually low mounted wing. This reduced interferenz drag and THIS was also the reason why the pilot head space was rather small. Nevertheless it was one reason why the 109 had a surpisingly high diving speed (only fools believe those spit dive tests with Mach numbers up to 0.9 btw.) what saved also their lives quite often. (Blotto: Good point here. I've often wondered why the Germans used inverted-V engines. This is one good reason. The wing/fuselage interface of the 109 is less draggy than the Spitfire, which has large wing fillets. The Mustang's wing/fuselage interface is more efficient than either of the others, though.)
- Centered propellor position, thrust line going right through the COG, also allowing for better view forward down (Blotto: These are also good reasons.)

Spit and Hurricane pilots did often use mirrors. Why did they use them when they had such a superior sight? Germans went out in "Rotten", so there did not exist a dead spot. The view over the nose, once airborn, was good due to the lower prop position. The often quoted bad view refer to taxing on ground! (Blotto: The critic falsely assumes the mirrors make up for a visibility deficiency in the British planes that is not present in the 109. All three had poor rearward visibility. The Brits made up for it with mirrors, the Germans with tactics. Selectively mentioning these facts neatly glosses over the fact that the 109 possessed heavy canopy framing for most of its early variants, just as Col Carson mentions. Even the Germans realized this as a liability, going to the Erla Haube canopy to try to correct this problem. This is conveniently forgotten by the critic.)

We go more into detail soon, but let´s see what Carson writes. Oh wait, he doesn´t quite often write his OWN opinion, but is quoting from time to time the test report. (Blotto: So, how many hours does the critic have in the 109? Don't use criteria for criticism unless you're willing to be judged by it, too. Col. Carson, by the way, while never having flown a Bf-109, did manage to shoot several down.) Anyway, let´s see:

"An intact Me-109E with wing cannon was captured by the French in the summer of 1940 and was flown to England for flight test and evaluation."

Nothing wrong here. But listen up: Just ONE Emil was captured and evaluated in Britain, so the opinion is based on just ONE airframe that SAW plenty of service and which was flown already in France by the allied (Blotto: This is a valid point. A database of one isn't very reliable when making assessments of an entire family of aircraft. But these individual points are often substantiated with additional data or examples.)

" the engineers screwed up the center of gravity, and 60 pounds of permanent ballast had to be added to the rear of the fuselage to get the C.G. back."

An incredible 1.1% or less weight was added. Boah, what a big deal when it helps to improve fyling characterists, eh? (Blotto: Sort of a non-denial denial from the critic. Restating 60 lbs as 1.1% is supposed to trivialize it, without refuting the claim. Yeah, it's better than having the CG out of limits [which in this case could result in a face-plant on landing], but Col. Carson's point was that the engineers had misplaced the CG and it required correction. And he was right. This ballast was probably due to the Emil using the same basic airframe as the 109B, but with a much heavier engine than the 109B was ever meant to take. This is one of the drawbacks of developing an old airframe instead of starting with a clean sheet of paper. I'm guessing that at least some of this ballast disappeared with the Franz redesign.)

"In size the Me-109, all models, was the smallest fighter produced by Germany or the Allies. That gave it a high wing loading for that time, about 32 lb./sq. ft. for the "E". The Spit I and the Hurricane I were about 25 lb./sq. ft. at their normal combat weight. The 109-G was about 38 lb./sq. ft. as compared to 35 lb./sq. ft. for the P-51B."

It should be noted that wingarea is not a guarantee for lift. Wingloading is not equal to "liftloading". (Blotto: "Liftloading"... a term I don't recall being mentioned in my engineering classes when evaluating performance. What the critic is doing here is trying to minimize the effect of the 109's high wing loading by offering the 109's aerodynamic efficiency as superior to the other planes it's compared to, eliminating or even reversing the handicap. Were the 109 to incorporate some revolutionary new technology, like upper surface blowing, I might buy the argument. It doesn't, so I don't.) Airfoil, Angle of Attack (AoA) in a particular situation, Aspect ratio determine the amount of lift. No allied figher back then except for the russian Lagg and La series used slats to keep airflow in the aileron section but used washout. (Blotto: True, but the critic conveniently forgets to mention that the Spitfire's wing planform was elliptical, and more efficient than the "Hershey bar" straight edged wing of the 109. Leading edge devices do affect airfoil efficiency, but in the 109, La and LaGG fighters, the slats were only on the outer portion of the wings, and were there to help retain aileron control. Washout, or wing twist, does the same thing with fewer moving parts and lower parasitic drag, at the cost of some efficiency due to varying AoA along the span. The Storch is a better example of leading edge slats designed to improve wing lift. The Storch'es slats went full span. Aspect ratio is also a factor in airfoil efficiency, but most of the fighters in WWII were pretty close to each other in this dimension [exceptions being the high altitude fighters like the Ta-152], leaving wing loading as the dominant performance indicator.) Though washout is an easy and uncomplicated way to reach good handling characteristics at high AoA, it reduces total possible lift. (Blotto: True) So what lift coefficients were possible to achieve for the named fighters? This is difficult to say, because there exist no test of all aircraft from ONE windtunnel. (Blotto: A valid point, immediately ignored.) Results of different measurements, quite often depending on correction factors, Reynolds number and other influences, may vary. Let´s compare the following numbers:

SpitV: 1.12 from "Stalling characteristics of Supermarine Spitfire VA airplane" 1)
P-51B: 1.28 from Naca Report 829, Page 26 in the PDF
109E: 1.48 from full scale Windtunnel test in Charles Meudan 2)
(Blotto: I don't know how many different coefficients are available for these three aircraft. I do know that you don't get a 0.2-0.36 Cl improvement by just thinking about it. Without leading or trailing edge devices, the only other reason to explain this difference is that the 109 has one hell of a better airfoil. It doesn't. Yet the critic is perfectly happy accepting this discrepancy rather than trying to explain it, because it supports his preconception.)
1) The report is located on this server
2) The test was for a prototype of the new 109F, the machine was called V24. It did not have the round wingtips, thus the wingarea was slighly lower and even more important, it had a worse aspect ratio. Due to numerous component exchanges the overall condition of this machine was rather poor. No flaps and no slats were used. The number given can be seen as realistic, even maybe to low! (Blotto: This is poor, incredulous engineering by the critic. There is no explanation given for this miraculous performance. It is merely accepted by him that the 109 wing, with a poor surface finish, without using any devices, or indeed wingtips, has a much better Cl than the Spit or 'Stang. A more likely explanation is that Chuck's wind tunnel needed calibrating. Basing his subsequent arguments on this one bit of data, we're off to the races. Notice the hypocrisy of using a single source for his argument, while blasting Col. Carson for doing the same thing.)

If we calculate now a "liftloading" by dividing wingloading with maximum lift coefficient, we get the following numbers (lower is better):
SpitI: 22.3 lb/ft^2 (SpitI is assumed to be equal to SpitV in wing aerodynamics)
109E: 21.6 "
P51B: 31.17 " 1)
109G: 25.7 "
Spit9: 27.3 " (Spit9 is assumed to be equal to SpitV in wing aerodynamics)

1) The wingload of a P-51B based on 9400lb is 39.9 lb/ft^2 and NOT only 35, the value Carson uses! (Blotto: Why is the number Col. Carson uses wrong? Just because it's lighter, and makes the 109 look bad? Again, I'm not sure what all went into this 9400 lb. number. Ammo? Full fuel? Pilot? Oil? The critic may just have neglected to mention what weight he was using for each aircraft [empty, empty equipped, clean or max. gross], but I suspect he's picking numbers that make the 109 look good, and not necessarily using the same criteria for each aircraft.)

In both cases of the Emil and Gustav the liftloading is even slightly better to the spitfire ones´, and clearly better than the P-51B´s,even without the usage of slats and/or combat flaps! (Blotto: Note that this conclusion is built entirely on a single Cl of dubious validity. The rest is just smoke and mirrors, not engineering.)
There exist also a statement by the german Erwin Leykauf, describing how he was able to outturn Spits in the BoB with his 109 by using slats...
(Blotto: Where in this quote is turning discussed? I've never been a big fan of trying to prove aircraft performance conclusions through anecdotes. There are too many variables involved, and most of them aren't documented in the anecdote. As to how a 109 pilot could out turn a Spitfire pilot, there are several ways. Assuming equal conditions for both, at high speed, the 109's better P/W ratio would allow it to maintain a higher sustained turn. Above corner velocity for both aircraft, the one with the higher structural g limit will turn better. I don't know what the design g was for either airframe. I doubt the critic does, either. Given unequal conditions, a slow speed 109 will out-radius a high speed Spitfire. From a pursuit position, a 109 could "out turn" a Spitfire in front of him [i.e. keep the 109 pointed at the Spit] long enough to put bullets into him. This wouldn't take more than 30-60 degrees of turn however, and shouldn't be used to compare sustained turn rates for the two aircraft.)


"The fastest "G" subtype was the G-10 capable of 344 mph at SL or 428 mph at 24,000 ft. with a meager range of 350 miles and an endurance of 55 minutes, but it wasn't introduced until the spring of 1944. Too little, too late, and still lacking in rnage and endurance." 1

It´s still not clarified what was the topspeed of a "clean" G-10 without gondolas or fuel tank. From the current point of knowledge it can be said that it was faster, however.
Range depends on power and RPM setting. With very low RPM settings the 109 could stay longer than 55 minutes in the air, especially when using a drop tank. However, like the Spit the 109 was never a long range escort fighter, of course. But this was not the fault of Messerschmitt. The philosphy in Germany about the bomber development was influenced by the experiences in the mid-30ies, when bomber proved to be faster than contemporary fighters. Thus, long range escort fighters (and heavy self-defence) for bombers were considered to be not necessary. (Blotto: Here he's just stating what little he knows in a somewhat related area, without actually contributing any supporting data. Kind of arguing by distraction. Yes, range is dependent on engine settings, as well as wind, altitude, weather, etc. But what has this got to do with whether Col. Carson was right or wrong? Argue engineering philosophy all you want, it won't affect the bottom line that the 109 was a short-range fighter. Even during times the Luftwaffe needed one with longer range. This defect is valid, and was never fully addressed during the war. Dropping 200 RPM wouldn't have gotten the 109 to Scotland and back.)

"In principle the DB601 and 605 series engines were the same as the Allison or Merlin, except they were inverted and had direct fuel injection; otherwise they were 12-cylinder, 60 degree Vee, glycol cooled engines. The prop was a 10.2 foot, 3 blade variable pitch mechanism of VDM design. here is another major difference between their design approach and ours. The pitch on the Me-109 prop could be set at any value between 22.5 and 90 degrees, a visual pitch indicator being provided for the pilot. There was no provision for automatically governing the rpm. We did just the opposite, using a constant speed governor and flying by a constant tachometer indication of rpm. For any flight condition the rpm remained constant. We did know, or care, what the blade angle was."

Surprisingly (oh well, actually no surprise at all) he does not mention the outstanding advantage of the DB engine, the direct fuel injection, allowing an position independent supply of fuel to the engine and avoiding backfire problems. (Blotto: Advantages shared with later carburettor designs used by the allies.)
In case of the Emil Carson is correct that the pitch had to be adjusted manually by the pilot. But the most important usage of the prop pitch mechanism is changing pitch for takeoff and landing anyway. In manoevering fights pitch rests rather constant. (Blotto: Actually, just the opposite. Manoeuvring fights require constant adjustment to throttle and RPM. Had the critic thought out his argument, he could have used this fact to present the later automated engine controls used in German fighters as the advantage they were.) Early spitfires did have only 2-pitch settings for their propellor, one for takeoff, one for the flight! (Blotto: They didn't do this because it was the optimum solution. The props were changed to variable pitch, and later constant speed units as soon as they were available.) Of course Carson "forgets" to mention that from the F on, the 109 had a constant prop pitch mechanism too, which furthermore was coupled to the throttle, thus giving the pilot a wonderful single lever control. (Blotto: Why did the Germans do this if, as the critic states "In manoevering (sic) fights pitch rests rather constant."? Get your argument straight before you make it, or commit it to print.) This principle was copied later for the Spitfires.

"The absense of a rudder trim control in the cockpit was a bad feature at speeds above cruise or in dives."

Usually pilots used the fixed tab to trim for fast flight. Logically it was easier to use rudder in a climb where forces were lower. The quesiton is: Why wasn´t it done by the RAF this way? Lack of experience? (Blotto: The real question: Why didn't the Germans use a cockpit adjustable rudder trim tab? Did they want their pilots to develop over-muscled left legs? This portion of the critic's argument seems to boil down to "don't be such a wimp." He's right that fixing the trim for cruise makes more sense than for climb. The better solution would have been to make it adjustable to account for both conditions.)

"If the airplane was trimmed for level flight, a heavy push on the stick was needed to hold it in a dive at 400 mph. If it was trimmed into the dive, recovery was difficult unless the trim wheel was wound back, due to the excessive heaviness of the elevator forces."

There´s nothing special about it. Actually, elevator heaviness and slow response can have other reasons, like gustwind areas. (Blotto: "Gustwind areas"? Again, another term my professors neglected to inform me of. Perhaps it's just a bad translation from German.) Due to the 2R1 airfoil pitching moments were rather small compared to the outdated 4-digit airfoil of a spitfire for example. (Blotto: So the 109's airfoil had higher Cl, AND lower pitching moments!?! That's some airfoil. For most airfoils, these two terms are directly proportional, at least for attached flow.) The balance effect was not the best, true, but german pilots succesfully got the nose up by violence or by trim. (Blotto: One or the other. To use the trim, the pilot needed to take one hand off the stick, and to pull out with "violence", he was going to need both hands. Again, this is hardly a statement in support of clever engineering. In order to pull up at high speeds, the pilot needed to force the thing. Trimming out of the dive wasn't such a good idea, either. Trim could quickly remove that buffer against over g of which the critic is so proud. Trim is a secondary, not primary, flight control. Using it this way is a work-around, not a design feature to be proud of.) A hard elevator also protected the airframe from too high G-forces. (Blotto: Sort of like saying that running out of gas prevents auto accidents.) It should be noted that the trim system, changing the AoA of the whole horinzontal stabilizer, was outstanding and, if compression happens, usually the only possibillity to get the nose up again. (Blotto: These are both valid points.) Today´s high speed aircraft usually use the whole horizontal stabilizer even as elevator!
It´s noteworthy that Carson doesn´t mention the positive flying qualities of the test report. (Blotto: The critic doesn't seem inclined to take the opportunity here, either.) He goes on with the next negative point he found in the report...

" (1) Due to the cramped cockpit a pilot could only apply about 40 pounds side force on the stick as compared to 60 pounds or more possible if he had more elbow room.

(2) Messerschmitt also penalized the pilot by designing in an unsually small stick top travel of plus or minus 4 inches, giving very poor mechanical advantage between pilot and aileron.

(3) At 400 mph with 40 pounds side force and only one fifth aileron displaced, it required 4 seconds to get into a 45 degree roll or bank. That immediately classifies the airplane as being unmaneuverable and unacceptable as a fighter. "

Well, "unmaneuverable" is tough eh? What Carson doesn´t say is that the same report mentions equal roll rate of a Spitfire and a 109 up to 400mph... so the Spit was an unmanoeverable aircraft too?? (Blotto: In the roll axis, yes it was. The critic is trying to support a myth with another myth, because proper engineering won't. The Spitfire was manoeuvrable in regards to turn performance, not roll.) It also should be noted that in technical language you distinguish between an observation, a judgement based on given requirements, and a conclusion. (Blotto: Physician, heal thyself.) Of course the ailerons of the 109 were never as light and as effective like the FW190 one´s, BUT the german chief test pilot Heinrich Beauvais did very early disagree with the negative judgement and tactical conclusion of the RAF. (Blotto: Great, I'm happy for Heinrich. Why did he disagree, and what RAF conclusion did he disagree with?) It should be noted again that the english test is based on a SINGLE aircraft that saw plenty of service already. Beauvais tried to get into contact after the war with Eric Brown who also critized the 109. His major critic points were:
- Bad control harmony characteristics
- Bad wheel brakes
- Aileron impuls during opening of the slats
Guess what, strangley Eric Brown REFUSED to get into a discussion about such questions. (Blotto: This is starting to sound like an argument from a Roswell conspiracy theorist instead of a discussion of why Col. Carson's engineering conclusions are wrong. Now in addition to engineering practices and a former combatant opposing the critic's beliefs [I use the word beliefs, not conclusions, deliberately] a former flight test pilot is conspiring against his beloved 109, too. Maybe Brown was just tired of getting into endless, pointless arguments, and would rather go have a pint?) Did the 109 has to be bad for the english? Handley Page would have known how to solve the unsymmetric opening, why did noone from the RAF ask them?
There exist german test report where aileron forces of over 45lbs are mentioned. So high stick forces WERE possible also in the 109! (Blotto: What exactly did this report "mention" about these high stick forces? How did it affect roll rate, and aircraft control? Just because these forces were possible didn't mean they were useful. Mentioning this "fact" by itself doesn't shine any more light on the 109's high speed roll rate.)

Let´s go on:

"To black out, as a limit to the human factor in high speed maneuvers, would require over 100 pounds pull on the stick."

100lb, 45kg, so what? (Blotto: I'll tell you what. Over 100 lb. stick force is the authors way of saying "this ain't gonna happen unless you're about to die, and maybe not even then." That's a helluva lot of control force, and again, not something an engineer would boast about.) This is no extraordinary high force for pulling. (Blotto: Tell me that again after you've gone out and tried to recover from a dive using "over 100 lb." of stick force.) Did english test pilots lack muscles? (Blotto: No, they just didn't cover poor engineering with machismo and bravado.)
The following document shows that the 109G was designed for elevator stick forces of even 85kg!! And this was a realistic assumption!

All right. Now let´s jump to this quote:

"Turning Radius
At full throttle, at 12,000 feet, the minimum turning radius without loss of altitude was about 890 feet for the Me-109E with its wing loading of 32 pounds per square foot. The corresponding figure for the Spit I or Hurricane was about 690 feet with a wing loading of 25 pounds."

I already discussed the influence of lift coefficient. What the report assumes is simply the same lift coefficient for the 109 and Spit. (Blotto: No, this report assumes that the laws of physics apply to all aircraft. For a given airspeed, g loading and time of turn, a radius of turn can be calculated. Wing loading and wing area aren't a part of these flight test numbers. These performance figures are not misled by dubious wind tunnel data or other hocus-pocus.) Of course, if we calcualte just with wingloadings then we get for the radius of the Spit: 829feet / 32 * 25 = 695feet ~690feet (Blotto: Interesting, and creative, math. I ought to have the critic do my taxes, though I'd probably go to jail as a result. Where did you come up with this little "formula" for comparing and calculating turn radius? That the 109's turn radius, divided by the 109's wing loading, times the Spitfire's wing loading, is approximately the same as the Spitfire's turn radius, is coincidence, not engineering. By the same faulty logic; God is love, love is blind, Ray Charles is blind, therefore...)
Unfortunatly - i can´t say it often enough - it´s lift/weight that determines the minimum radius and not just wingarea/weight. (Blotto: The critic is correct that lift/weight ratio determines instantaneous turn rate. Unless he's got some indication the engineers were calculating turn radius theoretically instead of using flight test data though, wing area never entered their calculations. Col. Carson was mentioning it - correctly - as an indicator of why the turn rates compare as they do.) The people who wrote the report and Carson are doing calculations on such a simple mathematic and aerodynamic basis that i´m wondering how they got their degree in mechanical engineering or aerodynamics! (Blotto: I'm starting to wonder the same thing about the critic. Where are those erroneous formulas he alleges that the engineers are using?)

After quoting so much from the Emil test report, he goes on with his own opinion. Let´s look at his summary

(1) Ailerons and elevator far too heavy at high speed.
(2) Poor turning radius.
(3) Absence of rudder trim control in cockpit.
(4) Aileron snatch (grabbing -- uneven airflow) when slats opened.
(5) Cockpit too cramped.
(6) Visibility poor from cockpit.
(7) Range and endurance inadequate.

My answer in short: (Blotto: Only because it ignores the facts of the aircraft's design, as the critic chooses to believe only data that supports his predisposition, whether that data is trustworthy and corroborated, or not.)

(1) Not true, ailerons even lighter than those of a Spitfire at high speeds. 109 test shows rollrate of over 80? at speeds over 450km/h, stickforces of more than 25kg possible! (Blotto: First: where is this mystery data, and how was it obtained? Second: an aircraft who's roll rate compares favourably to that of a Spitfire [especially the early Spits, who's roll rate was worse] is like saying the guy who finished last in a two man race came in 2nd while his competition came in next to last. Technically true, but more useful from a marketing standpoint, than an engineering standpoint.)
(2) Not true, radius smaller than USAAF aircraft (Blotto: which weren't what Col. Carson was comparing the 109 to. A little gamesmanship on Col. Carson's part, since the 109's turn performance compared more favourably to its American counterparts. But then again he was talking about Emil data, and that version of the aircraft was fighting Spitfires and Hurris, not Mustangs and Thunderbolts, so this comparison makes sense. The critic on the other hand, selects his comparisons to shine the best light on the 109, instead of presenting an accurate picture of its performance, or even refuting Col. Carson's comments directly. The reason for this subterfuge is that the critic is biased towards the 109, and refuting Col. Carson's comments directly is not possible.) The rea, experienced pilots could turn into Spitfires. (Blotto: There is a big difference between "turning into" and "out turning." Turning into doesn't imply a better turn rate or radius, but a better initial position. This goes back to my earlier proposed scenario of being able to turn well enough for the 109 pilot to track a target long enough to shoot it down. This does not imply that the 109 has better turn performance than the target aircraft however.) Btw, it´s a (german born) myth that Me-110 or Fw-190 could turn faster. In both cases where pilots of these machines wanted a trial against a 109 flown by german test pilot Beauvais, they lost! (Blotto: This anecdote implies better technique, not necessarily better turn performance. Show me the numbers.)
(3) Rudder and aileron trim had to be installed back then in germany for aircraft over 5 tons weight only. (Blotto: This sounds like a policy, not an engineering or pilotage decision. Trim would be more necessary for large - i.e. multi-engine - aircraft to help with the asymmetric thrust from an engine failure. But rudder trim is also essential in a fighter, in this case for proper gun aiming. Apparently the Germans thought that the pilots should do this correcting manually as airspeed and power changed, while the Allies preferred trimming the aircraft in yaw. Given the long distances allied escort fighters often flew, this made a bit of sense. What doesn't make sense is why the Germans would reduce pilot workload by automating the engine controls and radiator flaps, yet require that he constantly vary input to the rudder for different phases of flight.) No long range flights possible anyway, so fatigue was no problem.
(4) Unsymmetrical aileron openings could have been avoided by aileron adjustment. Aileron "hits" while opening were adressed with the F on (roller bearings, new design) (Blotto: So the Germans recognized this as a potential problem in the Emil as well, and changed the design in later models. How does this make Col. Carson wrong?)
(5) Pilots enjoyed it, they felt "one" with the machine. Everything close. Low drag design except for steep, but on the other hand small front window (Blotto: They may have felt one with the machine, but despite this "oneness" they still couldn't get enough leverage to get the needed force behind the roll inputs. The Spitfire had a similar problem, for a similar reason.)
(6) Partly correct, but view forward down was better than that of many other fighters. Erla hood was later an overall improvment (Blotto: Again, the Germans recognized the fault and partially corrected it in later models. How does this make Col. Carson wrong? The Messerschmitt engineers recognized it, why can't the critic?)
(7) Not true for interceptor role. True for long range escort tasks. (Blotto: Which was one of the Emil's missions, especially during the Battle of Britain. After the Germans lost that, they remained on the defensive for the rest of the war in the west. So I guess the moral here is that if you don't modify the aircraft to suit the mission, the mission will be modified to suit the aircraft.)

Carson goes on to describe the 109 as obsolete in 1942 and writes

"Furthermore, no designer in that period would pretend that he could stretch the combat effectiveness of a fighter for 7 years, 1935 to 1942, without major changes in power plant or aerodynamics, or, better yet, going to a new design."

First: The 109 made 2 major development "jumps". The first one was from the Emil to the Franz (or Friedrich), the next one was from the G to the K which is not as clear to see, because many components designed for the K (being basically ready at the end of ´43) were used first for the late G-6, G-10 and G-14 before they finally introduced the K-4.
So it wasn´t the same aircraft anymore in ´44 than in ´38, actually in ´42 it was already much improved. Let´s look at the power and weight development: During 10 years, power was increased by a factor of 2.5, while weight increase could be held down to a factor of only 1.6! (Blotto: True, but again misleading. While P/W went up [as did wingloading, but I forgot that wingloading isn't a true performance indicator, "liftloading" is...], many of the aircraft's shortcomings were never changed. Namely, single spar wing, small internal fuel capacity, cramped cockpit controls limiting pilot input and a narrow track landing gear. This last "feature" was responsible for more 109 losses than any single Allied aircraft type, yet it was never changed. To change it would have required a new wing, preferably with two spars for better torsional rigidity and damage resistance.)
Another fact: Though the Spitfire was introduced 3 years later, it was right from the beginning and throughout it´s life inferior to the 109 from a technological viewpoint.

First Spitfires did NOT have:
- direct fuel injection 1)
- variable pitch propellor
- slats, combat flaps 1)
- central mounted weapons 1)
- movable horizontal stabilizer for high speed flight/trim 1)
- inclined seat position for better G-load resistance
- Advanced airoil 1)

1) Even not introduced for late war Spitfires.
(Blotto: If we're going to compare the 109 to the first Spitfires, then lets use the contemporary first 109's, not the Emils. Compared to the 109B/C/D, the Spitfire MkI had twice the firepower, higher top speed,as well as better climb and turn performance. Early model 109's had a fixed, two blade prop as well. It wasn't a character flaw of the British designers to use such a prop, nor of the Germans. It was state-of-the-art at the time.
- The Spitfire never had fuel injection, direct or otherwise, but later carburettor designs eliminated the negative g cutout that had been the primary advantage of fuel injection versus the earlier carbs.
- The First Spitfire MkI's had a fixed pitch two blade prob. This was later replaced by a three blade prop with two pitch settings, and finally by a variable pitch unit. That the allies never incorporated a fully automatic engine control like the Germans is largely a matter of choice. They didn't see the manual control of mixture, prop pitch and throttle as overburdening the pilot, while the Germans didn't think manually adjusting rudder was too much to ask their pilots.
- Slats weren't used on the Spitfire, and it made do with simpler split flaps. It did however have a more efficient elliptical wing profile. This was more difficult to manufacture, but gave better performance than the 109's "Hershey bar" wing. The Messerschmitt engineers recognized this, and they rounded the tips of the Franz to attempt to make the wing perform closer to the elliptical planform without having to completely redesign the wing.
- Central mounted weapons are good from a convergence standpoint. They also help reduce roll inertia compared to wing mounted guns. They do have drawbacks though. They take up room in the fuselage that could be used for fuel, and take away a lot of the forward visibility gained through the use of an inverted-V engine. They also have to be synchronized to fire through the prop [unless you're mounting them on a Bf-110 or P-38], reducing effective rate of fire.
- The movable tailplane was [and still is] a good idea.
- The increased g tolerance from a reclined seat is, for most aircraft touting it, a myth. To get any benefit, the seat has to recline at least 45 degrees. The distance from head to heart is the critical number. Where the feet go is pretty much a non-factor as long as the pilot tightens his leg muscles. If he leaves his legs limp, blood will pool there faster, and accelerate loss of consciousness. Neither the 109 nor more modern fighters like the F-16, have enough tilt to help with g tolerance.
- I'm still looking for more than one questionable wind tunnel run for proof of this "advanced" airfoil.)


I could go on with other disadvantages of a Spitfire, namely in field service. No detachable wings, difficult mounting of propeller/propeller gear and so on. (Blotto: The critic also conveniently forgets to mention the 109's foibles, like narrow landing gear [shared with the Spitfire], aileron reversal at high speeds and roll inputs, due to wing twist [a possible explanation as to why Messerschmitt didn't make the stick longer, or give it more throw... it wouldn't have helped roll rate given the flexible wing], low damage tolerance, and low time between overhauls.)
From a technological, service, cost and production time viewpoint, the 109 was superior and was very difficult to replace. Few other fighters could have been produced in such numbers. (Blotto: So if I make lots of cheap, easy-to-service Cessna 172's, does that make them superior to the F-16? If you want to talk serviceability, cough up some numbers on maintenance hours per flight hour for the aircraft you're comparing, or at least preface your statement with "I believe". I believe you'll find the maintenance hours per flight hour to be comparable for the two aircraft, with differences from variant to variant of the same aircraft being larger than differences between the two types.)

"The Spitfire was an aerodynamically clean airplane to start with, having a total drag coefficient of .021 at cruise. The Me-109 had a coefficient of .036"

0.36 for the 109 is plain BS. Tests in Charles Meudon showed a CD of 0.24-0.28, (Blotto: still higher than the Spitfire, and I've already made clear how much I trust data from this source when it is taken out of context by the critic.) depending on surface condition. 0.36 is close to the test with a 500kg bomb and reduced wingarea. And this is once more just the CD value, to know more about total drag characteristics you have to multiply it with wingarea. (Blotto: Well, flat plate area actually. But wing area is often used as a substitute in drag calculations. I find it suspect that the critic doesn't hesitate to tout low wing area when it suits his argument, yet dismisses it as irrelevant when it runs counter to his beliefs about turn performance. Engineering is not a buffet.) Well, the Spit did have a lot, right? Let´s see:
Spit: 0.21*244 = 51.24
109: 0.28*171 = 47.9
Once more the 109 beats the Spitfire, even assuming the worst drag coefficient (Blotto: from his source, not Col. Carson's). Oh wait, i made a mistake. the CD is for the 109V24 with a wingare of only 15.1m^2 or 162ft^2. It´s for a rough camouflage painting btw, so really the worst you can expect. Now..:
109: 0.28*161 = 45.2
Significantly better than that of the Spitfires. (Blotto: So explain why exactly the Spitfire Mk I was faster than the 109E-7 with 170 fewer horsepower and a bigger wing? Admittedly, this speed was at 18,500 ft., versus 12,300 for the E-7. Since both were mechanically supercharged, I can only explain the different altitudes to a difference in supercharger gearing and/or shift point. The Spit weighed about 100 lb. less empty, but this and the altitude difference hardly seem enough explanation [although it does put that 60 lb. of ballast into perspective]. An engineer would look at this discrepancy and say; "hmm, my drag data or flat plate area must be off." The critic apparently sees the data as the goal, not aircraft performance.) History also tells us that 109 usually was faster with slightly less power. (Not my history books.)

"Messerschmitt practically ignored the subject of low drag aerodynamics"

This is the biggest joke in the article. From 1937 on the world record for top speed was in the hand of Messerschmitt with a short interruption by Heinkel. The record for the 209 lasted over 30 years, though the upcoming jet age definitly helped it to survive so long, pulling away attention, until it was broken by rather sportive reasons. However it clearly shows why Messerschmitt is still known as a pioneer in low drag and light construction. (Blotto: I don't know the specifics of the record flight, but I'm fairly sure that a powerful engine, in a heightened state of tune, was responsible for the record speed, not an airframe with external braces for it's horizontal stabilizer. I'd give more credence to Col. Carson's provided Cd, though the critics source also stipulates a Cd high enough to support Col. Carson's statement.)

Now Carson goes on, and it´s becoming almost ridicolous:

"Object: to make it a 400 mph plus airplane"

Above he mentions the G-10 with 425mph, did he already forgot that the 109 was able to go as fast?
There follow 7 "improvment" proposals, which seem to be again not based on Carson´s opinion only, but seem to have the origin in a german work about aerodynamic drag, which is unfortunatly not 100% correct. (Blotto: Why, because it disagrees with the critics opinion?) Anyway:

(1) Cancel the camouflage paint and go to smooth bare metal. Besides the weight, about 50 pounds, the grain size is too large when it dries and it causes turbulent friction over the entire airplane surface. That may take a phone call to the brass. They're emotional about paint jobs. "Image," you know.

Bare metal would have rusted quickly. (Blotto: Aluminium doesn't "rust". Technically it oxidizes, though it's through the same process as iron rusting. It does it much more slowly than iron though, and given the expected lifetime of these aircraft, would not have been a factor. Being easily seen taking off and landing would have been a much bigger concern, especially late in the war.) At high altitudes you better don´t want to "blink" anyway when you try to get through hundreds of enemy fighters. (Blotto: When the 109's were intercepting the bomber stream, they weren't sneaking up on anybody. The bombers were in the condensation layer, and to shoot them the 109's had to be there too, regardless of paint colour.) BS! The weight, once the paint is dry, is not so high. The grain size maybe was high, but machines were polished or waxed anyway by the mechanics. (Blotto: Had they done this, effectively turning flat paint into gloss, they would have reduced drag, but made the aircraft almost as reflective as bare metal. For every picture of a polished aircraft at an operational unit the critic can produce, I can produce ten of a flat, dirty, oily aircraft where low drag was the last thing on the crew chief's mind.) It should be also noted that a smooth surface can be easily destroyed by dirt, flies or dust. Just read the report on this page about the P-51 dive tests and the different resualts depending on dust alone! (Blotto: While he's right, I'm not sure what the critics point here is. Was the 109 less affected by dirt than the P-51? Did 109's not get dirty? Bare metal airframes would have collected dirt just as painted airframes, but at least a portion of the bare airframe would have remained clean, and therefore smoother and more slippery, than a flat painted aircraft.)

(2) Modify the cockpit canopy. Remove the inverted bathtub that's on there now and modify as necessary to fit the Me-209-VI canopy. That's the airplane that set the world speed record in 1939.

Bullet proofed glass could not have been manufactored in a round way back then, maybe even not today? (Blotto: To mount bulletproof glass to an aerodynamic windscreen, an arrangement like the early P-47 would be relatively easy. That is, put the flat armoured glass behind the aerodynamic perspex. See how easy it is to agree if you just use your imagination for a second instead of dismissing an idea out of hand?) So once more BS! (On the part of Col. Carson, or the critic? His suggestion is only BS if you don't even consider how it would be possible.) Btw, the razorback design of the P51-B was considered to be a lower in drag design than the bubble canopy. (Blotto: Yep, gave it a couple of extra mph over the bubble top. Better lateral stability too, due to the additional side area aft of the aerodynamic centre. But that speed doesn't do much good if you get shot by the guy behind you that you couldn't see through the solid fuselage. As a colleague of mine used to say: "Sight is life, speed is merely groovy." Put another way, speed isn't the only design consideration for a fighter. Visibility counts, too.)

(3) Get rid of the wing slats. Lock them closed and hand fit a strip, upper and lower surface, that will close the sheet metal gaps between the slat and wing structure. That gap causes the outboard 15 feet of each wing to be totally turbulent.

Again BS and depending on aileron adjustment. Huh, with 45% turbulent airflow the 109 could barely fly! BS, really BS! (Blotto: BS only to a non-engineer. The slats were precision mechanisms with very tight tolerances. While German mechanics could probably maintain them to those tolerances, doing so took a lot of time and effort under field conditions. Any asymmetry in their deployment would upset a guns solution, which is presumably what the pilot was after during such hard manoeuvring. Locking them would make for a more stable gun platform. Experten knew when to expect the slats to pop open, but as experience fell during the course of the war, the less experienced pilots would have been less likely to anticipate this. This suggestion would have made the 109 a more predictable gun platform at the cost of some roll control at the AoA limit. And with 45% - by span - turbulent airflow, the aircraft would have flown just fine. There is a difference between turbulent flow and detached flow. A turbulent boundary layer is slightly draggier than a laminar one, but still much lower in drag than detached flow. Modern aircraft designers take advantage of this fact by placing vortex generators on surfaces where they're having trouble with detached flow. These small vanes stick up into the airflow generating -turbulent- vortexes to reenergize the airflow and keep the boundary layer attached. It's not the lowest drag solution, but it's better than detached flow. With the slat gaps on the 109, the flow is made turbulent much sooner along the chord than it would be otherwise. What Col. Carson is referring to is a turbulent boundary layer, not detached flow. The modification he describes was used successfully on the later F-86F, with the so-called 3-6 wing leading edge. The critic needs to learn the terms before he criticises them.)
(4) As aerodynamic compensation for locking the slats, setup jigs and fixtures on the assembly line to put in 2 degrees of geometric twist from the root to tip, known as "washout."

Ok, here i have to write a bit more. Carson really does know nothing about the 109, and even worse, he obviously did not inform himself before writing such an article.
It´s a fact that Messerschmitt wanted to get rid of the slats too, but not on grounds of aerodynamically inefficience, but because they were disturbing in a mass production. Complex part, fine adjustments necessary, expensive. Messerschmitt ran several wing tests for the new F series. Background was a very dangerous behaviour of aircraft at this time for sudden wing drops at high AoA, an almost completly, sudden loss of lift on one wing. The DVL ran several test on a 109B to find out the reason behind the phenomen. B¶lkow(he died recently), who was responsible for the development of the K, tried later to avoid this problem during landings with the longer tailwheel, that saw service in the G-10, but this did not found support at Rechlin

The "flying wind tunnel", a prepared 109B

They found out that the proposed "washout" did not help but made the stall characteristics worse! Yes, Mr. Carson, it made it worse!! Germans and Willy DID know about washout! So take you poor schoolar knowledge you learned from some books and :/$/"$!"$ !!! (Blotto: Here the critic loses any shred of objectivity he might have had remaining. I'm not sure why washout failed on the test bed 109, but from the suggested longer tailwheel, it sounds like the wing's critical AoA was being reached before the aircraft got to a three-point attitude. This would be the case with a sharp leading edge radius on the wing airfoil, which would tend to have more abrupt stall characteristics than a blunt leading edge. The one-wing dropoff points to either incorrectly rigged washout, torque/p-factor effects and/or an asymmetrically rough wing leading edge. Given that this was an old 109B, perhaps it went to the modification hangar bent from prior use? Whatever the reason, air doesn't behave differently in German skies than elsewhere. As with the F-86F leading edge mentioned previously, other designers have used washout successfully to tame stall characteristics, so I have to assume the problem is not with the concept, but rather its execution. The critic however, would rather hurl insults than find answers.)
Now, furhter investigations showed an airstream running across the leading edge or front part of the wing right before such a sudden drop occured. The engineers made an experiment: They mounted vertical stripes on the wing which should prevent this crossflow. It was a HUGE sucess, nevertheless it was not introduced. Why? Slats were still more effective, and it was expected that this fence was disturbing for the laminar wing which was expected in near future. (Blotto: I'd like to see more about this spanwise flow on a wing with a straight leading edge. The phenomenon is common with swept wings, but not as much so with a straight wing. A boundary layer fence would keep it from progressing further spanwise, and keep the ailerons effective longer. This would also eliminate the possibility of asymmetric slat deployment, making for a more stable gun platform. Apparently the Spanish thought these worthwhile traits.)
After the war exactly the same "boundary layer fence", today´s expression, was used for the 109 build in Spain which lacked the slats. (Blotto: I see this part of the diatribe as a validation of the notion that the slats negatives outweighed their benefits, rather than a validation of their superiority. Perhaps the Spanish were less able/willing to devote the resources needed to maintain slats properly?)

The 109 was the first aircraft to carry boundary layer fences, even before the war! (Blotto: I'm getting confused again. Is the critic bragging about this aerodynamic first, when it was never put into production? If this is such an achievement, why go to such lengths to argue, incorrectly, that Col. Carson was wrong about his comment concerning the slats in the first place?)

(5) Modify coolant scoop inlet fairings. The square corners that are there now induce an unnecessary amount of drag. Also lower the inlet 1 to 2 inches below wing surface to get it out of the turbulence of the wing surface.
(6) Install complete wheel well farings that cover the openings after the gear is retracted.
(7) Retract tail wheel.

The rest can be considered ok, but not deciding. The tailwheel influence showed up in wind tunnel tests only at high AoA. At low AoA it "hides" itself behind the fuselage. (Blotto:...in turbulent, separated flow from the oil and glycol coolers upstream. Which pretty much corroborates Col. Carson's comments.)
That´s it! (That's more than enough, actually.)

Blotto: In summary, I find the critics comments to be biased, argumentative, and in general lacking in an understanding of aeronautical engineering, except those concepts that support his predisposition. This is an example of the downside of the Internet. The World Wide Web allows individuals to pull snippets of information out of context, which seem to support the individual's preconceived notion of how things work. Unfortunately, these "facts" are not presented in any usable context, or with the necessary background knowledge to use them properly. Engineering is a poor choice of discipline to be self-taught over the Internet, and this is a prime example of why this is the case. Proper engineering is passionless, and pretty boring. This individual has an obvious passion for the Bf-109, and this has blinded him to any information concerning the aircraft's weaknesses, or how they could be corrected. No aircraft is "perfect." They are all the results of numerous compromises their designers took when building them. To think any aircraft is flawless is just foolish, and dangerous engineering.


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
09-14-2003, 07:40 AM
Well Blotto everybody should congratulate you for this brilliant waste of web space. You are continuing the hard work of Col. Kit Carson, be proud.


With one thing I agree though, the ending:

- In summary, I find the Kit Carson comments to
- be biased, argumentative, and in general lacking in
- an understanding of aeronautical engineering, except
- those concepts that support his predisposition.
- This is an example of the downside of the Internet.
- The World Wide Web allows individuals to pull
- snippets of information out of context, which seem
- to support the individual's preconceived notion of
- how things work. Unfortunately, these "facts" are
- not presented in any usable context, or with the
- necessary background knowledge to use them properly.
- Engineering is a poor choice of discipline to be
- self-taught over the Internet, and this is a prime
- example of why this is the case. Proper engineering
- is passionless, and pretty boring. This individual
- has an obvious bias against Bf-109, and this has
- blinded him to any information concerning the
- aircraft's qualities. No aircraft is "perfect." They
- are all the results of numerous compromises their designers
- took when building them. To think any aircraft is
- flawless is just foolish, and dangerous engineering.

Forgive me the paraphrase.

The omnipresent suggestion of this disparaging article about Bf-109 is that US had a better fighter in ww2. Would you mind Blotto to tell me which one?


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

Message Edited on 09/14/0301:44AM by Huckebein_FW

XyZspineZyX
09-14-2003, 07:50 AM
: Blottogg thats what i call a post!!! nicely done !

U.S. infantry 84-91

XyZspineZyX
09-14-2003, 07:53 AM
While I'll agree that the original article disparaged the Bf-109, or at least brought to light some of its shortcomings, I'll disagree that the article was meant to offer an American fighter as "better" than the 109. On the contrary, Col. Carson specifically states at the article's start that choosing a "best" fighter is a fruitless act.
Can I take it by your lack of rebuttal to my comments that you agree with them, or that you're devotion to all things 109 compelled you to type before reading an admittedly long winded post? Do you have any useful information on the 109's strengths and shortcomings to contribute to this thread, or can I go to bed and pick this up tomorrow?

Edited for spelling/grammar/punctuation (hey, it's late)

Message Edited on 09/14/0301:09AM by Blottogg

XyZspineZyX
09-14-2003, 09:34 AM
Blottogg wrote:
- While I'll agree that the original article
- disparaged the Bf-109, or at least brought to light
- some of its shortcomings, I'll disagree that the
- article was meant to offer an American fighter as
- "better" than the 109. On the contrary, Col. Carson
- specifically states at the article's start that
- choosing a "best" fighter is a fruitless act.
- Can I take it by your lack of rebuttal to my
- comments that you agree with them, or that you're
- devotion to all things 109 compelled you to type
- before reading an admittedly long winded post? Do
- you have any useful information on the 109's
- strengths and shortcomings to contribute to this
- thread, or can I go to bed and pick this up
- tomorrow?

Although I'll hate myself for the easy short answer, but Blottogg long post gives me a severe case of pot meet kettle.

When Blott "counterclaims" there is little need to state source, reference or quality of said statement. Although I agree upon a qualitative and objective evaluation of a/c, including those I have a weakness for, its easy enough to see where Blott's personal bias lies.

As for the equally fair question of answering his post point by point...I'm not crazy enough to spend a couple of days working on a balanced and referenced answer (certainly not if you take the nature of this forum into account).

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
09-14-2003, 10:34 AM
Blotto, very intertesting post. Thanks.

regards,

RocketDog.

XyZspineZyX
09-14-2003, 11:38 AM
Saburo_0 wrote:

- In the US & UK the Germans get a lot of credit for
- their technology but most people are not aware that
- their TACTICS are responsible for thier successses
- on the battlefield.


To be honest, I think German avaition from the 1930s was as good as anything found elsewehere, but the military aviation of the 1940s has acquired a much better reputation than it deserves.

A closer examination of the history reveals that, through little more than incompetance, the Luftwaffe made a series of disaterous procurement decisions in the late 1930s and early 1940s. The result was that they ended up wasting effort rushing a series of under-developed types into production long before they were ready. It's easy to be impressed by the paper performance figures of some of these aircraft (e.g., Do 335, Me-163, Me-262 etc.), but the actual military effectiveness of nearly all of them was minimal. The reasons why Germany's aviation industry and the Luftwaffe made such a mess of it makes very interesting social and economic history, but dosn't get recognised much in forums like this one which are more interested with performance figures.

Techie-geeks are impressed by the Luftwaffe's aircraft. Military historians are not. Which, of course, is Harry Voyager's point.

Regards,

RocketDog.

XyZspineZyX
09-14-2003, 12:17 PM
This highly accurate document clearly reveals that the Messerschmidt Bf-109 was a pile of flying crap. Consequently as per the original poster's request -the model of the flying Bf-109 in IL2 Forgotten Battles should be modified to resemble pile of flying crap.

Did I get that right? /i/smilies/16x16_robot-happy.gif

http://www.pfy.nu/pics/p40blam.gif

XyZspineZyX
09-14-2003, 12:33 PM
Matz0r wrote:
- This highly accurate document clearly reveals that
- the Messerschmidt Bf-109 was a pile of flying crap.
- Consequently as per the original poster's request
- -the model of the flying Bf-109 in IL2 Forgotten
- Battles should be modified to resemble pile of
- flying crap.
-
-

So that is why it was called a Messish!t?/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

http://a1276.g.akamai.net/7/1276/734/625ed428e022ef/www.harley-davidson.com/PR/MOT/2004/Softail/images/DOM/img_Softail_FXST.jpg

http://www.redneckengineering.com/photogallery/photo23581/curves-done-03.jpg


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

XyZspineZyX
09-14-2003, 02:06 PM
MiloMorai wrote:
-
- So that is why it was called a Messish!t?


who called it so, except you, MiloMorai ?

learn german , milo, then maybe you can spell it right /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif





http://www.bayern.de/Layout/wappen.gif

Bavaria is one of the oldest European states.
It dates back to about 500 A.D., when the Roman Empire was overcome by the onslaught of Germanic tribes. According to a widespread theory, the Bavarian tribe had descended from the Romans who remained in the country, the original Celtic population and the Germanic invaders.

Bavarian History : http://www.bayern.de/Bayern/Information/geschichteE.html#kap0

Message Edited on 09/14/0301:09PM by Boandlgramer

XyZspineZyX
09-14-2003, 02:11 PM
Matz0r wrote:
- This highly accurate document clearly reveals that
- the Messerschmidt Bf-109 was a pile of flying crap.
- Consequently as per the original poster's request
- -the model of the flying Bf-109 in IL2 Forgotten
- Battles should be modified to resemble pile of
- flying crap.
-
- Did I get that right? /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif



http://www.bayern.de/Layout/wappen.gif

Bavaria is one of the oldest European states.
It dates back to about 500 A.D., when the Roman Empire was overcome by the onslaught of Germanic tribes. According to a widespread theory, the Bavarian tribe had descended from the Romans who remained in the country, the original Celtic population and the Germanic invaders.

Bavarian History : http://www.bayern.de/Bayern/Information/geschichteE.html#kap0

XyZspineZyX
09-14-2003, 02:11 PM
Maybe you should get some humour in your life Boandlgramer.

Boandlgramer wrote:
-
- MiloMorai wrote:
--
-- So that is why it was called a Messish!t?
-
-
-
- who called it so, expect you, MiloMorai ?
-
- learn german , milo, then maybe you can spell it
- right

Maybe you should learn English.

expect???? try except./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

http://a1276.g.akamai.net/7/1276/734/625ed428e022ef/www.harley-davidson.com/PR/MOT/2004/Softail/images/DOM/img_Softail_FXST.jpg

http://www.redneckengineering.com/photogallery/photo23581/curves-done-03.jpg


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

XyZspineZyX
09-14-2003, 02:14 PM
milo you get me, heheheh you never wrote anything wrong yet /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
this deserve an double smile

http://www.bayern.de/Layout/wappen.gif

Bavaria is one of the oldest European states.
It dates back to about 500 A.D., when the Roman Empire was overcome by the onslaught of Germanic tribes. According to a widespread theory, the Bavarian tribe had descended from the Romans who remained in the country, the original Celtic population and the Germanic invaders.

Bavarian History : http://www.bayern.de/Bayern/Information/geschichteE.html#kap0

XyZspineZyX
09-14-2003, 02:20 PM
SkyChimp wrote:
- V-1650-3 (P-51B and early C)
- 1,330 hp at 29,000
-
- V-1650-7 (late P-51C and P-51D)
- 1,505 hp at 19,250

Thanks Chimp - just what the doctor ordered, pretty much!

So interpolating - about 1400hp.

What was the 190G engine rated at 7500m again, Isegrim?
(I'm too lazy to look back up the thread :-))

XyZspineZyX
09-14-2003, 02:20 PM
yes of course, i have to work on it (english , i mean )
never i said mine is good
but how is your german ?

sorry again for my poor english

http://www.bayern.de/Layout/wappen.gif

Bavaria is one of the oldest European states.
It dates back to about 500 A.D., when the Roman Empire was overcome by the onslaught of Germanic tribes. According to a widespread theory, the Bavarian tribe had descended from the Romans who remained in the country, the original Celtic population and the Germanic invaders.

Bavarian History : http://www.bayern.de/Bayern/Information/geschichteE.html#kap0

Message Edited on 09/14/0301:23PM by Boandlgramer

XyZspineZyX
09-14-2003, 02:23 PM
Blottogg wrote:
- I apologize in advance for the long post. The link
- About the aerodynamic efficienz: The efficienz of
- the 109 airframe was proven very early in 1937, when
- a Emil airframe was prepared and a DB-601 engine was
- tuned to deliver 1700PS. This machine reached
- 611km/h at sealevel, world record. Except for a very
- careful surface finish, all difference to the serial
- 109E were a different spinner, no weapons, and a
- modified hood (This is not the 209, also called
- 109R, which reached later a much higher speed). Even
- 8 years later this speed was barely reached with
- such a power.

The 190E was a comparative lightweight, though.
The P51B exceeded this speed at sea level, with
a little less power, and with considerably more weight.

XyZspineZyX
09-14-2003, 02:27 PM
Wow! Excellent read Blottogg!/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

http://members.chello.se/unni/GK-2.JPG


'When it comes to aircombat, I'd rather be lucky than good any day!'

XyZspineZyX
09-14-2003, 02:39 PM
If reading history leaves you wondering, then you don't have the full picture. Maybe reading more will help, maybe not.

Hindsight from years and years later with the telescope of long gathered 'facts' is much better than 20-20. Put yourself fairly in the shoes of the ones there and suddenly things make much more sense.

Weren't the Germans restricted as to development at least before Hitler finally threw off the Varsailles limits? Didn't they have to do much in total secrecy before then? Didn't they have that deal with the Soviets to develop tanks (planes?) in Russia, and the first tactics all with a sharing agreement with the Soviets (share what they had to)?

Wasn't the German industrial and political way always competitive on all levels? Willy Messerschmidt having access to all information freely? Uh-huh. Maybe from outside. Was everything from outside published as soon as it was invented?

German politics and industry killed the Heinkel jet and fighter designs that were far ahead of their time. The Whermacht (badly spelled there, request correction!) general Milsch kept the jets down for I guess 2 years by objecting to the use of nosewheels as an American invention, which they are not. Interservice rivaly and budget maneuvering, Messerschmidt polliticking Heinkel out of development efforts. WM got the jet team but at a loss of time and not all the work done came with them so they had to reproduce it.

The politics of war and the forecasting of the future... if we could see ahead then we'd be rich successes? Imagine luck and circumstance playing no part in your life? Imagine some future descendant judging you on every failure or time you could have even done better though you did not fail, no matter what or how it occurred? Now go pick at Willy Messerschmidt or anyone else from decades ago.

The 109 flew and flew well. It continued to throughout the war. It did lose its position all through despite the work done on it but that don't make it a crappy plane. Spitfire and Mustang pilots did not laugh at 109's!

The British didn't invent the Spitfire. Supermarine did with major cooperation from Rolls Royce. Actually it was one man by the mane of Reynolds who was key, and he worked himself to death in the effort. When Supermarine badly needed the money to continue the effort, Parliment turned them down. The whole thing would have failed but for one woman with a personal fortune and a very deep national streak who wrote them a very large check when to her and some others the threat from germany loomed. To their credit, Britian as a country turned around in time to literally 'save the day' and fully supported Supermarine and Rolls. They defended the country as few have ever done.

Britain lost many planes in the BoB. A lot of them Spitfires and much more Hurricanes. What were the odds just fighter to fighter? How many downed by defensive fire from bombers? how many damaged or destroyed on the airfields? To compare 109s lost to Spitfires lost is a bit of a joke especially when the people who love to do that later on are quick to point out that later in the war the Allies plane outnumbered the Germans planes to explain German losses as not due to Allied planes or pilots being better. In the BoB the Brits did use strategy to achieve local superiority in some fights at a cost to others just as in the BoE the germans did the same. Kill counts alone prove nothing about qualities of planes or pilots and only know-nothing (okay they know a tiny bit) noobs and bigots will try and use those.

Lastly, the Spitfire I was a very good plane for its time as was the 109E. Both were world-class winners. They had different strong points and weak points. They both went through many changes during the war but they both held onto some niche or other and filled them well.

The 109 did its job (which evolved some) so it was kept being made. To have it used where it should not is not a fault in the 109. To judge it in roles it was not suited to is bad judgement. It was never a super fighter plane although at the beginning it was damn near that with only one real rival that I know of. By the end of the war, the 109K was not exactly obsolete either.


Neal

XyZspineZyX
09-14-2003, 02:41 PM
Ya you should since this is an English language forum./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

You should also acquire some more intelligence so you understand the pun of using Messish!t./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Let me help you some:
- the post called the 109 a crap plane/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
- lots of 109 pilots had the sh!t scared out of them in combat/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif So did Allied pilots but the Messerschmitt product "fits" the wording so well./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif



Boandlgramer wrote:
- yes of course, i have to work on it (english , i
- mean )
- never i said mine is good
- but how is your german ?
-
- sorry again for my poor english


http://a1276.g.akamai.net/7/1276/734/625ed428e022ef/www.harley-davidson.com/PR/MOT/2004/Softail/images/DOM/img_Softail_FXST.jpg

http://www.redneckengineering.com/photogallery/photo23581/curves-done-03.jpg


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

XyZspineZyX
09-14-2003, 02:48 PM
It should also be mentioned that Carson also did a critique of the Fw190 that was for the most part favorable.Hes no where near as biased as the 109ophiles.

XyZspineZyX
09-14-2003, 03:01 PM
WWMaxGunz wrote:


-
- The British didn't invent the Spitfire. Supermarine
- did with major cooperation from Rolls Royce.
- Actually it was one man by the mane of Reynolds who
- was key, and he worked himself to death in the
- effort. When Supermarine badly needed the money to
- continue the effort, Parliment turned them down.
- The whole thing would have failed but for one woman
- with a personal fortune and a very deep national
- streak who wrote them a very large check when to her
- and some others the threat from germany loomed.
-
-

Who is this Reynolds guy?

Do you mean Reginald J. Mitchell?

I did not know one could get cancer from overwork?

That woman was Lady Houston and she put up the money for Supermarine to compete in the 1931 Schneider Cup race.





http://a1276.g.akamai.net/7/1276/734/625ed428e022ef/www.harley-davidson.com/PR/MOT/2004/Softail/images/DOM/img_Softail_FXST.jpg

http://www.redneckengineering.com/photogallery/photo23581/curves-done-03.jpg


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

XyZspineZyX
09-14-2003, 03:05 PM
ok milo,
for these pilots , killed from an messerschmitt.
you lost against a messish!t .

you are british , right ?


http://www.bayern.de/Layout/wappen.gif

Bavaria is one of the oldest European states.
It dates back to about 500 A.D., when the Roman Empire was overcome by the onslaught of Germanic tribes. According to a widespread theory, the Bavarian tribe had descended from the Romans who remained in the country, the original Celtic population and the Germanic invaders.

Bavarian History : http://www.bayern.de/Bayern/Information/geschichteE.html#kap0

XyZspineZyX
09-14-2003, 03:14 PM
Now you are getting into the swing./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif Never look up with the mouth open when 'poo hawks' are around.

Brit > NO, heaven for bid, hope to die.


Boandlgramer wrote:
- ok milo,
- for these pilots , killed from an messerschmitt.
- you lost against a messish!t .
-
- you are british , right ?
-


http://a1276.g.akamai.net/7/1276/734/625ed428e022ef/www.harley-davidson.com/PR/MOT/2004/Softail/images/DOM/img_Softail_FXST.jpg

http://www.redneckengineering.com/photogallery/photo23581/curves-done-03.jpg


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

XyZspineZyX
09-14-2003, 03:37 PM
many thx for your answer, milo.

because i have the greatest respect for the British people . they show respect for other nations.

good to hear , you are non /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif , happy brits /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif





http://www.bayern.de/Layout/wappen.gif

Bavaria is one of the oldest European states.
It dates back to about 500 A.D., when the Roman Empire was overcome by the onslaught of Germanic tribes. According to a widespread theory, the Bavarian tribe had descended from the Romans who remained in the country, the original Celtic population and the Germanic invaders.

Bavarian History : http://www.bayern.de/Bayern/Information/geschichteE.html#kap0

XyZspineZyX
09-14-2003, 03:54 PM
Guys..I think this explains it really.
P-47D27 flown by 56th_Lamb vs P-39N1 flown by SmokeJaguar= 56th_Lamb PK......LOL It's all about the pilot..not the plane. sure the plane helps but give a good pilot a bad plane and teh poor pilot is history.

XyZspineZyX
09-14-2003, 04:56 PM
WWMaxGunz wrote:

- German politics and industry killed the Heinkel jet
- and fighter designs that were far ahead of their
- time.

This is partly the point I was trying to make. Most of the various jets and other aircraft selected for development by the Luftwaffe actually WERE ahead of their time - by which I mean that they had virtually no chance of being deployed in a militarily-significant form in the time available. The Luftwaffe and the German aviation industry greatly underestimated the time taken to develop and introduce advanced aircraft that often used new and untried technologies. It sometimes seems there is a common perception that aircraft like the He-162 were a sign of the advanced state of the German aviation industry. But in fact, given the useless nature of almost all these projects it could be argued with rather more force that they were a sign of its failure.

In contrast, the other warring nations recognised that the conflict would be decided in the space of a few years and concentrated on developing robust, cost-effective weapons that could be mass-produced, delivered and operated in large numbers within a short space of time. This strategy resulted in the introduction of many effective new aircraft type, such as the Lancaster, Mosquito, Tempest/Typhoon, P-47, P-51 and B-29 etc. The paucity of the corresponding list for the Axis powers shows which side chose the correct strategy.

Regards,

RocketDog.

XyZspineZyX
09-14-2003, 05:01 PM
I agree 100% with WWMaxGunz.

Everybody who is interested enough for this matter should read more. I recommend A.Galland´s "The first and the last".

It´s old book but it tells something about the Me-109.

XyZspineZyX
09-14-2003, 05:24 PM
Blottogg wrote:
- While I'll agree that the original article
- disparaged the Bf-109, or at least brought to light
- some of its shortcomings, I'll disagree that the
- article was meant to offer an American fighter as
- "better" than the 109. On the contrary, Col. Carson
- specifically states at the article's start that
- choosing a "best" fighter is a fruitless act.
- Can I take it by your lack of rebuttal to my
- comments that you agree with them, or that you're
- devotion to all things 109 compelled you to type
- before reading an admittedly long winded post? Do
- you have any useful information on the 109's
- strengths and shortcomings to contribute to this
- thread, or can I go to bed and pick this up
- tomorrow?


Make a short list of 5-6 major deficiencies you think Bf-109 design has and we'll talk. But don't give me adnotations on an article of such a poor quality that it has no single paragraph without a glaring mistake.


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

XyZspineZyX
09-14-2003, 05:30 PM
RocketDog wrote:
- WWMaxGunz wrote:
-
-- German politics and industry killed the Heinkel jet
-- and fighter designs that were far ahead of their
-- time.
-
- This is partly the point I was trying to make. Most
- of the various jets and other aircraft selected for
- development by the Luftwaffe actually WERE ahead of
- their time - by which I mean that they had virtually
- no chance of being deployed in a
- militarily-significant form in the time available.
- The Luftwaffe and the German aviation industry
- greatly underestimated the time taken to develop and
- introduce advanced aircraft that often used new and
- untried technologies. It sometimes seems there is a
- common perception that aircraft like the He-162 were
- a sign of the advanced state of the German aviation
- industry. But in fact, given the useless nature of
- almost all these projects it could be argued with
- rather more force that they were a sign of its
- failure.
-
- In contrast, the other warring nations recognised
- that the conflict would be decided in the space of a
- few years and concentrated on developing robust,
- cost-effective weapons that could be mass-produced,
- delivered and operated in large numbers within a
- short space of time. This strategy resulted in the
- introduction of many effective new aircraft type,
- such as the Lancaster, Mosquito, Tempest/Typhoon,
- P-47, P-51 and B-29 etc. The paucity of the
- corresponding list for the Axis powers shows which
- side chose the correct strategy.


There were no resources diverted from traditional piston aircrafts for the production of jets. In 1944 the aircraft production in Germany reached the highest level in the entire war. There were no aircraft shortages, only fuel shortages. At the end of the war planes were left unserviced because there was no fuel for them.

And anyway Germany had the best piston engine aircrafts in every category. If you're not convinced give me an adversary for 109. Or pick another category.



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

XyZspineZyX
09-14-2003, 05:42 PM
An a/c is useless, no matter how good it is, without fuel, so it does not matter how many were produced./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif


Huckebein_FW wrote:

-
- And anyway Germany had the best piston engine
- aircrafts in every category. If you're not convinced
- give me an adversary for 109. Or pick another
- category.
-


P-47N, with a lead computing gunsight that worked./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif


http://a1276.g.akamai.net/7/1276/734/625ed428e022ef/www.harley-davidson.com/PR/MOT/2004/Softail/images/DOM/img_Softail_FXST.jpg

http://www.redneckengineering.com/photogallery/photo23581/curves-done-03.jpg


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

XyZspineZyX
09-14-2003, 05:57 PM
MiloMorai wrote:
- An a/c is useless, no matter how good it is, without
- fuel, so it does not matter how many were
- produced.


Correct.


- Huckebein_FW wrote:
-
-
--
-- And anyway Germany had the best piston engine
-- aircrafts in every category. If you're not convinced
-- give me an adversary for 109. Or pick another
-- category.
--
-
-
- P-47N, with a lead computing gunsight that
- worked.


I cannot compare P-47N with Bf-109K, they are completely different aircrafts. P-47N is a fast high altitude escort plane with great payload, Bf-109K is a low and medium alts air superiority fighter.

Compare P-47N with Ta-152H if you want, aprox same max speed, much better fighting abilities for Ta-152H, meaning climb, turn, acceleration. P-47N was better in range.


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

XyZspineZyX
09-14-2003, 06:20 PM
Huck, you said pick an a/c. I did./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Why did I know you would try to squirm out of the pick?/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Huckebein_FW wrote:

---
--- And anyway Germany had the best piston engine
--- aircrafts in every category. If you're not convinced
--- give me an adversary for 109. Or pick another
--- category.
---
--
--
-- P-47N, with a lead computing gunsight that
-- worked.
-
-
- I cannot compare P-47N with Bf-109K, they are
- completely different aircrafts. P-47N is a fast high
- altitude escort plane with great payload, Bf-109K is
- a low and medium alts air superiority fighter.
-
- Compare P-47N with Ta-152H if you want, aprox same
- max speed, much better fighting abilities for
- Ta-152H, meaning climb, turn, acceleration. P-47N
- was better in range.
-


http://a1276.g.akamai.net/7/1276/734/625ed428e022ef/www.harley-davidson.com/PR/MOT/2004/Softail/images/DOM/img_Softail_FXST.jpg

http://www.redneckengineering.com/photogallery/photo23581/curves-done-03.jpg


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

XyZspineZyX
09-14-2003, 06:35 PM
MiloMorai wrote:
- Huck, you said pick an a/c. I did.
-
- Why did I know you would try to squirm out of the
- pick?

Bf-109K4 was definitely a better air superiority fighter than P-47N - it was better in any performance characteristic (except max speed at high altitude - but that didn't matter in real life, there was nobody to fight there).

I was just trying to not embarass P-47N that much/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif


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

XyZspineZyX
09-14-2003, 06:39 PM
Huckebein_FW wrote:
- MiloMorai wrote:
-- Huck, you said pick an a/c. I did.
--
-- Why did I know you would try to squirm out of the
-- pick?
-
- Bf-109K4 was definitely a better air superiority
- fighter than P-47N - it was better in any
- performance characteristic (except max speed at high
- altitude - but that didn't matter in real life,
- there was nobody to fight there).
-
- I was just trying to not embarass P-47N that
- much
-


Go ahead and try./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

http://a1276.g.akamai.net/7/1276/734/625ed428e022ef/www.harley-davidson.com/PR/MOT/2004/Softail/images/DOM/img_Softail_FXST.jpg

http://www.redneckengineering.com/photogallery/photo23581/curves-done-03.jpg


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

XyZspineZyX
09-14-2003, 06:59 PM
initial climb

P-47N: 2770fpm
Bf-109K4: 4820fpm

in acceleration the difference remains the same because

climb_rate is aprox acceleration/gravitational_acc*climb_speed


in turn there is no contest, K4 does a 360 turn in 21sec, a P-47N maybe in 30sec (early variants in 26-27sec), you can check the power and wing loading if you're interested.


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

XyZspineZyX
09-14-2003, 07:15 PM
Huckebein_FW wrote:
- initial climb
-
- P-47N: 2770fpm
- Bf-109K4: 4820fpm
-
- in acceleration the difference remains the same
- because
-
- climb_rate is aprox
- acceleration/gravitational_acc*climb_speed
-
-
- in turn there is no contest, K4 does a 360 turn in
- 21sec, a P-47N maybe in 30sec (early variants in
- 26-27sec), you can check the power and wing loading
- if you're interested.
-

Zoom climb numbers?

climb rate at 20,000ft?

American doctrine was not to turn fight, so, so much for the turn times.

The -47N would be 10,000ft above the K dictating the combat.

http://a1276.g.akamai.net/7/1276/734/625ed428e022ef/www.harley-davidson.com/PR/MOT/2004/Softail/images/DOM/img_Softail_FXST.jpg

http://www.redneckengineering.com/photogallery/photo23581/curves-done-03.jpg


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

XyZspineZyX
09-14-2003, 07:59 PM
And anyway Germany had the best piston engine aircrafts in every category

OK Huckebein_FW, I'll take the bait, What German AC was the best piston aircraft in the long range escort fighter role?

XyZspineZyX
09-14-2003, 08:24 PM
Huckebein_FW wrote:
- And anyway Germany had the best piston engine
- aircrafts in every category. If you're not convinced
- give me an adversary for 109. Or pick another
- category.

Ok some categories for discussion:

4-engined heavy bomber*
2-engined medium bomber
2-engined light bomber
Long range maritime patrol
Transport

That should be plenty. Probably some overlap in one person's medium bomber and another's light; we can be flexible in interpretations. Just thought of Carrier strike ac category, but I trust you'll concede the allies had better carrier ac than Germany... /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

*can be subdivided into those ac which could topple viaducts, breach canals, break submarine pens and bust dams and those that couldn't /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Kernow
249 IAP


Message Edited on 09/14/0307:49PM by Kernow

XyZspineZyX
09-14-2003, 09:14 PM
Okay, in order:

Rhorta, like everyone else, I have my biases. I do try to keep mine in check, but when I see someone posting their bias on the web, and using pseudo-science to support their position, it ticks me off. While the target of my critique perhaps listed more sources than I, they were given either out of context, or in a poor engineering context. If you need sources for my comments, I'll provide them where I can. If you've got better data than I, please present it. I'm not the last word on aerodynamics, and I'm still learning, in part by reading these forums. Unfortunately, many posters have long since formed their opinions and closed them off to the possibility of change. I don't think the 109 is a bad design, or the best design. I do think it has strengths and weaknesses. To deny those weaknesses through the use of slight-of-hand, or outright denial, does a disservice to those who designed and flew the aircraft.

Neal and RocketDog, excellent posts.

AaronGT, that portion of my post was from the website, not me. I agree that the 109 had a better P/W ratio than the P-51 though. It gave the 109 better acceleration (and probably sustained turn performance) but puts the 109's drag in the proper light as well, as you point out.

Huck, lets start with Col. Carson's list, and I'll add a few points I think are significant:

*GOOD POINTS
1) Reasonable top speed and good rate of climb to 20,000 feet.
2) Engine did not cut out under negative "g" also reliable.
3) Good control response at low speeds.
4) Easy stall, not precipitous.

*BAD POINTS
1) Ailerons and elevator far too heavy at high speed.
2) Poor turning radius.
3) Absence of rudder trim control in cockpit.
4) Aileron snatch (grabbing -- uneven airflow) when slats opened.
5) Cockpit too cramped.
6) Visibility poor from cockpit.
7) range and endurance inadequate.

I don't think we'll have much disagreement on the good points (though I would add good over the nose visibility, acceleration, climb rate, and concentrated armament to the list), so I'll comment on the bad ones.
1) Not much to add here. I think it was a valid weakness, combined with #5.
2) As I mentioned, Col. Carson games the system a bit with this one. The 109 turned poorly compared to the British fighters (and Russian) but did much better when compared to American fighters. As I've said before, turning is largely defensive, and as such not a weakness in a fighter with other opitions such as speed and/or climb (such as the 109.)
3) As I mentioned, this boils down to priorities of the pilot. The Germans saw fit to reduce pilot workload by automating the engine controls, the Allies thought the rudder trim was more useful in reducing pilot fatigue. Given the distances both wound up flying, both positions make sense. My only gripe with the 109 here is that rudder trim would have been a fairly easy addition, with little cost in production effort, and a big help in simply flying and aiming the plane, especially for the less experienced pilots.
4) Again a problem for the new guys, or with a poorly maintained aircraft, less so for Experten with good mechanics. I offer the critics example of the post war Spanish aircraft as support for my opinion.
5) This was really only a handicap as it relates to stick forces, and emergency bail out as well. Neither is a trivial handicap, however. American cockpits tended to be roomier (and the aircraft heavier), perhaps adding to Col. Carson's distaste for this aspect of the 109.
6) Visibility in the early versions was poor, though the framing could be overcome with frequent head movements. It's hard to detect movement of a distant target when you're constantly bobbing your head, though. I offer the example of the Erla Haube as proof that the Germans thought there was room for improvement, too. The later versions with the Erla Haube and glass headrest were much better, though vision straight behind was still blocked. Except for the Russians, the allies seem to have used steel headrest armor, which also reduced rear vision, though this armor was usually narrow enough to allow the pilot to look around it by moving his head.
7) As Col. Carson (and others) mentioned, the 109 had adequate range for an interceptor, but was too short-legged to make an effective escort fighter. Even with drop tanks, its range was too short (the same could be said of Spitfires, and early American fighters such as the P-39, P-40 and early P-47's.) Internal fuel capacity was left largely unchanged during its development, and the range question was really only answered by limiting the 109 to short range tasks. Of course as the war progressed, the Luftwaffe transitioned more and more to the defensive. A 109 with longer legs would have given the Jagdwaffe more options though. Imagine fighters sweeps over the bombers airfields, or formation points within British airspace. As it turns out, only the Allies had the range to perform such missions.
To his list I'll add:
8) Narrow track landing gear. I don't have the numbers handy (I'm sure someone else does) but attrition among 109 units was high, in large part due to landing accidents. The 109 was notoriously hard to handle on the ground, yet the landing gear was never modified. No doubt it would have required a new wing, but how much could the engineering and retooling have cost compared to the number of airframes and pilots lost due to ground loops?
9) Wing structure. When it was first designed, monocoque monoplanes were the cutting edge of technology. That this part of the 109's structure never really evolved (past the redesign of the Franz) limited it's overall development. The use of leading edge flaps was beneficial to stall, but at the cost of some platform stability during the transition. The single spar structure was less strong and rigid that a two spar design would be, limiting control effectiveness and damage tolerance. The radiators were a clever design, but could have been made more efficient with the suggestions Col. Carson made (the same can be said of the Spitfire's wing mounted radiators.) And I've already discussed the narrow track gear.

So have at the list. If I've made any errors in judgement, I'm sure you'll point them out.

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
09-14-2003, 09:28 PM
Kernow wrote:
- Ok some categories for discussion:
-
- 4-engined heavy bomber*

The Germans toyed with these, but never seemed to
really get their act together, for some reason. So
that's a hand down allied win. The Ju290 could carry
a heavy load, for example, but had a terrible ceiling,
and only about 30 were produced as bombers. Or you
have the He177 with an indifferent service record,
and again produced in small numbers compared to the allies.

- 2-engined medium bomber

The Ju88 was a good medium, as were the B25, B26.
The Hampden was better than its reputation, I think,
but the British didn't do so well in this area. In
the Wellington it had a twin engined heavy, though.
Pretty much a draw.

- 2-engined light bomber

Me410 was good, up against the A20 and the Mosquito.
The Blenheim wasn't too bad, but too vulnerable by
late 1940. So a draw, pretty much.

- Long range maritime patrol

The British had a problem with this, and the Atlantic
gap, until the B24 arrived. The Sunderland was useful,
but it didn't have the range. The Fw200 was very good.
Initially a LW victory, then a draw.

- Transport

In medium transport terms, the Ju52 and C47 are fairly
equal. The Ju52 is slow, but can be armed. In terms
of heavy transport the main allied type is the C54,
and also converted 4 engined bombers. The C54 was good.
On the German side there is the 323 (huge capacity, if
underpowered) and the Ju90/290, which are very good.
In terms of light transport, there are about 3 dozen
types apeice. So light-medium - draw - heavy - possible
marginally better for the LW (but given the relative
lack of motor transport, they needed it).

XyZspineZyX
09-14-2003, 09:35 PM
Huckebein_FW wrote:
- And anyway Germany had the best piston engine
- aircrafts in every category. If you're not convinced
- give me an adversary for 109. Or pick another
- category.


B-29.

And for any opponent for it I'd like to know the number put in service.

-------------------------------------

In January 1945 German officials from the Ministry of Armaments assessed what might have been produced in 1944 without the bombing. They estimated that German industry turned out 35% fewer tanks, 31% fewer aircraft and 42% fewer lorries than would have been possible otherwise.All the officials interviewed (after the war) stated that bombing was the factor responsible for the declining gains from rationalisation and for the eventual collapse of the economic structure after January 1945

Professor R.J. Overy, 'War and Economy in the Third Reich'

XyZspineZyX
09-14-2003, 10:10 PM
Going to be away for a while; will just add a few thought of my own first. Of course much depends on which year you choose, and some of the categories could be sub-divided for better comparisons, eg is the Transport 'heavy-lift,' 'para-capable,' etc?

I'll go for mid-war 42-43 examples.

AaronGT wrote:
-
- Kernow wrote:
-- Ok some categories for discussion:
--
-- 4-engined heavy bomber*

no contest as you said - Lanc or B17/24


-- 2-engined medium bomber
-
- The Ju88 was a good medium...

I'd probably stop there /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif


-- 2-engined light bomber

Mosquito


-- Long range maritime patrol

- The Fw200 was very good...

Given the date I chose and the fact that it had been doing the job since 39, while the competition had just arrived, yes.


-- Transport
-
- In medium transport terms, the Ju52 and C47 are
- fairly equal.

Yes, I'll stick with para-capable tactical types. From what I can find payload seems about 10000lbs for both. C-47 took 28 troops or 18 stretchers, Ju-52 18/12 respectively; C-47 also slightly faster & much longer range. Both used extensively post-war too. There are many DC-3/C-47/Dakotas still flying and probably will be when the design is 100 years old. Most successful ac of all time?

And Blottog, very good comments.

S! all, by time I'm back all this will be buried knowing these boards.

Kernow
249 IAP

XyZspineZyX
09-14-2003, 10:21 PM
AaronGT wrote:
-
- Kernow wrote:
-- Ok some categories for discussion:
--
-- 4-engined heavy bomber*
-
- The Germans toyed with these, but never seemed to
- really get their act together, for some reason. So
- that's a hand down allied win. The Ju290 could carry
- a heavy load, for example, but had a terrible
- ceiling,
- and only about 30 were produced as bombers. Or you
- have the He177 with an indifferent service record,
- and again produced in small numbers compared to the
- allies.
-
-- 2-engined medium bomber
-
- The Ju88 was a good medium, as were the B25, B26.
- The Hampden was better than its reputation, I think,
- but the British didn't do so well in this area. In
- the Wellington it had a twin engined heavy, though.
- Pretty much a draw.
-
-- 2-engined light bomber
-
- Me410 was good, up against the A20 and the Mosquito.
- The Blenheim wasn't too bad, but too vulnerable by
- late 1940. So a draw, pretty much.
-
-- Long range maritime patrol
-
- The British had a problem with this, and the
- Atlantic
- gap, until the B24 arrived. The Sunderland was
- useful,
- but it didn't have the range. The Fw200 was very
- good.
- Initially a LW victory, then a draw.


I think if you compare *paper* performance figures you can find Luftwaffe aircraft that equate roughly to some of the successful Allied aircraft. But that says almost nothing about their usefulness as weapons of war. Military effectiveness is only partly related to performance figures. Other factors ended up being far more important. In the real war, ease of production, cost, servicability, ease of operation, durability and the training of personnel counted for far more that an extra 2 m/s climb rate. You have to compare not aircraft, but aircraft programmes in the context of the military objectives of each side. Or to put it another way, you have to consider the issue as a military historian rather than an aircraft enthusiast.

The key point is that the Allies were able to get their aircraft into the field in large numbers, with adequate infrastructure, crews and tactics to make them useful. In many, or even most, cases the Luftwaffe just couldn't match this success. In your example above, compare the actual usefulness of the Mosquito with the ill-fated Me-210/410 or He-219 programmes, or compare the He-177 to the Lancaster, B-17 and B-24. In each case the Allies were able to operate these aircraft in large numbers and early enough in the war to be useful. In each case the Luftwaffe achieved only a fraction of the Allied success.

Seen like this, the result of comparing the Mosquito and Me-210/410 is not a draw, but a clear Allied victory. Similarly for most of the rest of your comparisons.

Again and again the Luftwaffe had aircraft programmes that promised high levels of effectiveness, but ended up just dissipating resources and manpower whilst delivering small numbers of overly-complicated aircraft too late to be of any military significance.

This seems to have been an important difference between the procurement programmes of the Allied and Axis nations. The Allied nations selected the weapons they needed to win. The Axis nations didn't.

Regards,

RocketDog.

XyZspineZyX
09-14-2003, 11:06 PM
Huckebein_FW wrote:

- There were no resources diverted from traditional
- piston aircrafts for the production of jets.


With respect, this simply cannot be the case. Even in the 1940s aircraft development required large numbers of engineers, scientists and technicians. By definition, the R&D effort allocated to jet engine development and the Me-262, He-162 etc programmes could not be allocated to R&D in other projects that might have yielded more useful weapons. Similar mishandling of resources and manpower occured with some non-jet aircraft programmes and with the V1 and (particularly) V2 rocket programmes.

Further, factory space, manpower and production resources were used to tool-up and initiate production runs of these aircraft. Given the need to disperse production (sometimes in underground facilities) this cannot have been a trivial undertaking.

- In 1944
- the aircraft production in Germany reached the
- highest level in the entire war. There were no
- aircraft shortages, only fuel shortages.

From the figures I have, German aircraft production peaked at 39,807 in 1944. This compares to an Allied total for 1944 of some 167,654. In other words, German production was only 24% of the Allied production. Even allowing for Allied aircraft used in the Pacific theatre, it seems clear that the German aircraft industry was falling far behind the Allies in the supply of aircraft. If we consider airframe tonnage, the German production falls to a mere 17% of the US plus UK total (I don't have figures for Russian airframe tonnage production, but its inclusion would push the German figure even lower).

Given these figures it is hard to conclude that German aircraft production was adequate. Production rose in 1944, but not enough to counter the rising production of the Allies.

- At the end
- of the war planes were left unserviced because there
- was no fuel for them.

Fuel was certainly an issue (although the Luftwaffe could still mount large operations even in early 1945, e.g., Bodenplatte), but the Luftwaffe was also beaten in the air. By the end of the war the Luftwaffe simply did not have enough adequately-trained pilots to man even the aircraft that were produced and had fuel available to fly. This was a direct result of losses sustained at the hands of the P-51s, P-47, Spitfires, LaGGs and Yaks that you claim were inferior to the Luftwaffe's aircraft. Instead, poorly trained aircrew were used who proved no match for their better-trained US and UK opponents.

- And anyway Germany had the best piston engine
- aircrafts in every category. If you're not convinced
- give me an adversary for 109. Or pick another
- category.

The late-model Spitfires, P-51s, P-47s, LaGGs and Yaks were all sufficiently close to the late-model Bf 109s that the differences were not great. In fact, obsessing about performance figures is not helpful here because, provided the disparity in performance was not too great, what counted most was experience, tactics and numbers. By the end of the war the Allies had beaten the Luftwaffe in all three areas.

Regards,

RocketDog.

XyZspineZyX
09-14-2003, 11:07 PM
Regarding the success of LW pilots in the 109 vs the Allies, particularly the BoB, you have to consider that the Germans had better tactics and longer combat experience in their mounts. By comparison, Allied pilots found themselves facing the opposition in what were comparitively experimental aircraft, with the notable exception of the P-40, which American pilots had been flying for 6 or seven years, if you count their P-36 time (same airframe, different engine). They still had to face combat veterans flying superior planes, but Yank exponents of the Warhawk did significantly better than their RAF counterparts against the same opposition in the same theater, not least because they knew what they could do in their aircraft.

The same had to hold true for the LW experten; after 6 or seven years of flying various versions of the same airframe, they could be expected to have the knack of getting the most out of their mounts, faults and all.

One of the excuses the US Defense Deptartment has used for not upgrading to the F-22 is that our pilots have been flying F-15s and F-16s for 25 years, and they're more effective in them than they would be in a new (even somewhat superior) airplane.

"Here's your new Mustangs, boys. You can learn to fly'em on the way to the target. Cheers!" - LCOL Don Blakeslee, CO, 4th FG, March, 1944

XyZspineZyX
09-14-2003, 11:20 PM
Kernow wrote:
- no contest as you said - Lanc or B17/24

Well I'd also put a vote in for the Halifax, as
the remaining airfield here used to be a Halifax
field.

- There are many DC-3/C-47/Dakotas still flying

Flew in one out of Baggington. Got a few stares
as half a dozen of us went on it in full USAAF
flying kit...

- and probably will be when the design is 100 years
- old.


Very likely! I presume they don't build them any more,
but I could easily see a small production run for
rich collectors in 20 years or so in time for the
centenary.

XyZspineZyX
09-14-2003, 11:42 PM
RocketDog wrote:
- I think if you compare *paper* performance figures
- you can find Luftwaffe aircraft that equate roughly
- to some of the successful Allied aircraft.

Granted. I picked some examples that were produced
in reasonable numbers, which is why I noted the Ju290
as a bomber for long enough to basically note there
were virtually none built! The rest of the ones I mentioned
were produced in reasonable numbers at least.

- The key point is that the Allies were able to get
- their aircraft into the field in large numbers, with
- adequate infrastructure, crews and tactics to make
- them useful.

That was basically my point about 262s in a different
thread - too little too late doesn't help (by definition
I suppose).

- Luftwaffe just couldn't match this success. In your
- example above, compare the actual usefulness of the
- Mosquito with the ill-fated Me-210/410

I think the 210/410 is a bit maligned, as it seemed
to do quite well despute its reputation.

- or compare the He-177 to the Lancaster,

Well I certainly didn't compare it favourably. A huge
part of the success of the allied heavies were the numbers
employed. And even when there were initial problems with
the B29 engines, they were solved, and produced in numbers.

- Seen like this, the result of comparing the Mosquito
- and Me-210/410 is not a draw, but a clear Allied
- victory. Similarly for most of the rest of your
- comparisons.

I don't agree, and I am quite a dyed-in-the-wool
flag waver for the RAF! The 210 had a bad reputation,
which followed it after the problems were fixed,
actual record of the 410 doesn't seem to have been too
bad. It didn't fill as many diverse roles as the Mosquito,
but then you don't have exact equivalents, but a series
of overlaps. Sometimes the Mosquito overlaps with the
Ju88 and Bf110, the Bf110 with the Beaufighter, the
Ju88 with the Hampden, for example.

- Again and again the Luftwaffe had aircraft
- programmes that promised high levels of
- effectiveness, but ended up just dissipating
- resources and manpower whilst delivering small
- numbers of overly-complicated aircraft too late to
- be of any military significance.

Well, the Allies had a few false starts too. The
number of types deployed in the RAF, for example,
is quite staggering, but the key difference is that
the situation became much more desperate for the Axis,
I suppose. For example, it took the RAF a few goes to
get a decent twin engined medium-heavy sorted out
after the Whitley and Hampden, finally getting the workhorse
of the Wellington, and the Stirling and Manchester
weren't successful as intended.

- This seems to have been an important difference
- between the procurement programmes of the Allied and
- Axis nations. The Allied nations selected the
- weapons they needed to win. The Axis nations didn't.

Well to be fair, the LW assumed that it was going to
be not much more than roving artillery and wouldn't
need a strategic force, and the bomber B never really
got going. This was a mistake in reterospect, but might
have seemed a reasonable decision to have made at the
time. With hindsight it looks short sighted. With the Allies, they made the right decision for the way the
war went, but who knows - maybe the war could have gone
differently, and there are some who argue that the
strategic bombing offensive was a misguided distraction
of resources.

The VVS never really bothered with strategic
airpower, and had a bomber fleet largely on the same
principles as the LW one, and they seemed to do ok
from 1943 onwards! Perhaps on the Eastern Front the
LW too needed tactical types, not strategic, and maybe
in that light the folding of the bomber B project wasn't
such a big issue, as the war in the East was using up
a greater level of ground forces and was the more
pressing threat?

Perhaps in 1942 the allied bombing campaign was seen
as not very damaging, and it was not worth reactivating
an effort for a real strategic bomber force as it was
felt that strategic bombing wasn't hurting Germany very
much, so it wouldn't hurt the UK very much in return?
1942 was the last serious effort by the LW beyond what
were essentially nuisance raids. Now by 1944 they might
have felt differently!

It's a series of what ifs...

XyZspineZyX
09-14-2003, 11:46 PM
RocketDog wrote:
- Huckebein_FW wrote:
-
-- There were no resources diverted from traditional
-- piston aircrafts for the production of jets.
-
-
- With respect, this simply cannot be the case.

I agree. Although some components of piston engined
planes were made of wood rather than metal (although
the Go229 also had wood!) there seems to be commonality
of raw materials. Last time I checked Me 262s weren't
cunningly made out of some other form of condensed matter
:-)

XyZspineZyX
09-14-2003, 11:52 PM
MiloMorai wrote:
-
- WWMaxGunz wrote:
-
-
--
-- The British didn't invent the Spitfire. Supermarine
-- did with major cooperation from Rolls Royce.
-- Actually it was one man by the mane of Reynolds who
-- was key, and he worked himself to death in the
-- effort. When Supermarine badly needed the money to
-- continue the effort, Parliment turned them down.
-- The whole thing would have failed but for one woman
-- with a personal fortune and a very deep national
-- streak who wrote them a very large check when to her
-- and some others the threat from germany loomed.
--
--
-
- Who is this Reynolds guy?
-
- Do you mean Reginald J. Mitchell?

Yes, R.J. Mitchell. Not any Reynolds. Must have mixed up the Reginald. Been way too long since I saw the movie.

- I did not know one could get cancer from overwork?

Enough stress for enough years can lead to cancer among other things. Maybe he just pushed himself past all the warning signs but back then was there any treatment? I thought it was his heart that failed him.

- That woman was Lady Houston and she put up the money
- for Supermarine to compete in the 1931 Schneider Cup
- race.

1931? She had a ship out in the harbor with words in lights saying for Britain to wake up. It was about international standing and the Germans showing signs of arming, I thought.

That is the right woman though. 1931? I REALLY blew that one, didn't I?

So okay... WHEN did the British Govt pick up the tab? Mitchell did have to push near to the end and couldn't they have gotten him more design help? He was supposed to go on vacation for his health and dropped that when the first city in Spain was bombed so badly (was there more than one?).


Neal

XyZspineZyX
09-15-2003, 12:07 AM
MiloMorai wrote:
- Zoom climb numbers?

From two planes zooming from the same speed and alt, higher will zoom the plane with better acceleration in level flight (for the speeds and alts of the zoom). The differences are smaller than what people think, smallest differences appear in a 90 degrees zoom. The advantage of the better accelerating plane can be beat with a speed advantage at the start of the zoom. This is why Me-262 has the best zoom, because it zooms from a much higher speed and on 900-350kmh it holds the acceleration advantage.



- climb rate at 20,000ft?

17.5m/s for K4 (german doc), 15.5m/s for G2 (russian test), 12.7m/s for P-47N (AHT)

Keep in mind that at 25000ft P-47N is only 15kmh faster. What happens above does not matter.



- American doctrine was not to turn fight, so, so much
- for the turn times.

LW doctrime also. But it's important to have a good turn rate and not loose the whole speed advantage when you want to reverse the fight.



- The -47N would be 10,000ft above the K dictating the
- combat.

Any decent fighter with a 1000-2000m advantage dictates the fight. Fighting a K4 with such advantage is much harder than fighting a P-47N in similar conditions.


Please next time bring data yourself, don't expect me to do your job.


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

XyZspineZyX
09-15-2003, 12:10 AM
WWMaxGunz wrote:
-
- Enough stress for enough years can lead to cancer
- among other things. Maybe he just pushed himself
- past all the warning signs but back then was there
- any treatment? I thought it was his heart that
- failed him.
-

Should be alot more people dead at age 42 today then./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif


-
- So okay... WHEN did the British Govt pick up the
- tab? Mitchell did have to push near to the end and
- couldn't they have gotten him more design help? He
- was supposed to go on vacation for his health and
- dropped that when the first city in Spain was bombed
- so badly (was there more than one?).
-

Are you thinking of the PV-12? This was a private venture by RR.


http://a1276.g.akamai.net/7/1276/734/625ed428e022ef/www.harley-davidson.com/PR/MOT/2004/Softail/images/DOM/img_Softail_FXST.jpg

http://www.redneckengineering.com/photogallery/photo23581/curves-done-03.jpg


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

XyZspineZyX
09-15-2003, 12:31 AM
Ok people, don't just state your preferences for every category - prove it with specs. Keep in mind that I'm not interested in Mosquito with payload of the cookie version, range and speed of recce variant and armament of the fighter variant. Put the specs of an individual variant that saw service in ww2.


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

Message Edited on 09/14/0306:35PM by Huckebein_FW

XyZspineZyX
09-15-2003, 12:50 AM
RocketDog wrote:
- WWMaxGunz wrote:
-
-- German politics and industry killed the Heinkel jet
-- and fighter designs that were far ahead of their
-- time.
-
- This is partly the point I was trying to make. Most
- of the various jets and other aircraft selected for
- development by the Luftwaffe actually WERE ahead of
- their time - by which I mean that they had virtually
- no chance of being deployed in a
- militarily-significant form in the time available.
- The Luftwaffe and the German aviation industry
- greatly underestimated the time taken to develop and
- introduce advanced aircraft that often used new and
- untried technologies. It sometimes seems there is a
- common perception that aircraft like the He-162 were
- a sign of the advanced state of the German aviation
- industry. But in fact, given the useless nature of
- almost all these projects it could be argued with
- rather more force that they were a sign of its
- failure.
-
- In contrast, the other warring nations recognised
- that the conflict would be decided in the space of a
- few years and concentrated on developing robust,
- cost-effective weapons that could be mass-produced,
- delivered and operated in large numbers within a
- short space of time. This strategy resulted in the
- introduction of many effective new aircraft type,
- such as the Lancaster, Mosquito, Tempest/Typhoon,
- P-47, P-51 and B-29 etc. The paucity of the
- corresponding list for the Axis powers shows which
- side chose the correct strategy.
-
- Regards,
-
- RocketDog.

Heinkel had a good working jet before 1940. This time, I got a book out so not just memory. The He 178 (not a nosewheel in the drawing) first flew on Aug 24th, 1939, 2 months after the success of the He 176 rocket aircraft. Heinkel had started development on jets in 1936 and in 1937 they had a working air jet turbine. Before the He 178 there was an He 118 test plane that had prop power and a jet turbine mounted underneath. The jet was started from altitude of 1312 ft and the plane "moved forward with a noticeable jolt and disappeared from view". The landing was made under prop
power only. On the Aug 24th flight of the He 178 the gear
jammed down. It flew again on the 27th. Heinkel had called
Ernst Udet, but he wanted to get back to sleep.

News of the British Gloster Whittle E 28/39 reached Germany as a sort of wake up call. One year after the 2nd He 178
flight, the Italians tested the Caproni-Campini N.1 (noted that it is often erroneously called the C.C. 2) but that was a dud with top speed of 130mph. Whittle wasn't up to flying
his at that point. The US Airacomet flew in Oct 1942, also late but there was effort certainly. They all started years
after Heinkel except Whittle who didn't get funding for the
longest time and he was the first with a turbine.
Anyhow, when the Germans caught news of the Gloster development,

Udet got the German Air Ministry to give unconditional support
to both Heinkels' He 280 and Messerschmidts' Me 262 projects.
The He 280 had an actual compressed-air pilot ejection seat.
That first flew on Arp 2nd, 1941. Udet was there and had
them stage a comparison test (don't know what day). The He
280 flew rings around an FW 190 while Udet watched. Udet
is noted as not just impressed but enthusiastic.
The plane was ready for production with new engines almost
twice as powerful (2 engines @ 700 kiloponds ea for the test
and new ones made that got 1300 kiloponds) when General Milsch
stepped in on Sept 15th, 1942 and grounded the whole project
on account of the 280 using the "American" nosewheel. But
later on the nosewheel was installed on the Me 262's after
the He 280 project was killed. According to Karlheinz Kens
and Heinz J. Nowarra the delay in mass construction of the
Me 262 due to "pigheaded, unimaginative and unrealistic
leadership was 2 years. Yes, the Germans could have had
operational jets that exceeded the FW's in early 1943 if not
late 1942. Not just prototypes but fighters. Change the
outcome? Probably not. But they would have scared the spit
out of the Allies and for sure slowed down the bombing
campaign one heck of a lot, the war would have lasted longer.


Neal

XyZspineZyX
09-15-2003, 01:12 AM
And how is the K-4 to match the zoom climb of the 47N that just bounced it from its higher altitude? It can't accelerate or climb that fast./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Well, maybe the K-4 will do a turn and run away. Still advantage 47N.

The altitude advantage ALWAYS matters because the lower fighter is ALWAYS on the defensive.

Stats are not the end-all, it is how the pilot uses the stats to the a/c's advantage. And in this case, the 47N wins. All it has to do is stay above and wait, which it can do, for the K-4 to go 'bingo'.


Huckebein_FW wrote:
...............

...........
......

ps. Know why your bud Issy removed his K-4 climb graph from his site?


http://a1276.g.akamai.net/7/1276/734/625ed428e022ef/www.harley-davidson.com/PR/MOT/2004/Softail/images/DOM/img_Softail_FXST.jpg

http://www.redneckengineering.com/photogallery/photo23581/curves-done-03.jpg


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

Message Edited on 09/14/03 08:15PM by MiloMorai

Message Edited on 09/14/0308:20PM by MiloMorai

XyZspineZyX
09-15-2003, 03:41 AM
Saburo_0 wrote:
- of course Carson was biased he was a US fighter
- pilot.not a diplomat. They demanded a different kind
- of performance from their planes-range being
- paramount for ex. He felt that the short range &
- poor instrument flying ability of the 109 were
- enough to exclude it as a useful fighter. It
- certainly would have been useles to the USAAF during
- the time when Carson flew.

Exactally.

- Perhaps he was trying to debunk some ideas popular
- at the time that the German planes were super
- weapons of sorts.

Agreed.

- Don't dismiss Everything he says because of his
- bias. Just try to understand it so you can make an
- accurate acessment of the 109.

Exactally.

- The fact is most American pilots who had the
- opportunity to fly the 109 did not like it. many of
- their reasons are trivial-it was cramped etc. It was
- a different breed from planes that Ami's were used
- to. And of course it was from an erlier generation.
- the one thing that is startling to me is that in
- contrast every pilot account i've read of flying
- the Spitfire is full of praise. With the exception
- of Molders who remarks that it is too easy to fly (i
- think he said childishly simple to fly )!

Good point(s)

- The 109 was a great plane but with it's share of
- problems.

True.. and true for all ac then and now! /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
09-15-2003, 05:15 AM
WWMaxGunz wrote:
- Udet got the German Air Ministry to give
- unconditional support
- to both Heinkels' He 280 and Messerschmidts' Me 262
- projects.
- The He 280 had an actual compressed-air pilot
- ejection seat.
- That first flew on Arp 2nd, 1941. Udet was there
- and had
- them stage a comparison test (don't know what day).
- The He
- 280 flew rings around an FW 190 while Udet watched.
- Udet
- is noted as not just impressed but enthusiastic.
- The plane was ready for production with new engines
- almost
- twice as powerful (2 engines @ 700 kiloponds ea for
- the test
- and new ones made that got 1300 kiloponds) when
- General Milsch
- stepped in on Sept 15th, 1942 and grounded the whole
- project
- on account of the 280 using the "American"
- nosewheel. But
- later on the nosewheel was installed on the Me 262's
- after
- the He 280 project was killed. According to
- Karlheinz Kens
- and Heinz J. Nowarra the delay in mass construction
- of the
- Me 262 due to "pigheaded, unimaginative and
- unrealistic
- leadership was 2 years. Yes, the Germans could have
- had
- operational jets that exceeded the FW's in early
- 1943 if not
- late 1942. Not just prototypes but fighters.
- Change the
- outcome? Probably not. But they would have scared
- the spit
- out of the Allies and for sure slowed down the
- bombing
- campaign one heck of a lot, the war would have
- lasted longer.


I very much doubt this.

First regarless of how much I like those early jets I cannot say that their flight characteristics allowed them to "fly rings around" propeller planes. Jets flew much faster, zoomed and dived much better, but turn radius was never one of their qualities. Nevertheless He280 won those mock dogfights with Fw190.

Milch was an idiot indeed, a calamity for LW in it's own right. His personal bias against Heinkel ensured that none of the advanced Heinkel designs would see mass production. Heinkel carried part of the responsability though, he had his way of bringing unsolicited projects or designs that did not respond well to RLM specifications (at least as well as the competition).

Second He280 could not be launched in production a year earlier than Me262, for the same reason Me262 couldn't: lack of a suitable powerplant. Heinkel worked at that time at three jet engine projects: HeS 8 (He S 001), HeS 30 (He S 006) and He S 011. First two were tested in flight with He280 but revealed serious problems (related especially to combustion and fuel feed, those engines were far from reliability tests). At the time they were abandoned in autumn'42 those projects were behind in development compared to Jumo 004 and BMW 003. Still neither Jumo or BMW 003 were ready to fly operational until 1944. That Heinkel could solve the problems with He S 001 and 006 is illusory, a correct decision was taken: Jumo and BMW will develop the first generation of jet powerplants and Heinkel will abandon it's earlier designs and concentrate on a replacement for Jumo 004 and BMW 003 (He S 011 was ready in 1945 for testing in flight).

In 1943 He280 was fitted with Jumo 004 but performance was inferior to Me262, despite that its fuel tank had almost half the capacity of Me-262 and was fitted with lighter armament (after abandon of the project). High speed handling was clearly inferior. Therefore the whole project was scrapped.

In conclusion if He-280 was to fly operational, it would have had Jumos, it wouldn't have been available until late '44, and it would have performed worse than Me-262.


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

Message Edited on 09/14/0311:30PM by Huckebein_FW

XyZspineZyX
09-15-2003, 06:02 AM
Interesting. In the game, the aircraft rolls VERY WELL at high speeds, and can pull out of a very high speed dive extreamly well. From what this test says, it "FELT LIKE IT WAS SET IN A BUCKET OF CEMENT" at high speeds. So I guess this blows the theries of Oleg being biest out of the water http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Gib

tagert wrote:

- FLIGHTING QUALITIES: Ailerons
------------------------------
- At low speed, the ailerons control was good,
- response brisk. As speed increased the ailerons
- became TOO HEAVY but the response was good up to
- 200mph. Between 200 mph and 300 mph they became
- UNPLEASANT. Over 300 mph they became IMPOSSIBLE. At
- 400 mph the stick FELT LIKE IT WAS SET IN A BUCKET
- OF CEMENT. A pilot exerting all his strength could
- not apply more than ONE FIFTH aileron at 400 mph;
- that's 5 degrees up and 3 degree down. The aileron
- situation at high combat speeds might be summarized
- in the following way:


I am now accepting donations to help get the PBY flyable.

<center><form action="https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr" method="post">
<input type="hidden" name="cmd" value="_xclick">
<input type="hidden" name="business" value="gibbage@lycos.com">
<input type="hidden" name="item_name" value="Gibbages IL2; FB PBY Catalina Fund">
<input type="hidden" name="no_note" value="1">
<input type="hidden" name="currency_code" value="USD">
<input type="hidden" name="tax" value="0">
<input type="image" src="http://gibbageart.havagame.com/donations.gif" border="0" name="submit" alt="Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure!">
</form></center>

XyZspineZyX
09-15-2003, 06:41 AM
Gibbage1 wrote:
- Interesting. In the game, the aircraft rolls VERY
- WELL at high speeds, and can pull out of a very high
- speed dive extreamly well. From what this test
- says, it "FELT LIKE IT WAS SET IN A BUCKET OF
- CEMENT" at high speeds. So I guess this blows the
- theries of Oleg being biest out of the water /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif


Gib are you pulling out of dives using ailerons?/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
Elevator response was very good at high speeds (but stick forces were high like in any plane without boosted elevators - no ww2 fighter had such thing).

Now about the ailerons. What you read there is a piece of prose made by the Colonel himself inspired by a dubious british test on Emil. Our beloved Colonel never flew the aircraft but has very strong emotions thinking about the stick of 109.

109F and later had much smaller ailerons than Emil, improving the stick forces at high speed and moving the peak roll at a higher speed. Bf-109 roll was not the best but competitive throughout the war.


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

XyZspineZyX
09-15-2003, 07:56 AM
Huckebein_FW wrote:
- Gib are you pulling out of dives using ailerons?
- Elevator response was very good at high speeds (but
- stick forces were high like in any plane without
- boosted elevators - no ww2 fighter had such thing).
-
- Now about the ailerons. What you read there is a
- piece of prose made by the Colonel himself inspired
- by a dubious british test on Emil. Our beloved
- Colonel never flew the aircraft but has very strong
- emotions thinking about the stick of 109.
-
- 109F and later had much smaller ailerons than Emil,
- improving the stick forces at high speed and moving
- the peak roll at a higher speed. Bf-109 roll was not
- the best but competitive throughout the war.

I dont know why everyone thinks our Col Carson's write up was based soly on that captured Emil? Note he wrote that stuff I posted in 1978.. Not 1943.. He had the wealth of knowlege at his disposal from all the DURING and POST war testing of the captured German Aricraft. For example, on pg 161 of PURSUE and DESTROY Col Carson writes in referance to two pictures of a 109G.. And he says

QUOTE:
Once you get past teh streamlined spinner of this CAPTURED Me109G BEGIN TESTED AT NORTH AMERICAN, you encounter an aerodynamicist's NIGHTMARE. A compendium of CLUTTER, 109's auxiliary systems were obvioulsy added without thought to drag reduction. Starting wiht tropical dust filter high on engine's left side, this view reverals a gaping square cooling air intake, open mouthed wing radiators, archaic mass balanced horns, open wheel wells with only partial coverings, fuselage humps to cover gun breaches, all contributing to turbulence. Drag coefficient of Mustang was nearly 40 percent better. Me109 was satisfactroy at LOW SPEEDS and EXCELLED at climbing in that range, BUT in a hight ALTITUDE, near maximum speed dog fight, its ailerons were SLUGGISH. Visibility was always poor; range was non existent adn the aircraft manuevered poorly at speeds OVER 300 mph.
END QUOTE

Now granted, you can still see Col Carson bias that a fighter has to have good rage to be a good fighter.. but the rest is seems to be pretty much true of the 109s.





<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 09/15/0312:01AM by tagert

XyZspineZyX
09-15-2003, 08:28 AM
- QUOTE:
- Once you get past teh streamlined spinner of this
- CAPTURED Me109G BEGIN TESTED AT NORTH AMERICAN, you
- encounter an aerodynamicist's NIGHTMARE. A
- compendium of CLUTTER, 109's auxiliary systems were
- obvioulsy added without thought to drag reduction.
- Starting wiht tropical dust filter high on engine's
- left side, this view reverals a gaping square
- cooling air intake, open mouthed wing radiators,
- archaic mass balanced horns, open wheel wells with
- only partial coverings, fuselage humps to cover gun
- breaches, all contributing to turbulence. Drag
- coefficient of Mustang was nearly 40 percent better.
- Me109 was satisfactroy at LOW SPEEDS and EXCELLED at
- climbing in that range, BUT in a hight ALTITUDE,
- near maximum speed dog fight, its ailerons were
- SLUGGISH. Visibility was always poor; range was non
- existent adn the aircraft manuevered poorly at
- speeds OVER 300 mph.
- END QUOTE
-
- Now granted, you can still see Col Carson bias that
- a fighter has to have good rage to be a good
- fighter.. but the rest is seems to be pretty much
- true of the 109s.



Bring quotes from pilots who flew the aircraft not clowns who never flew Bf-109 but like to spout their ignorant bias.

Here's a quote from Paul Coggan, an experienced british warbird pilot:

"The Bf109G is heavy to manoeuvre in pitch, being similar to a Mustang. At 520kph it is possible to pull 4g with one hand, but I find it more comfortable to use both hands on the stick for looping manoeuvres, normally entered at 420kph and 3g. Pitch trim changes with speed are moderate, and the tail plane trim wheel mounted abeam the pilots' left hip is easy to use. For a display, I run it at 420-450kph in trim, and then do not retrim. This causes no excessive stick forces during the display. Overall the aircraft is straightforward to handle in pitch.

Roll performance is similar to a Hurricane or elliptical wing tipped Spitfire. A full stick roll through 360 degrees at 460kph takes 4 to 4.5 seconds without using rudder, and needs a force of around 20 lbf. One interesting characteristic is that rolls at lower speeds entered at less than 1g, such as a roll-off-the-top or half Cuban, have a markedly lower roll rate to the right than to the left. Therefore, I always roll left in such manoeuvres."




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

Message Edited on 09/15/0302:29AM by Huckebein_FW

XyZspineZyX
09-15-2003, 08:37 AM
Huckebein_FW wrote:
-
- Bring quotes from pilots who flew the aircraft not
- clowns who never flew Bf-109 but like to spout their
- ignorant bias.

LOL! Still upset huh? Well, sorry if you dont like information.. I could have sworn I read in a post of yours in this thread not too far back where you lambasted someone for NOT presenting thier data.. Now I bring data and it aint good enough for you? So what do I have to look forward to next? Will you say.. Bring data.. but not from a clown who never flew a Me109.. but he has to have blond hari and blue eyes too for me to belive him! What a tard! Just so you know, Huck.. you wouldnt make a zit on that so called clowns A$$!



<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 09/15/0312:39AM by tagert

XyZspineZyX
09-15-2003, 09:08 AM
Huckebein_FW wrote:
- Bring quotes from pilots who flew the aircraft not
- clowns who never flew Bf-109 but like to spout their
- ignorant bias.
-
- Here's a quote from Paul Coggan, an experienced
- british warbird pilot:
-
- "The Bf109G is heavy to manoeuvre in pitch, being
- similar to a Mustang. At 520kph it is possible to
- pull 4g with one hand,

Hey Huckie.. you do realise that:

520kph = 323 mph

And that Col Carson did say "and the aircraft manuevered poorly at speeds OVER 300 mph"

- but I find it more
- comfortable to use both hands on the stick for
- looping manoeuvres, normally entered at 420kph and
- 3g. Pitch trim changes with speed are moderate, and
- the tail plane trim wheel mounted abeam the pilots'
- left hip is easy to use. For a display, I run it at
- 420-450kph in trim, and then do not retrim.

Hey Huckie.. you do realise that:

420kph = 261 mph
450kph = 279 mph

And that Col Carson did say "and the aircraft manuevered poorly at speeds OVER 300 mph"

- This causes no excessive stick forces during the
- display. Overall the aircraft is straightforward
- to handle in pitch.
-
- Roll performance is similar to a Hurricane or
- elliptical wing tipped Spitfire. A full stick roll
- through 360 degrees at 460kph takes 4 to 4.5 seconds
- without using rudder,

Hey Huckie.. you do realise that:

460kph = 285 mph

And that Col Carson did say "and the aircraft manuevered poorly at speeds OVER 300 mph"

So.. if Col Carson is a.. how did you put it? CLOWN? And he says what Paul says.. does that make Paul a CLOWN in your eyes 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

Message Edited on 09/15/0301:10AM by tagert

XyZspineZyX
09-15-2003, 09:31 AM
Oh thanks for the conversions, now we are friends again.

Quote from the masterpiece:

"Me109 was satisfactroy at LOW SPEEDS and EXCELLED at climbing in that range, BUT in a hight ALTITUDE, near maximum speed dog fight, its ailerons were SLUGGISH. Visibility was always poor; range was non existent adn the aircraft manuevered poorly at speeds OVER 300 mph."

Satisfactory at slow speeds, not even good? Why?
And what means maneuvers poorly at speed over 300mph? TAS or IAS? what altitude? It is just a meaningless generalisation. All ww2 fighters had heavy controls at high speeds, actually Bf-109 was better than most, at least in elevator forces.

Read again what Paul Coggan says about his display (remember evolution is close to the ground, IAS is almost TAS).


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

XyZspineZyX
09-15-2003, 09:31 AM
Reading that article must have been like reading your own post hay?

Gib

Huckebein_FW wrote:
- And the original article is filled with ignorant
- bias. Every single paragraph is filles with awful
- mistakes or misrepresentations. It was discussed
- here a few times, once made a 10 page thread.
-
-


I am now accepting donations to help get the PBY flyable.

<center><form action="https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr" method="post">
<input type="hidden" name="cmd" value="_xclick">
<input type="hidden" name="business" value="gibbage@lycos.com">
<input type="hidden" name="item_name" value="Gibbages IL2; FB PBY Catalina Fund">
<input type="hidden" name="no_note" value="1">
<input type="hidden" name="currency_code" value="USD">
<input type="hidden" name="tax" value="0">
<input type="image" src="http://gibbageart.havagame.com/donations.gif" border="0" name="submit" alt="Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure!">
</form></center>

XyZspineZyX
09-15-2003, 09:36 AM
Gibbage1 wrote:
- Huckebein_FW wrote:
-- And the original article is filled with ignorant
-- bias. Every single paragraph is filles with awful
-- mistakes or misrepresentations. It was discussed
-- here a few times, once made a 10 page thread.
-
-
- Reading that article must have been like reading
- your own post hay?
-


Nah, nobody beats the Colonel/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif


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

XyZspineZyX
09-15-2003, 11:34 AM
Huckie, it seems you do not relize that the expresion "flies rings around" means it outflew the other a/c.

It has NOTHING to do with turning./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif


http://a1276.g.akamai.net/7/1276/734/625ed428e022ef/www.harley-davidson.com/PR/MOT/2004/Softail/images/DOM/img_Softail_FXST.jpg

http://www.redneckengineering.com/photogallery/photo23581/curves-done-03.jpg


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

XyZspineZyX
09-15-2003, 03:42 PM
So people say Carson is an idiot and a propagandist because he gave the 109 a negative review.So whats the reason that he gave the 190 a good review?
-----------------------------------------------------------

Fw 190A
General Characteristics:
A superb airplane, every inch a fighter. It could do a half roll at cruising speed in one second. Taking this in conjunction with the airplane's high top speed and rate of climb one expected its pilots to exploit its high speed qualities to the fullest without staying in there to "mix it up" in a low speed, flaps down full throttle, gut-wrenching dog fight.
They did. The 190 pilots had a good airplane and some good advice. Nearly all of my encounters with the 190 were at high speeds. On at least two occasions when I met them, my Mustang started porposing, which means I was into compressibility, probably around 550 mph. I don't know what my air speed indicator was reading, I wasn't watching it.
On another occasion, I jumped one directly over the city of Paris and fired all my ammo, but he was only smoking heavily after a long chase over the town. Assuming I was getting 10 percent hits, that airplane must have had 200 holes in it. It was a rugged machine.


Mean weight 8580
Engine BMW 801D
Horsepower 1600
Power loading, lbs./HP 5.36
Wing loading, lbs./sq.ft. 41.7
Prop diameter, ft. 10.86
Wing Geometry:
Area, sq.ft. 205
Span, ft. 34.5
Mean chord, ft. 5.95
Aspect Ratio 5.8
Dihedral, degrees 5
Sweepback, degrees 5.5
Root chord, ft. 7.45
Tip chord, ft. 4.05
Thickness Ratio, percent 12
Maximum thickness location Between 25 and 30 percent
Top speed, mph 408/20,600 ft.

Engine and Propeller:
The BMW 801D was a 14 cylinder, twin-row radial with direct fuel injection. A 10.9 foot diameter, 3-bladed VDM prop was used and was provided with hand lever or automatic pitch control. The 801D radial air-cooled engine first appeared on the Dornier Do 217 and the Fw 190. Its most novel feature was the oil cooler system which was a number of finned tubes shaped into a ring of tubes a little larger in diameter than the cooling fan. This ring was fitted into the rounded front portion of the cowling just aft of the fan.
I don't think this was a good idea. For example, my principal aiming point was always the forward portion of an enemy ship; the engine, cockpit, wing root section. If you get any hits at all, even only a few, you're bound to put one or two slugs into the engine compartment. Having a couple of bullets riccochet off the engine block and tear up some ignition harness is not too bad at all, at least not fatal. But to have all those thin-walled oil cooling tubes ahead of the engine is bad news. Any hits or riccochets in the engine section are bound to puncture the oil tubes. Then the whole engine is immersed in oil spray, and sometimes it would flash over into a fire. All of the 12 Focke-Wulfs that I shot down sent off a trail of dense, boiling oil smoke heavy enough to fog up my gun camera lens and windshield if I were so close.
Wings and Controls:
Again, as in the case of the Me 109, no trim tabs adjustable in flight from the cockpit were provided for the aileron and rudder. European designers seem to have acquired the notion that this was a nuisance or unnecessary. Not at all; when going into a dive, it's very easy for the pilot to reach down with his left hand and flick in a couple of half turns of rudder trim. It's not only desireable, but necessary to eliminate side slip for good gunnery. The Fw 190, however, did have electric trim tabs for the elevators.
Performance Evaluation:
The Fw 190's handling qualities were generally excellent. The most impressive feature was the aileron control at high speeds. Stick force per "g" was about 9 pounds upto 300 mph rising to 12 pounds at 400 mph as compared to over 20 pounds for the Me-109.
High speed stalls under "g" load were a little vicious and could be a fatal handicap in combat. If the airplane was pulled in tight and stalled at high speed at 2 "gs" or more with the power on, turning right or left, the left wing would drop violently without warning and the airplane would flick onto its back from a left turn. I scored against a 190 under such circumstances. The message was clear, don't stall it. Our own Bell P-39 Aircobra would do the same thing.
Fighting Qualities:
Excellent high speed, with exceptional maneuverability at those speeds. Range and endurance were markedly improved over the 109. The Focke-Wulf would go 3 hours plus. Visibility with the full view canopy was superb, as it was in the Mustang.

Summary:
Bad points:
(1) Oil cooling tubes at the front of the engines was a poor choice of location. A puncture due to combat damage, or to simple failure covered the engine section with an oil spray.
(2) Lack of aileron and rudder trim controls in the cockpit.
(3) Vicious high speed snap rolls if stalled under significant "g" load.
(4) Poor turning radius due to high wing loading.
Good points:
Everything else was good. In the hands of a competent pilot the 190 was a formidable opponent. The landing approach speed was high and this shakes some pilots up a bit, but I don't think it's anything it's anything to complain about.

XyZspineZyX
09-15-2003, 04:21 PM
Huckebein_FW wrote:

- Here's a quote from Paul Coggan, an experienced
- british warbird pilot:
-
- "The Bf109G is heavy to manoeuvre in pitch, being
- similar to a Mustang. At 520kph it is possible to
- pull 4g with one hand, but I find it more
- comfortable to use both hands on the stick for
- looping manoeuvres, normally entered at 420kph and
- 3g. Pitch trim changes with speed are moderate, and
- the tail plane trim wheel mounted abeam the pilots'
- left hip is easy to use. For a display, I run it at
- 420-450kph in trim, and then do not retrim. This
- causes no excessive stick forces during the display.
- Overall the aircraft is straightforward to handle
- in pitch.

I think you've misunderstood Coggan's article. Note the key word "display". He's writing about flying the Bf 109 at very low altitude for air displays. His article provides no information about the aircraft's behaviour at high altitude and high speed (other than to note that the lack of rudder trim must have made accurate aiming somewhat difficult).

In real life on the Western Front the Bf 109 had to fight at high altitude and had to face fighters designed purposely for that task. The available evidence suggests that the Bf 109 was simply outclassed.

Regards,

RocketDog.

XyZspineZyX
09-15-2003, 04:30 PM
WalterMitty wrote:
- So people say Carson is an idiot and a propagandist
- because he gave the 109 a negative review.So whats
- the reason that he gave the 190 a good review?
-

- Summary:
- Bad points:
- (1) Oil cooling tubes at the front of the engines
- was a poor choice of location. A puncture due to
- combat damage, or to simple failure covered the
- engine section with an oil spray.
- (2) Lack of aileron and rudder trim controls in the
- cockpit.
- (3) Vicious high speed snap rolls if stalled under
- significant "g" load.
- (4) Poor turning radius due to high wing loading.
- Good points:
- Everything else was good. In the hands of a
- competent pilot the 190 was a formidable opponent.
- The landing approach speed was high and this shakes
- some pilots up a bit, but I don't think it's
- anything it's anything to complain about.


None of the above is correct:

1. Oil cooling in front was protected by an armored ring, on both Fw190A and D, unlike american radials.

2. Lack of rudder trim does not matter, planes were trimmed on the ground for a specific cruise speed. In fight rudder trim does not help you, continuous use of the rudder in fight is a basic skill, whithout which you woundn't get on a fighter plane in the first place.

Also aileron trim was not important since neither Bf-109 or Fw-190 had wing tanks. It's true though that long range fighter variants of Fw-190G, with external tanks attached to wings could use such aileron trim, but the number of those was limited.

3. All high wing loaded planes had wicious snap stalls, which means all american late war planes. But Fw-190 stall was hard to provoke, because it's wings had washout. Kurt Tank, which was an extreme test pilot himself, decribes how hard was to throw Fw-190 in such a stall.

4. That's common to all high wing loaded planes. Turn radius is directly affected by stall speed. Of course early war planes had better turn radius than late war planes.


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

XyZspineZyX
09-15-2003, 04:39 PM
RocketDog wrote:

- I think you've misunderstood Coggan's article. Note
- the key word "display". He's writing about flying
- the Bf 109 at very low altitude for air displays.
- His article provides no information about the
- aircraft's behaviour at high altitude and high speed
- (other than to note that the lack of rudder trim
- must have made accurate aiming somewhat difficult).

No, you're blinded by bias, that's all. There is absolutelly no doubt that Bf-109 had lighter elevators than most fighters, and aileron forces were good, regardless of speed. Coggan clearly states that he can pull the stick with one hand at nearly max speed at sea level. Stick forces at max speed on sea level are comparable with those in max dive speed at altitude! That is an irrefutable proof that elevator control was very good.



-
- In real life on the Western Front the Bf 109 had to
- fight at high altitude and had to face fighters
- designed purposely for that task. The available
- evidence suggests that the Bf 109 was simply
- outclassed.

Present such evidence if you think you have, but keep personal oppinions out of this thread.


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

Message Edited on 09/15/0310:41AM by Huckebein_FW

XyZspineZyX
09-15-2003, 04:41 PM
To sum up .....

In this corner we have Colonel Kit Carson, WW2 fighter ace and trained professional aeronautical engineer.

In the other corner we have the two man tag team of Isegrim and Huckebein.


Place your bets .....



Blutarski

XyZspineZyX
09-15-2003, 04:45 PM
Huckebein_FW wrote:
- Bring quotes from pilots who flew the aircraft not clowns who never flew Bf-109 but like to spout their ignorant bias.

..... just absolutely priceless. No further comment required; it's a walk-off home run over the light pole.



Blutarski

XyZspineZyX
09-15-2003, 04:53 PM
Captain Eric Brown RN was the chief test pilot at the Royal Aircraft Establishment from1944-50 and flew a Bf-`109G-6/U2 which had landed at Manston in error on 21st July 1944, and put it through its paces. His full account is published in 'Wings of the Luftwaffe', ISBN 1-85310-413-2 but is too big to scan and post here. Captain Brown flew 55 different types of captured German aircraft during and after the war and made copious notes of how he found them. Most he enjoyed flying. His conclusion for the Bf 109G-6 is:

"By the time the evolution of Willy Messerschmitt's basic design had reached the G-series it was no longer a 'great' fighter, but it was still a sound all-rounder and the Bf 109G greater flexibility from some aspects than preceding sub-types. Allied bomber formations were certainly finding 'Gustav' a formidable antagonist for it had heavy firepower, a reasonable overtaking speed and presented a very small target profile for the gunners, and if the Bf 109G could no longer take on the later Allied fighters on even terms during the last year of the war, this reflected no discredit on the design team that had conceived it."

Brown's assessment is less damning than the one quoted at the top of this thread, and I personally agree with him - I don't think the BF 109 was marginal in 1940 and obsolete in 1942, and I would be surprised if many of the Commonwealth, American and Soviet pilots who fought it thought so either. But by the second half of 1944 the original design was beginning to reach the limits of how far it could be stretched.

PS Huckbein - he also says 'Control harmony was poor for a fighter, the rudder being light, the ailerons moderately light and the elevators extremely heavy. This elevator heaviness was perhaps a necessity in view of the high wing loading. '.

edit - should have said moderately LIGHT ailerons.
-------------------------------------

In January 1945 German officials from the Ministry of Armaments assessed what might have been produced in 1944 without the bombing. They estimated that German industry turned out 35% fewer tanks, 31% fewer aircraft and 42% fewer lorries than would have been possible otherwise.All the officials interviewed (after the war) stated that bombing was the factor responsible for the declining gains from rationalisation and for the eventual collapse of the economic structure after January 1945

Professor R.J. Overy, 'War and Economy in the Third Reich'

Message Edited on 09/15/0304:02PM by Mr_Nakajima

XyZspineZyX
09-15-2003, 04:53 PM
BLUTARSKI wrote:

Let me rephrase it

To sum up .....

In this corner we have Colonel Kit Carson, a ww2 ace enjoying his retirement telling patriotic stories for american public consumption.


In the other corner we have the accounts of Bf-109 pilots saying that Bf-109 maneuvered beutifully.


Now place your bets.



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

XyZspineZyX
09-15-2003, 04:59 PM
Huckebein_FW wrote:

-
-
- 1. Oil cooling in front was protected by an armored
- ring, on both Fw190A and D, unlike american radials.
-

Only from the front, not from the rear quarter. And it was thinner than pilot armour.


- 2. Lack of rudder trim does not matter, planes were
- trimmed on the ground for a specific cruise speed.
- In fight rudder trim does not help you, continuous
- use of the rudder in fight is a basic skill,
- whithout which you woundn't get on a fighter plane
- in the first place.
-
- Also aileron trim was not important since neither
- Bf-109 or Fw-190 had wing tanks. It's true though
- that long range fighter variants of Fw-190G, with
- external tanks attached to wings could use such
- aileron trim, but the number of those was limited.
-

So what happens when you fly at a different speed than what the tabs have been set at? Or they are damaged in combat? Or your a/c is damaged and the trim eases the load on the pilot. Is that why German pilots had one leg bigger than the other - no rudder trim? Rudder trim also helps with aiming - no skidding. Who is to say the tabs weren't inadvertantly moved while on the ground? What does the pilot do then, abort his mission to have them re-adjusted?


- 3. All high wing loaded planes had wicious snap
- stalls, which means all american late war planes.
- But Fw-190 stall was hard to provoke, because it's
- wings had washout. Kurt Tank, which was an extreme
- test pilot himself, decribes how hard was to throw
- Fw-190 in such a stall.
-

Not like the Fw did. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif It was the wing washout that caused the flick/stalls.

http://a1276.g.akamai.net/7/1276/734/625ed428e022ef/www.harley-davidson.com/PR/MOT/2004/Softail/images/DOM/img_Softail_FXST.jpg

http://www.redneckengineering.com/photogallery/photo23581/curves-done-03.jpg


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

XyZspineZyX
09-15-2003, 05:06 PM
Mr_Nakajima wrote:
-
- Brown's assessment is less damning than the one
- quoted at the top of this thread, and I personally
- agree with him - I don't think the BF 109 was
- marginal in 1940 and obsolete in 1942, and I would
- be surprised if many of the Commonwealth, American
- and Soviet pilots who fought it thought so either.
- But by the second half of 1944 the original design
- was beginning to reach the limits of how far it
- could be stretched.

I find this very funny, which was the competition for Bf-109G2 in '42? G2 appeared in '42, was it obsolete??


- PS Huckbein - he also says 'Control harmony was poor
- for a fighter, the rudder being light, the ailerons
- moderately heavy and the elevators extremely heavy.
- This elevator heaviness was perhaps a necessity in
- view of the high wing loading. '.

First of all, Eric Brown was a Spitfire pilot, which had a very different feeling at controls. Bf-109 was designed for high speed, whereas Spitfire for low speed dogfights. Spitfire elevators were notoriously sensitive at low speeds and ailerons were heavy. Spitfire was the classic example of poor harmonisation of controls. And at high speeds, controls became extremely heavy.

Bf-109 on the other hand, had from the beginning small elevators, for less stick forces at high speed. After Emil ailerons were redimensioned and redesigned as well. But of course at low speeds Bf-109 seems heavy in pitch compared with Spitfire.



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

Message Edited on 09/15/0311:09AM by Huckebein_FW

XyZspineZyX
09-15-2003, 05:13 PM
Huckebein_FW wrote:
- Mr_Nakajima wrote:
--
-- Brown's assessment is less damning than the one
-- quoted at the top of this thread, and I personally
-- agree with him - I don't think the BF 109 was
-- marginal in 1940 and obsolete in 1942, and I would
-- be surprised if many of the Commonwealth, American
-- and Soviet pilots who fought it thought so either.
-- But by the second half of 1944 the original design
-- was beginning to reach the limits of how far it
-- could be stretched.
-
- I fing this very funny, which was the competition
- for Bf-109G2 in '42? G2 appeared in '42, was it
- obsolete??
-

Huckie baby will you increase you reading comprehesion skills, LOL.


Do you see the >>I DON'T THINK<<? HE IS NOT SAYING IT WAS OBSOLETE.



http://a1276.g.akamai.net/7/1276/734/625ed428e022ef/www.harley-davidson.com/PR/MOT/2004/Softail/images/DOM/img_Softail_FXST.jpg

http://www.redneckengineering.com/photogallery/photo23581/curves-done-03.jpg


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

XyZspineZyX
09-15-2003, 05:24 PM
MiloMorai wrote:
-
- Huckebein_FW wrote:
-
--
--
-- 1. Oil cooling in front was protected by an armored
-- ring, on both Fw190A and D, unlike american radials.
--
-
- Only from the front, not from the rear quarter.

That's a good one, who could shoot underneath it, the pilot himself?
Oil cooling was better protected than in any other fighter. Not enough for Col Kit Carson though.



-
-- 2. Lack of rudder trim does not matter, planes were
-- trimmed on the ground for a specific cruise speed.
-- In fight rudder trim does not help you, continuous
-- use of the rudder in fight is a basic skill,
-- whithout which you woundn't get on a fighter plane
-- in the first place.
--
-- Also aileron trim was not important since neither
-- Bf-109 or Fw-190 had wing tanks. It's true though
-- that long range fighter variants of Fw-190G, with
-- external tanks attached to wings could use such
-- aileron trim, but the number of those was limited.
--
-
- So what happens when you fly at a different speed
- than what the tabs have been set at? Or they are
- damaged in combat?

Have you heard about mission planning? Obviously not.


- Or your a/c is damaged and the
- trim eases the load on the pilot.

Rudder trim does not make the trip any happier if the plane is damaged.


- Rudder trim also helps with aiming - no
- skidding.

Yes, if you fly on a straight path/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
Rudder, not rudder trim is used combat gunnery.


-
-- 3. All high wing loaded planes had wicious snap
-- stalls, which means all american late war planes.
-- But Fw-190 stall was hard to provoke, because it's
-- wings had washout. Kurt Tank, which was an extreme
-- test pilot himself, decribes how hard was to throw
-- Fw-190 in such a stall.
--
-
- Not like the Fw did. It was the wing washout that
- caused the flick/stalls.


You should go back to kindergarten, they'll teach you better aerodynamics there.

At least do a quick search on Google: "To reduce the tendency of the wing to stall suddenly as the stalling angle is approached, designers incorporate in wing design a feature known as washout. The wing is twisted so that the angle of incidence at the wing tip is less than that at the root of the wing. As a result, the wing has better stall characteristics, in that the section towards the root will stall before the outer section of the wing. The ailerons, located towards the wing tips, are still effective even though part of the wing has stalled."




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

Message Edited on 09/15/0311:27AM by Huckebein_FW

XyZspineZyX
09-15-2003, 05:25 PM
Huckebein_FW wrote:
- BLUTARSKI wrote:
-
- Let me rephrase it
-
- To sum up .....
-
- In this corner we have Colonel Kit Carson, a ww2 ace
- enjoying his retirement telling patriotic stories
- for american public consumption.
-
- In the other corner we have the accounts of Bf-109
- pilots saying that Bf-109 maneuvered beutifully.
-
- Now place your bets.


...


Huckebein,

Re-phrase all you like. It's easy, doesn't require any honesty or introspection on your part, and probably gives you a cheap thrill. Anyways, it's not much different from what you and Isegrim do with all your "data". My money is on the guy who (a) actually had some successful (12 WW2 victories) hands-on real world combat flying experience in real prop fighters and was a professionally trained and practicing aeronautical engineer. What equivalent qualifications do you offer, apart from a desperate fanaticism over all things Bf109 related?

You are blinded by you own biases.

BTW, would Colonel Carson's remarks concerning the FW190 constitute "patriotic stories for american public consumption"?


Blutarski

XyZspineZyX
09-15-2003, 05:26 PM
Huckebein_FW wrote:
- I find this very funny, which was the competition
- for Bf-109G2 in '42? G2 appeared in '42, was it
- obsolete??

Err.I was saying I thought the Bf 109 in 1942 was a top-notch fighter, so not quite sure why you think that is funny. I thought that was what you were arguing.

- First of all, Eric Brown was a Spitfire pilot, which
- had a very different feeling at controls.
-
- But of course at low speeds
- Bf-109 seems heavy in pitch compared with Spitfire.

If I remember correctly, Brown flew about 150 different types of aircraft. I'm not sure how many hours he put in flying Spitfires (especially as he was RN, not RAF) and I do not know what he considered 'normal' to be, but it does seem disingenuous to dismiss the testimony of an extremely experienced pilot who actually flew the Bf 109 and had a wealth of knowledge of other aircraft to compare it with.

-------------------------------------

In January 1945 German officials from the Ministry of Armaments assessed what might have been produced in 1944 without the bombing. They estimated that German industry turned out 35% fewer tanks, 31% fewer aircraft and 42% fewer lorries than would have been possible otherwise.All the officials interviewed (after the war) stated that bombing was the factor responsible for the declining gains from rationalisation and for the eventual collapse of the economic structure after January 1945

Professor R.J. Overy, 'War and Economy in the Third Reich'

XyZspineZyX
09-15-2003, 05:37 PM
Huckebein_FW wrote:
Bf-109 was designed for high speed,

hardly Huckebein , up to about 480 km/h it was no joy to fly, because the lack of trim while flying.


PS.
(is that good english ? help me out guys )


http://www.bayern.de/Layout/wappen.gif

Bavaria is one of the oldest European states.
It dates back to about 500 A.D., when the Roman Empire was overcome by the onslaught of Germanic tribes. According to a widespread theory, the Bavarian tribe had descended from the Romans who remained in the country, the original Celtic population and the Germanic invaders.

Bavarian History : http://www.bayern.de/Bayern/Information/geschichteE.html#kap0

XyZspineZyX
09-15-2003, 05:39 PM
tagert wrote:
-
- Hey Huckie.. you do realise that:
-
- 520kph = 323 mph
-
- And that Col Carson did say "and the aircraft
- manuevered poorly at speeds OVER 300 mph"
-
- Hey Huckie.. you do realise that:
-
- 420kph = 261 mph
- 450kph = 279 mph
-
- And that Col Carson did say "and the aircraft
- manuevered poorly at speeds OVER 300 mph"

- Hey Huckie.. you do realise that:
-
- 460kph = 285 mph
-
- And that Col Carson did say "and the aircraft
- manuevered poorly at speeds OVER 300 mph"


Hey taggie...

Do you realize that this Carson guy stated so much BS in his article that simply makes it obvious he had never ever read anything in regard the development of past-109E series ?

Do you realize that Carson actually qoutes a SINGLE British test regarding the flying qualities of a Bf 109E-3, which was a very different bird regarding it`s handling compared to the later F, G, and K models, which all had a completely new wing, and a significantly redesigned fusalge ?

Again, for U, Carson`s statements are only true (regarding control) to the Bf 109E, and not the later models...

Here`re some qoutes for you, from guy who ACTUALLY flew the Bf 109 G, not just saw it perhaps in a picture:



----------------------------------------------------------

Flying Black 6

Republished with kind permission of Paul Coggan from Warbirds Worldwide #21




The Bf109 is a fascinating aircraft. It was produced in greater numbers than any other fighter aircraft, and was the main single-engined fighter opponent of the Spitfire and Hurricane in the Battle of Britain. Ever sinec I first flew a Spitfire I had a great desire to fly the '109. I soon had the opportunity to fly a Hispano HA-1112M1L Buchon and this made me even more curious about what a real Bf109 was like to fly.

John Allison did not have to ask me twice if I would like to be the other pilot to fly the Bf109G-2 that had been rebuilt by Russ Snadden and his team at RAF Benson. I still feel very privileged to be able to fly this aircraft so when I was asked to write an article for Warbirds Worldwide on flying it, how could I refuse!

The Bf109G has conventional elevators, ailerons, and rudder. Pitch trim is achieved by a variable incidence tail plane, and there is a ground adjustable fixed tab on the rudder and on the aileron for yaw and roll trim. The wing trailing edge incorporates manually operated simple flaps and radiator cooling is controlled by split flaps on the trailing edge which droop with the main flaps to increase flapped area. The outboard half of each wing leading edge incorporates an independent automatic slat, which extends at low speed or in hard manoeuvres. The main undercarriage legs retract outwards and when fully lowered the mainwheels feature a marked toe-in, i.e. the wheels are closer together at the front than at the rear. I believe that this unusual characteristic is caused by the problems of fitting the wheel well and undercarriage leg pintle into the wing due to the position of the main spar. The tailwheel is lockable from the cockpit. The engine is a Daimler-Benz DB605, driving a VDM variable pitch propeller which rotates clockwise when viewed from behind.

On approaching the aircraft it looks sleek, compact, and quite small compared to other World War II fighters. These characteristics are emphasised by the cockpit, which is small, cramped, and neither the seat nor rudder pedals are adjustable. Once the canopy is closed, there is very little headroom either. I am 6feet 3 inches tall, and to the question "How do I fit in it?" all I will say is that 'where there is a will there is a way!' However, the cockpit of this particular airframe is almost totally original, the only significant difference being that the gunsight has been removed and a Becker VHF radio and standby magnetic compass fitted in its place. This degree of originality adds much to the feel and character of this airframe and sets it apart from many rebuilt warbirds that have modernised cockpits, a practice that I dislike greatly. It must be added that this original cockpit has all of the labelling in German, airspeed in kilometres per hour (kph) and altitude in Kilometres. Manifold air pressure is in atmospheres (ata), 1 atmosphere being 30 inches of mercury.

Starting the engine requires one or two willing helpers standing on the starboard wing root to wind up the inertia starter with a crank-handle. The engine is then primed with about 10 strokes of a Ki-gas type pump, the fuel pump switched on and the starter handle pulled which engages a clutch connecting the inertia starter to the engine; hopefully the engine starts! There are two points about this starting procedure. Firstly, you cannot overprime the engine. Secondly it is not feasible to take the aircraft away from Duxford without the groundcrew!

Taxying is achieved using differential braking via rudder pedal mounted toe brakes. The aircraft is reluctant to turn sharply and my technique is to apply full rudder in the required direction of turn to give me better leverage and to then stamp on the toe brake. This is aided by pushing the stick fully forward to unload the tailwheel, an action which is totally unnatural to someone used to the Spitfire! However, the '109 is tail heavy and the tail never lifts. It is during taxying that the very poor forward field of view is first realised. You can see virtually nothing within 30 or 40 degrees either side of the nose, definitely worse than anything that I have ever flown.

Take off is made with 1 degree nose up tailplane trim, 20 degrees of flap lowered and always with the tailwheel locked. After lining up the throttle is smoothly opened to 1.1 ata, controlling the moderate left swing with rudder. Once the take-off power is set and the aircraft is directionally under control, the tail is gently raised just clear of the ground. The aircraft lifts off at around 150 kph with slight back pressure on the stick. This may sound simple, but is one of the most difficult tasks in flying the '109. If any swing is allowed to develop the toe-in on the outside wheel turns the aircraft even more i.e. it is directionally unstable. It will then roll about the outside wheel, leading to the classic ground loop. This problem is accentuated because the forward field of view is so poor that it is difficult to detect any swing starting. The only saving grace is that the lockable tailwheel gives some directional stability, and so it is kept on the ground for as long as possible. The gyroscopic effect of the propeller and loss of directional stability from the tailwheel once the tail is raised is marked, hence the tail is raised very gently and only slightly.

Once airborne, engine handling is markedly different from similar British and American engines, due to the lack of a constant speed unit on the propeller. The operating philosophy is that the engine has a running line of optimum rpm for a given manifold pressure; 2000 rpm at 1.0 ata, 2300 rpm at 1.15 ata (max. continuous) and 2600 rpm at 1.3 ata (30 minute limit). These rpm are also the minimum for the manifold pressure without overboosting the engine. The pilot sets the manifold pressure with the throttle, and engine rpm is controlled either automatically (when it is governed to the running line) or manually. Manual control is by a rocker switch on the throttle and this varies the propeller blade pitch. Once set, the propeller runs with fixed pitch, RPM increasing with increasing airspeed and vice versa. Cockpit of blade pitch is on a clock. For example, 12:00 is set for take-off and 11:45 for landing. Initially, we always flew the aircraft with manual RPM control, until we were happy with the automatic control functioning. In a display, 1.15 ata is set and RPM controlled manually to 2400-2500 to prevent overboosting. This requires a setting of around 11:05 at high speeds such as for loop entries, and an increase to around 11:20 over the top of a loop. This results in a lot of head-in-cockpit time and propeller adjustment during a display, greatly increasing the workload.

The Bf109G is heavy to manoeuvre in pitch, being similar to a Mustang. At 520kph it is possible to pull 4g with one hand, but I find it more comfortable to use both hands on the stick for looping manoeuvres, normally entered at 420kph and 3g. Pitch trim changes with speed are moderate, and the tail plane trim wheel mounted abeam the pilots' left hip is easy to use. For a display, I run it at 420-450kph in trim, and then do not retrim. This causes no excessive stick forces during the display. Overall the aircraft is straightforward to handle in pitch.

Roll performance is similar to a Hurricane or elliptical wing tipped Spitfire. A full stick roll through 360 degrees at 460kph takes 4 to 4.5 seconds without using rudder, and needs a force of around 20 lbf. One interesting characteristic is that rolls at lower speeds entered at less than 1g, such as a roll-off-the-top or half Cuban, have a markedly lower roll rate to the right than to the left. Therefore, I always roll left in such manoeuvres.

There are two problem areas in yaw control with the '109. Firstly, directional stability is low and marked slip ball excursions occur with any changes of speed or power. Also, there is moderate adverse aileron yaw (right yaw when left aileron is applied, and vice versa). The rudder force to centralise the slip ball is low, but constant rudder inputs are required during manoeuvres to minimise sideslip. If the slip ball is not kept central, the lateral force on the pilot is not uncomfortable and no handling problems occur, but it looks very untidy in a display. At the top of a left wing-over, you are very cross-controlled, with left aileron and lots of right rudder applied. This lack of directional stability makes it hard work to fly the aircraft accurately and neatly, although there are no safety problems. However, it must have made accurate tracking for a guns 'kill' very difficult. I suspect that many '109 kills were made at very close range! It also says a great deal about the shooting skills of the Luftwaffe Aces. The second problem is the lack of a cockpit adjustable rudder trimmer. The fixed tab is set so that the rudder is in trim during the cruise, reducing footloads during long transits. However, for all other airspeed and power combinations, a rudder force must be applied. This is an annoying feature, and I am surprised that a rudder trim tab was never fitted to later models such as the Gustav.

The idle power stall characteristics of the aircraft are very benign and affected little by undercarriage and flap position. Stalling warning is a slight wing rock with the stick floating right by about 2 inches. This occurs 10klph before the stall. The stall itself is a left wing drop through about 15 degrees with a slight nose drop, accompanied by a light buffet. All controls are effective up to the stall, and recovery is instant on moving the stick forward. Stall speeds are 155kph clean and 140kph with gear and flap down. In a turn at 280kphwith display power set, stall warning is given by light buffet at 3g, and the stall occurs at 3.5g with the inside wing dropping. Again, recovery is instant on easing the stick forward. One interesting feature is the leading edge slats. When these deploy at low speeds or in a turn, a 'clunk' can be heard and felt, but there is no disturbance to the aircraft about any axis. I understand that the Bf109E rolled violently as the slats deployed, and I am curious to know the difference to the Gustav that caused this.

Back in the circuit, the '109 is straightforward to fly, except that it takes around 25 secs to lower the flaps, using a large wheel mounted next to the tail plane trim wheel and on the same shaft. A curving final approach is flown at 200kph, and once aligned with the runway the forward field of view is poor. The threshold is crossed at 175kph, the throttle closed, and the aircraft flared to the 3 point attitude. The '109 floats like a Spitfire and controls are effective up to touchdown. After touchdown, directional control is by using differential braking. The three point attitude is easy to judge, and although it bucks around on rough grass it does not bounce significantly on touchdown. however, the landing is not easy. From approaching the threshold up to touchdown the forward view is very poor, and it is difficult to assess drift. if the aircraft is drifting at touchdown, the toe-in on the wheel towards which it is drifting causes a marked swing, and you are working very hard to keep straight and avoid a ground loop. Each landing is a challenge, and just a bit unpredictable. Hard runways have higher friction than grass surfaces, and so the wheels dig in even more if drifting on touchdown, making ground-loops more likely on runways than on grass. The possibility of drifting on touchdown increases with a crosswind, and so for these two reasons, we are only flying the Gustav off grass and with a 10kt crosswind limit. I have flown the Buchon off the runway, and landed with a 10kt crosswind on concrete, but it is something that I would never do out of choice!

The Buchon flies very much the same as the Gustav, although directional stability is even worse. The biggest differences are engine handling and cockpit noise levels. The Buchon is very noisy due to the high exhaust stacks of the Merlin, the low exhausts of the DB605 giving a considerably quieter cockpit.

In summary, the Bf109G is a demanding aircraft to fly. The workload is high maintaining directional control on take-off and landing, although in flight the stalling and pitch characteristics are god. I would advise anyone planning to fly a '109 to get lots of experience and confidence in other large piston-engined taildraggers first. However, if its peculiarities are understood and the take-off and landing limits are strictly adhered to the '109 can be operated perfectly safely. I treat the '109 with greater respect than anything else that I fly, but the challenge of trying to fly it well gives me greater satisfaction and enjoyment than probably any other aircraft. But I am never satisfied- I now have an ambition to fly an Emil; the Bf109E.

WW Dave Southwood.



(I would like to thank Paul Coggan, former Editor and Publisher of Warbirds Worldwide and now with Aeroplane, for his kind permission to republish this 1992 article by Dave Southwood on flying the magnificent Messerchmitt Bf109G-2 W.Nr. 10639. -LMR)

-----------------------------------------------------------



This one from Mark Hanna. He flew a spanish export Bf 109J (= Bf 109G-2, with Merlin engine)

To my eye, the aircraft looks dangerous, both to the enemy and to its own pilots. The aircrafts difficult reputation is well known and right from the outset you are aware that it is an aeroplane that needs to be treated with a great deal of respect. Talk to people about the '109 and all you hear about is how you are going to wrap it up on take-off or landing ! As you walk up to the '109 one is at first struck by the small size of the aricraft, particularly if parked next to a comtemporary American fighter. Closer examination reveals a crazy looking knocked-knee undercarriage, a very heavily framed sideways opening canopy with almost no forward view in the three point attitude, a long rear fuselage and tiny tail surfaces. A walk-round reveals ingenious split radiator flaps which double as an extension to the landing flaps, ailerons with a lot of movement and rather odd looking external mass balances. Also independently operating leading edge slats. These devices should glide open and shut on the ground with the pressure of a single finger. Other unusual features include the horizontal stabilizer doubling as the elevator trimmer and the complete absence of a rudder trim system. Overall the finish is a strange mix of innovative and archaic.

Climbing on board you have to be careful not to stand on the radiator flap, then lower yourself gently downwards and forwards, taking your wight by holding onto the windscreen. Once in you are aware that you are almost lying down in the aeroplane, the position reminicent of a racing car. The cockpit is very narrow and if you have broad shoulders (don't all fighter pilots ?), it is a tight squeeze. Once streapped in, itself a knuckle wrapping affair, you can take stock. First impressions are of simplicity and straight forwardness.

From left to right, the co-located elevator trim and flap trim wheels fall easily to hand. You need several turns to get the flaps fully down to 40º and the idea is that you can crank both together. In practice this is a little difficult and I tend to operate the services separately. Coming forward we see the tailwheel locking lever. This either allows the tailwheel to castor or locks it dead ahead. Next is the throttle quadrant, consisting of the propeller lever, and a huge throttle handle. Forward and down, on the floor is an enormous and very effective ki-gass primer and a T shaped handle. DIrectly above this and in line with the canopy seal is the yellow and black hood jettison lever. Pulling this releases two very strong springs in the rear part of the canopy, causing the rear section to come loose and therefore the whole main part of the hood becomes unhinged and can be pushed clear away into the aiflow. Looking directly forwards we have clustered together the standard instument panel with vertical select magnetos on the left, starter and booster coil slightly right of center and engine instruments all grouped together on the right hand side. Our aeroplane has a mixture of British, Spanish and German instruments in this area.

The center console under the main instrument panel consists of a 720 channel radio. E2B compass and a large placard courtesy of the Civil Aviation Authority warning of the dire consequences if you land in a crosswind equal to or greater than 10 knots, or trim the aircraft at speeds in excess of 250 knots. Just to the left of the center console, close to your left knee is the undercarriage up/down selector and the mechanical and electrical undercarriage position indicator. On G-BOML this is a rotary selector with a neutral position. Select the undercarriage up or down then activate a hydraulic button on the front of the control column. This gives 750 psi to the system instantly. Immediately beneath the undercarriage selector is the control for the Radiator flaps. These are also hydraulically controlled with an open/close and neutral position, and activated by the trigger on the stick at 375 psi. If you leave the radiator flap control in anything other than neutral and then try to activate the undercarriage you will not have enough pressure to enable the gear to travel.

Right hand side of the cockpit sees the electrical switches, battery master boost, pumps, pitot heat and a self contained pre-oil system and that's it ! There is no rudder trim, or rudder pedal adjust; also the seat can only be adjusted pre-flight and has the choice of only three settings. If you are any bigger than 6 feet tall, it's all starting to get a bit confined. Once you are strapped in and comfortable close the canopy to check the seating position. Normally, if you haven't flown the 109 before you get a clout on the head as you swing the heavy lid over and down. Nobody sits that low in a fighter ! The OFMC aeroplane has the original flat top ot it - however the Charles Church aircraft has a slight bulge to the top of the canopy - about an inch or so. This is practically indescernable externally, but gives a very helpful lift to the eyeline over the nose.

It's getting dangersously close to going flying now ! OK, open the hood again (in case we catch fire and have to get out in a hurry!). To start, power ON, bost pumps ON. Three good shots on the very stiff primer. Set the throttle about 1/2 inch open. "CLEAR PROP". Push the start button, a few blades and boost coil and mags together. It's a good starter and with a brief snort of flame the '109 fires up immediately. Checking oil pressure is rising right away... Idle initially at 700 RPM, then gently up to 1000 to warm up. Less than 1000 RPM and the whole aeroplane starts to rock from side to side on the gear with some sort of harmonic. This is a most unusual sensation and is quite good fun ! One is immediately aware after start that the aeroplane is "Rattley"; engine, canopy, reduction gear all provide little vibrations and shakes transmitted directly to the pilot.

Close the rad flaps with the selector, and activate the hydraulic trigger. Check the 375 psi and that they close together. Reopen them now to delay the coolant temperature rise. The '109 needs a lot of power to get moving so you need to allow the engine to warm a little before you pile the power onto it. Power up to 1800 RPM and suddenly we're rolling... power back... to turn, stick forward against the instrument panel to lighten the tail. A blast of throttle and a jab of brakes. Do this in a Spitfire and you are on your nose ! The '109 however is very tail heavy and is reluctant to turn - you can very easily lock up a wheel. If you do not use the above technique you will charge off across the airfield in a straight line ! Forward view can only be described as apalling, and due to the tail/brake arrangement this makes weaving more difficult than on other similar types. I prefer to taxy with the hood open to help this a little. By the time we are at the end of the strip the aircraft is already starting to get hot. So quickly on with the run-up. Hood closed again with a satisfying thud. I'm sitting as high as I can and my head is touching the canopy. I am not wearing goggles as they scratch and catch the hood if they are up on your head. A large bonedome is out of the question and in my opinion is a flight safety hazard in this aircraft. Hood positively locked... and push up on to it to check, Oil temperature is 30º, coolant temperature is greater than or at 60º. Brakes hard on (there is no parking brake), stick back and power gently up to 0 boost (30") and 2300 RPM. Exercise the prop at least twice, RPM falling back to 1800 each time, keep an eye on the oil pressure. The noise and vibration levels have now increased dramatically. Power back down to 1800 RPM and check the mags. Insignificant drop on each side. We must hurry as the coolant temperature is at 98ºC and going UP - we have to get rolling to get some cooling air through the radiators. Pretake off checks... Elevator trim set to +1º, no rudder trim, throttle friction light. This is vital as I'm going to need to use my left hand for various services immediately after take-off. Mixture is automatic, pitch fully fine... fuel - I know we're full (85 gallons); the gauge is unserviceable again, so I'm limited to a maximum of 1 hour 15 minutes cruise or 1 hour if any high power work is involved. Fuel/Oil **** is ON, both boost pumps are ON, pressure is good, primer is done up. Flaps - crank down to 20º for take off. Rad flaps checked at full open; if we take off with them closed we will certainly boil the engine and guaranteeed to crack the head. Gyro's set to Duxford's runway. Instruments; temps and pressures all in the green for take off. Radiator is now 102º. Oxygen we don't have, hood rechecked down and locked, harness tight and secure, hydraulics select down in the gear and pressurise the system check 750 psi. Controls full and free, tail wheel locked. Got to go - 105º. There's no time to hang around and worry about the take off. Here we go... Power gently up and keep it coming smoothly up to +8 (46")... it's VERY noisy ! Keep the tail down initially, keep it straight by feel rather than any positive technique... tail coming up now... once the rudders effective. Unconcious corrections to the rudder are happening all the time. It's incredcibly entertaining to watch the '109 take off or land. The rudder literally flashes around ! The alternative technique (rather tongue in cheek) is Walter Eichorn's, of using full right rudder throughout the take-off roll and varying the swing with the throttle !

The little fighter is now bucketing along, accelerating rapidly. As the tail lifts there is a positive tendancy to swing left - this can be checked easily however, although if you are really agressive lifting the tail it is difficult to stop and happens very quickly. Now the tail's up and you can see vagualy where you are going. It's a rough, wild, buckety ride on grass and with noise, smoke from the stakcs and the aeroplane bouncing around it's exciting !

Quick glance at the ASI - 100 mph, slight check back on the stick and we're flying. Hand off the throttle, rotate the gear selector and activate the hydraulic button. The mechanical indicators motor up very quickly and you feel a clonk, clonk as the gear comes home. Relect Neutral on the undercarriage selector. Quick look out at the wings and you see the slats fully out, starting to creep in as the airspeed increases and the angle of attack reduces. 130 mph and an immediate climbing turn up and right onto the downwind leg just in case I need to put the aeroplane down in a hurry. Our company S.O.P. is to always fly an overhead orbit of the field to allow everything to stabilize before setting off - this has saved at least one of our aeroplanes.

Start to frantically crank the flap up - now up the speeds, increasing through 150, power back to +6 (42") and 2650 for the climb. Plenty of airflow through the narrow radiators now, so close them and remember to keep a careful eye on the coolant gauge for the next few minutes until the temperature has settled down. With the rad flaps closed the aircraft accelerates postively. I'm aware as we climb that I'm holding in a little right rudder to keep the tail in the middle, but the foot loads are light, and it's no problems. Level off and power back to +4(38") and 2000 RPM. The speed's picked up to the '109 cruise of about 235-240 mph and now the tail is right in the middle and no rudder input is necessary.

Once settled down with adrenalin level back down to just high, we can take stock of our situation. The initial reaction is of delight to be flying a classic aeroplane, and next the realization that this is a real fighter ! You feel agressive flying it. The urge is to go looking for something to bounce and shoot down !

The roll rate is very good and very positive below about 250 mph. This is particularly true of the Charles Church's Collection clipped wing aircraft. Our round tipped aeroplane is slightly less nice to feel. With the speed further back the roll rate remains good, particularly with a bit of help from the rudder. Above 250 mph however the roll starts to heavy up and up to 300 or so is very similar to a P-51. After that it's all getting pretty solid and you need two hands on the stick for any meaningfull roll rates. Another peculiarity is that when you have been in a hard turn with the slats deployed, and then you roll rapidly one way and stop, there is a strange sensation for a second of so of a kind of dead area over the ailerons - almost as if they are not connected ! Just when you are starting to get worried they work again !

Pitch is also delighful at 250 mph and below. It feels very positve and the amount of effort on the control column needed to produce the relevant nose movement seems exactly right to me. As CL max is reached the leading edge slats deploy - together if the ball is in the middle, slightly asymmetrically if you have any slip on. The aircraft delights in being pulled into hard manuevering turns at these slower speeds. As the slats pop out you feel a slight "notching" on the stick and you can pull more until the whole airframe is buffeting quite hard. A little more and you will drop a wing, but you have to be crass to do it unintentionally. Pitch tends to heavy up above 250 mph but it is still easily manageable up to 300 mph and the aircraft is perfectly happy carrying out low-level looping maneuvers from 300 mph and below. Above 300 mph one peculiarity is a slight nose down trim change as you accelerate. This means that running in for an airshow above 300 mph the aeroplane has a slight tucking in sensation - a sort of desire to get down to ground level ! This is easily held on the stick or can be trimmed out but is slightly surprising initially. Maneuvering above 300, two hands can be required for more aggressive performance. EIther that or get on the trimmer to help you. Despite this heavying up it is still quite easy to get at 5G's at these speeds.

The rudder is effective and if medium feel up to 300. It becomes heavier above this speed but regardless the lack of rudder trim is not a problem for the type of operations we carry out with the aeroplane. Initial acceleration is rapid, particularly with nose down, up to about 320 mph. After that the '109 starts to become a little reluctant and you have to be fairly determined to get over 350-360 mph.

So how does the aeroplane compare with other contemporary fighters ? First, let me say that all my comments are based on operation below 10,000 feet and at power settings not exceeding +12 (54") and 2700 rpm. 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. Other factors affecting the '109 as a combat plane include the small cramped cockpit. This is quite a tiring working environment, although the view out (in flight) is better than you might expect; the profuseion of canopy struts is not particularly a problem.

In addition to the above the small cockpit makes you feel more a part of the aeroplane and the overall smaller dimensions make you more difficult to spot. There's no doubt that when you are flying the '109 and you look out and see the crosses on the wings you feel aggressive; if you are in an allied fighter it is very intimidating to see this dangerous little aeroplane turning in on you !

Returning to the circuit it is almost essential to join for a run and break. Over the field break from 50 feet, up and over 4G's onto the downwind leg. Speed at 150 knots or less, gear select to DOWN and activate the button and feel the gear come down asymmetrically. Check the mechanical indicators (ignore the electric position indicators), pitch fully fine... fuel - both boost pumps ON. If you have less than 1/4 fuel and the rear pump is not on the engine may stop in the three-point attitude. Rad flaps to full open and wings flaps to 10º to 15º. As the wing passes the threshold downwind - take all the power off and roll into the finals turn, cranking the flap like mad as you go. The important things is to set up a highish rate of descent, curved approach. The aircraft is reluctant to lose speed around finals so ideally you should initiate the turn quite slow at about 100-105. Slats normally deploy half way round finals but you the pilot are not aware they have come out. The ideal is to keep turning with the speed slowly bleeding, and roll out at about 10 feet at the right speed and just starting to transition to the three point attitude, the last speed I usually see is just about 90; I'm normally too busy to look after that !

The '109 is one of the most controllable aircraft that I have flown at slow speed around finals, and provided you don't get too slow is one of the easiest to three point. It just feels right ! THe only problem is getting it too slow. If this happens you end up with a very high sink rate, very quickly and absolutely no ability to check or flare to round out. It literally falls out of your hands !

Once down on three points the aircraft tends to stay down - but this is when you have to be careful. The forward view has gone to hell and you cannot afford to let any sort of swing develop. The problem is that the initial detection is more difficult. The aeroplane is completely unpredictable and can diverge in either direction. There never seems to be any pattern to this. Sometimes the most immaculate three pointer will turn into a potential disaster half way through the landing roll. Other times a ropey landing will roll thraight as an arrow !

When we first started flying the '109 both my father and I did a lot of practice circuits on the grass before trying a paved strip. Operating off grass is preferred. Although it is a much smoother ride on the hard, directionally the aircraft is definitely more sensative. WIthout doubt you cannot afford to relax until you are positively stationary. I would never make a rolling exit from a runway in the '109. It is just as likely to wrap itself up at 25 as it is at 80 mph. Another promlem is that you have to go easy on the brakes. Hammer them too early in the landing roll and they will have faded to nothing just when you need them ! The final word of advice is always three point the aircraft and if the wind is such that it makes a three pointer inadvisable it's simple: the aeroplane stays in the hanger !

Having said all this, I like the aeroplane very much, and I think I can understand why many of the Luftwaffe aces had such a high regard and preference for it. Our intention is to eventually re-engine our aeroplane with a Daimler-Benz 605 and convert it to a late '109G or perhaps even a 'K'.


-----------------------------------------------------------


Now, the part again regarding controls:



*****
The roll rate is very good and very positive below about 250 mph. This is particularly true of the Charles Church's Collection clipped wing aircraft. Our round tipped aeroplane is slightly less nice to feel. With the speed further back the roll rate remains good, particularly with a bit of help from the rudder. Above 250 mph however the roll starts to heavy up and up to 300 or so is very similar to a P-51. After that it's all getting pretty solid and you need two hands on the stick for any meaningfull roll rates. Another peculiarity is that when you have been in a hard turn with the slats deployed, and then you roll rapidly one way and stop, there is a strange sensation for a second of so of a kind of dead area over the ailerons - almost as if they are not connected ! Just when you are starting to get worried they work again !

Pitch is also delighful at 250 mph and below. It feels very positve and the amount of effort on the control column needed to produce the relevant nose movement seems exactly right to me. As CL max is reached the leading edge slats deploy - together if the ball is in the middle, slightly asymmetrically if you have any slip on. The aircraft delights in being pulled into hard manuevering turns at these slower speeds. As the slats pop out you feel a slight "notching" on the stick and you can pull more until the whole airframe is buffeting quite hard. A little more and you will drop a wing, but you have to be crass to do it unintentionally. Pitch tends to heavy up above 250 mph but it is still easily manageable up to 300 mph and the aircraft is perfectly happy carrying out low-level looping maneuvers from 300 mph and below. Above 300 mph one peculiarity is a slight nose down trim change as you accelerate. This means that running in for an airshow above 300 mph the aeroplane has a slight tucking in sensation - a sort of desire to get down to ground level ! This is easily held on the stick or can be trimmed out but is slightly surprising initially. Maneuvering above 300, two hands can be required for more aggressive performance. EIther that or get on the trimmer to help you. Despite this heavying up it is still quite easy to get at 5G's at these speeds.

The rudder is effective and if medium feel up to 300. It becomes heavier above this speed but regardless the lack of rudder trim is not a problem for the type of operations we carry out with the aeroplane. Initial acceleration is rapid, particularly with nose down, up to about 320 mph. After that the '109 starts to become a little reluctant and you have to be fairly determined to get over 350-360 mph.
****

The Bf109G is heavy to manoeuvre in pitch, being similar to a Mustang. At 520kph it is possible to pull 4g with one hand, but I find it more comfortable to use both hands on the stick for looping manoeuvres, normally entered at 420kph and 3g. Pitch trim changes with speed are moderate, and the tail plane trim wheel mounted abeam the pilots' left hip is easy to use. For a display, I run it at 420-450kph in trim, and then do not retrim. This causes no excessive stick forces during the display. Overall the aircraft is straightforward to handle in pitch.

Roll performance is similar to a Hurricane or elliptical wing tipped Spitfire. A full stick roll through 360 degrees at 460kph takes 4 to 4.5 seconds without using rudder, and needs a force of around 20 lbf. One interesting characteristic is that rolls at lower speeds entered at less than 1g, such as a roll-off-the-top or half Cuban, have a markedly lower roll rate to the right than to the left. Therefore, I always roll left in such manoeuvres.


***


Now, the interesting part is about the "notoriously heavy, locked-cement-cement" aileron control. As the pilot describes, 20 lbs force is enough to FULLY deflect the ailerons at 300mph. This is half of the maximum force possible, so there`s still PLENTY of muscle reserves...

Compare this to other fighters of the time:

- The P-47C and D, with it`s ailerons usually described as "light" could not deflect the ailerons fully even with 50 lbs force after 230 mph

- Spitfire, even with 40 lbs stick force, could not deflect the (metal) ailerons fully after 130mph was reached

- P-51D, 50 lbs, not possible to deflect them fully after 270 mph


Yet the stick-in-cement Bf 109G could still fully deflect them at 30-200% of the speed with HALF the stickforce...

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
09-15-2003, 05:40 PM
Mr_Nakajima wrote:
- If I remember correctly, Brown flew about 150
- different types of aircraft. I'm not sure how many
- hours he put in flying Spitfires (especially as he
- was RN, not RAF) and I do not know what he
- considered 'normal' to be, but it does seem
- disingenuous to dismiss the testimony of an
- extremely experienced pilot who actually flew the Bf
- 109 and had a wealth of knowledge of other aircraft
- to compare it with.

I don't dismiss anything. Coggan also says that it was heavy in pitch, comparable with a Mustang. Early designs felt better at low speeds, but had excessive elevator forces at high speeds. From this point of view, Bf-109 it was the predecessor of late war designs.

Also E. Brown was a passionate man, this is why he sold books so well. You cannot sell dry technical reports. He fell in love with Fw-190 but disliked Bf-109. He says: "and if the Bf 109G could no longer take on the later Allied fighters on even terms during the last year of the war, this reflected no discredit on the design team that had conceived it."
From what facts did he deducted this?


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

XyZspineZyX
09-15-2003, 05:47 PM
Eric Brown has flown many planes.
he was fighting a Condor with a Wildcat (Martlet)
with a Gladiator he tried to shot down a heinkel (the AAA got HIS heinkel )
and many other planes .

http://www.bayern.de/Layout/wappen.gif

Bavaria is one of the oldest European states.
It dates back to about 500 A.D., when the Roman Empire was overcome by the onslaught of Germanic tribes. According to a widespread theory, the Bavarian tribe had descended from the Romans who remained in the country, the original Celtic population and the Germanic invaders.

Bavarian History : http://www.bayern.de/Bayern/Information/geschichteE.html#kap0

XyZspineZyX
09-15-2003, 05:51 PM
Technically it's 287mph - but it is close.

Mark Hanna notes that the ailerons are as stiff
as a P51 at 300mph, which isn't too bad, but he
does say that they stiffen up considerably after that.
Now I presume that he may mean that they stiffen
up more than a P51 above 300mph. That is what I'd
infer, anyway.

With regard to the full deflection, it might be
that to get a useful roll rate in, for example,
the P47 only a light force was needed. It could
have been that a useful roll rate could be produced
with less than full deflection - i.e. the scaling
of roll to deflection was not linear. (I'd have to
look at that NACA document again to say).

So it's not impossible that full deflection on the
P47 required a large force, but the overall feel
(which is subjective) be light.

XyZspineZyX
09-15-2003, 05:52 PM
Oh, and let me add 1 more thing...

The results with aileron tests with Bf 109E are qouted very often, especially when one wants to prove how stick-in-cement the Bf 109E was.

They usually forget though, that the roll rate chart this was taken from also displays a Spitfire I, and also the stick forces required for the given roll rate... they don`t give the full picture, which was, according to the report:

"Time to bank 45 degrees"

At 200mph:

Spitfire I: 1.9 secs, ~9 lbs stick force required
Me 109E : 1 sec, ~9.5 lbs stick force required

At 300mph:

Spitfire I: 2.1 secs, 22 lbs stick force required
Me 109E : 2 secs, 20 lbs stick force required


At 400mph

Spitfire I: 4 secs, 57 lbs stick force required
Me 109E : 4.2 sec, 36 lbs stick force required


Now it has been put in context... how would you describe Spitfire I aileron controls at 400mph ? Remember, 109E was described as "


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
09-15-2003, 06:00 PM
Mr_Nakajima wrote:
- Captain Eric Brown RN was the chief test pilot at
- the Royal Aircraft Establishment from1944-50 and
- flew a Bf-`109G-6/U2 which had landed at Manston in
- error on 21st July 1944, and put it through its
- paces. His full account is published in 'Wings of
- the Luftwaffe', ISBN 1-85310-413-2 but is too big to
- scan and post here. Captain Brown flew 55 different
- types of captured German aircraft during and after
- the war and made copious notes of how he found them.
- Most he enjoyed flying. His conclusion for the Bf
- 109G-6 is:

etc.

Mr. Nakijama,

I suppose you are not aware of the fact that Eric Brown flew the Bf 109G-6 with Rustsatze 6. That means the plane he flew had it`s gunpods installed. Actually, what Brown flew was a nightfighter 109 from a "Wilde Sau" unit. Not a "clean" fighter.. the gunpods themselves weighted 215 kg loaded, and were used in anti-bomber mission, never in fighter sweep or escort, or other anti-fighter profile mission. The captured plane didn`t have MW50 injection either. Of course, normal fighter 109G-6s were far more agile, climbed, rolled and turned better.

In any case, the British report on this captured Bf 109G-6 can be read at www.ww2.dk (http://www.ww2.dk) , in the "Tony Wood" section.. Look for "Captured enemy a/c report 16.7.44".



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
09-15-2003, 06:00 PM
Huckebein_FW wrote:
- MiloMorai wrote:
--
-- Huckebein_FW wrote:
--
---
---
--- 1. Oil cooling in front was protected by an armored
--- ring, on both Fw190A and D, unlike american radials.
---
--
-- Only from the front, not from the rear quarter.
-
- That's a good one, who could shoot underneath it,
- the pilot himself?
- Oil cooling was better protected than in any other
- fighter. Not enough for Col Kit Carson though.
-

You are really showing your stupidity Huckie baby./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Any attack from 3.5 to 8.5 o'clock, high, low, & sides could have rounds hitting the oil cooler. There was also a mess of un-protected oil lines that would spray hot oil onto a hot engine. Guess what that means./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Try using those 'smarts' you say you possess for a change.

-

-
- Have you heard about mission planning? Obviously
- not.
-

Ah, so a test flight is done to adjust the tabs to suit the mission./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif No wunder the LW had trouble putting together attacks, the a/c were all doing test flights to adjust their trim tabs. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif Still, when did any mission go EXACTLY as planned?


-
-- Or your a/c is damaged and the
-- trim eases the load on the pilot.
-
- Rudder trim does not make the trip any happier if
- the plane is damaged.
-

There is still 2 other possible trim axis Huckie. It might not make the trip any happier but sure as H!LL make it much easier, especially if the pilot is wounded.

Put that grey matter you supposidly have between your ears to use Hickie.

-
-- Rudder trim also helps with aiming - no
-- skidding.
-
- Yes, if you fly on a straight path/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
- Rudded, not rudder trim is used combat gunnery.
-

Want to try the above un-intelligable sentence again in English?

Beyond Huckie's comprehension how trim with regards to the rudder will effect aiming./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

-
--
--- 3. All high wing loaded planes had wicious snap
--- stalls, which means all american late war planes.
--- But Fw-190 stall was hard to provoke, because it's
--- wings had washout. Kurt Tank, which was an extreme
--- test pilot himself, decribes how hard was to throw
--- Fw-190 in such a stall.
---
--
-- Not like the Fw did. It was the wing washout that
-- caused the flick/stalls.
-
-
- You should go back to kindergarten, they'll teach
- you better aerodynamics there.
-
- At least do a quick search on Google: "To reduce the
- tendency of the wing to stall suddenly as the
- stalling angle is approached, designers incorporate
- in wing design a feature known as washout. The wing
- is twisted so that the angle of incidence at the
- wing tip is less than that at the root of the wing.
- As a result, the wing has better stall
- characteristics, in that the section towards the
- root will stall before the outer section of the
- wing. The ailerons, located towards the wing tips,
- are still effective even though part of the wing has
- stalled."
-
-

No kidding Huckie./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif Nice desription of a stall for straight level flight./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif Did you buy that PhD in aeronautics, one has to wunder. There is more than the tip/root incedence(washout) to consider./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif



http://a1276.g.akamai.net/7/1276/734/625ed428e022ef/www.harley-davidson.com/PR/MOT/2004/Softail/images/DOM/img_Softail_FXST.jpg

http://www.redneckengineering.com/photogallery/photo23581/curves-done-03.jpg


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

XyZspineZyX
09-15-2003, 06:26 PM
P*ssed-off Milo erupts a cloud of smileys.

MiloMorai wrote:
-
- Huckebein_FW wrote:
-- MiloMorai wrote:
---
--- Huckebein_FW wrote:
---
----
----
---- 1. Oil cooling in front was protected by an armored
---- ring, on both Fw190A and D, unlike american radials.
----
---
--- Only from the front, not from the rear quarter.
--
-- That's a good one, who could shoot underneath it,
-- the pilot himself?
-- Oil cooling was better protected than in any other
-- fighter. Not enough for Col Kit Carson though.
--
- Any attack from 3.5 to 8.5 o'clock, high, low, &
- sides could have rounds hitting the oil cooler.
- There was also a mess of un-protected oil lines that
- would spray hot oil onto a hot engine. Guess what
- that means.

Attacks from 3 o'clock, hits the armor at 90 degrees, not underneath it, chances to happen are very small and to penetrate it too are next to zero. Attacks from any other angle should penetrate the engine and hit the cooling ring on the other side, in order to avoid the armor. But that's an engine hit not an oil cooler hit.


-
--
-
--
-- Have you heard about mission planning? Obviously
-- not.
--
-
- Ah, so a test flight is done to adjust the tabs to
- suit the mission.

What an idiocy. Trim deflection was precalculated for various cruising speeds.



--- Or your a/c is damaged and the
--- trim eases the load on the pilot.
--
-- Rudder trim does not make the trip any happier if
-- the plane is damaged.
--
-
- There is still 2 other possible trim axis Huckie. It
- might not make the trip any happier but sure as H!LL
- make it much easier, especially if the pilot is
- wounded.

Plane is already (rudder) trimmed for cruising. Elevator trim is available. Aileron trim is not necessary on german planes. How can cockpit rudder trim help the pilot if he is wounded?



--- Rudder trim also helps with aiming - no
--- skidding.
--
-- Yes, if you fly on a straight path
-- Rudded, not rudder trim is used combat gunnery.
--
-
- Want to try the above un-intelligable sentence again
- in English?

"Rudder, not rudder trim is used in combat gunnery". Repeat it like a lesson, you'll benefit from it.



---- 3. All high wing loaded planes had wicious snap
---- stalls, which means all american late war planes.
---- But Fw-190 stall was hard to provoke, because it's
---- wings had washout. Kurt Tank, which was an extreme
---- test pilot himself, decribes how hard was to throw
---- Fw-190 in such a stall.
----
---
--- Not like the Fw did. It was the wing washout that
--- caused the flick/stalls.
--
--
-- You should go back to kindergarten, they'll teach
-- you better aerodynamics there.
--
-- At least do a quick search on Google: "To reduce the
-- tendency of the wing to stall suddenly as the
-- stalling angle is approached, designers incorporate
-- in wing design a feature known as washout. The wing
-- is twisted so that the angle of incidence at the
-- wing tip is less than that at the root of the wing.
-- As a result, the wing has better stall
-- characteristics, in that the section towards the
-- root will stall before the outer section of the
-- wing. The ailerons, located towards the wing tips,
-- are still effective even though part of the wing has
-- stalled."
--
--
-
- No kidding Huckie
- Did you buy that PhD
- in aeronautics, one has to wunder. There is more
- than the tip/root incedence(washout) to
- consider.


Go on, teach us/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif



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

Message Edited on 09/15/0312:26PM by Huckebein_FW

XyZspineZyX
09-15-2003, 07:16 PM
I don't know why everyone is so hostile toward Ise and Huck.

It's like I told Huck and Chimp. Stick to your own damn planes. If you have a favorite plane in the available plane set and feel it is not being done accurately (high or low), then focus on that and only that. Trash talking others' planes doesn't accomplish anything and only starts fights.

And I will say this - Paul Coggan and Mark Hanna pretty much discredit that Carson "review" rather thoroughly. I can't say for certain what drove Carson to say what he said, but, it does seem to be based on the earlier review of the captured Emil done in the UK. And to suggest that his experience of fighting against it didn't come in to play is ludicrous. Huck also made a good point about Carsons target audience as well. Marketing can never be underestimated.

Blutarski - Oleg is a "trained aero engineer", pilot, and programmer. But he is way off in almost every regard with the 109, except the G2. Being a trained aero engineer doesn't really mean squat. You really come off as just being hostile toward Huck and Ise and interested in nothing more than trying to discredit them and using spin to do it.

BTW - call me a "109 lover" if you want, but don't call me biased. I love US and UK planes too. The F6F-5 is my favorite of the war. Hands down. And I currently fly the P-47 in FB.

XyZspineZyX
09-15-2003, 07:23 PM
Huckebein_FW wrote:
- P*ssed-off Milo erupts a cloud of smileys.
-

Not at all Huckie baby. Just having a very good laugh at your 1 dimensional blindered perspective./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif


- MiloMorai wrote:
--
-- Huckebein_FW wrote:
--- MiloMorai wrote:
----
---- Huckebein_FW wrote:
----
-----
-----
----- 1. Oil cooling in front was protected by an armored
----- ring, on both Fw190A and D, unlike american radials.
-----
----
---- Only from the front, not from the rear quarter.
---
--- That's a good one, who could shoot underneath it,
--- the pilot himself?
--- Oil cooling was better protected than in any other
--- fighter. Not enough for Col Kit Carson though.
---
-- Any attack from 3.5 to 8.5 o'clock, high, low, &
-- sides could have rounds hitting the oil cooler.
-- There was also a mess of un-protected oil lines that
-- would spray hot oil onto a hot engine. Guess what
-- that means.
-
- Attacks from 3 o'clock, hits the armor at 90
- degrees, not underneath it, chances to happen are
- very small and to penetrate it too are next to zero.
- Attacks from any other angle should penetrate the
- engine and hit the cooling ring on the other side,
- in order to avoid the armor. But that's an engine
- hit not an oil cooler hit.
-

Inprove your reading skill Huckie. Nowhere did I say 3 o'clock./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif The word is OUTSIDE not UNDERNEATH. And 6mm for the oil tank is not really armour. A .50 would go through that like a hot knife through butter. The engine can live with a few cooling fins missing, but a hole in the oil cooler or some of the lines(at least 14 lines) is the end result of the richichet. Loss of oil./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

-
--
---
--
---
--- Have you heard about mission planning? Obviously
--- not.
---
--
-- Ah, so a test flight is done to adjust the tabs to
-- suit the mission.
-
- What an idiocy. Trim deflection was precalculated
- for various cruising speeds.
-

And a test flight was required to confirm that the adjustment was correct. Sometimes it took several flights to adjust the trim. If it was slightly off, cockpit trim would easily fix the the 'out of trim' condition. But you are too blind to see this.

-
-
-
---- Or your a/c is damaged and the
---- trim eases the load on the pilot.
---
--- Rudder trim does not make the trip any happier if
--- the plane is damaged.
---
--
-- There is still 2 other possible trim axis Huckie. It
-- might not make the trip any happier but sure as H!LL
-- make it much easier, especially if the pilot is
-- wounded.
-
- Plane is already (rudder) trimmed for cruising.
- Elevator trim is available. Aileron trim is not
- necessary on german planes. How can cockpit rudder
- trim help the pilot if he is wounded?
-

That is right, only cruise. Did the a/c fly at cruise all the time? Who said rudder trim for a wounded pilot? But since you asked, what if the pilot was wounded in the leg? Think now Huckie or is that too hard for you to do?



-
-
-
---- Rudder trim also helps with aiming - no
---- skidding.
---
--- Yes, if you fly on a straight path
--- Rudded, not rudder trim is used combat gunnery.
---
--
-- Want to try the above un-intelligable sentence again
-- in English?
-
- "Rudder, not rudder trim is used in combat gunnery".
- Repeat it like a lesson, you'll benefit from it.
-

This is a lost cause for you Huckie since you lack the comprehension to understand.


-
-
-
----- 3. All high wing loaded planes had wicious snap
----- stalls, which means all american late war planes.
----- But Fw-190 stall was hard to provoke, because it's
----- wings had washout. Kurt Tank, which was an extreme
----- test pilot himself, decribes how hard was to throw
----- Fw-190 in such a stall.
-----
----
---- Not like the Fw did. It was the wing washout that
---- caused the flick/stalls.
---
---
--- You should go back to kindergarten, they'll teach
--- you better aerodynamics there.
---
--- At least do a quick search on Google: "To reduce the
--- tendency of the wing to stall suddenly as the
--- stalling angle is approached, designers incorporate
--- in wing design a feature known as washout. The wing
--- is twisted so that the angle of incidence at the
--- wing tip is less than that at the root of the wing.
--- As a result, the wing has better stall
--- characteristics, in that the section towards the
--- root will stall before the outer section of the
--- wing. The ailerons, located towards the wing tips,
--- are still effective even though part of the wing has
--- stalled."
---
---
--
-- No kidding Huckie
-- Did you buy that PhD
-- in aeronautics, one has to wunder. There is more
-- than the tip/root incedence(washout) to
-- consider.
-
-
- Go on, teach us


You the one claiming to be the expert.

http://a1276.g.akamai.net/7/1276/734/625ed428e022ef/www.harley-davidson.com/PR/MOT/2004/Softail/images/DOM/img_Softail_FXST.jpg

http://www.redneckengineering.com/photogallery/photo23581/curves-done-03.jpg


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

XyZspineZyX
09-15-2003, 08:01 PM
Milo,

It's a good thing that rudder trim isn't necessary in power dives, eh .....?


Blutarski

XyZspineZyX
09-15-2003, 10:06 PM
BlitzPig_DDT wrote:
- I don't know why everyone is so hostile toward Ise
- and Huck.
-
Well, with Huck I think it's largely because he's insulting to anyone who disagrees with him. Why do you think it is?

Regards,

RocketDog.

XyZspineZyX
09-16-2003, 12:34 AM
Afraid I have to agree Huck dismisses anything he disagrees with rather harshly. I've explained how we should read Col. Carsons "review" of the 109. huck dismisses Carson, an ace & an aeronautical engineer, as "a clown." Carson's figures on the handling on the 109 are taken from the kannonboot version, tho most Luftwaffe aces refer to these as not very manueverable too.....

Maybe instead of insulting any pilot who disagrees with his own evaluation of the late 109s he should ask why almost all American pilots thought the 109 was a dog ? And why did many Luftwaffe & Finnish pilots love it ?

As for the 190 oil cooler issue, Carson says:

"I don't think this was such a good idea. For example, my principle aiming point was always the forward portion of an enemy ship; the cockpit,wingroot section. If you get any hits at all;even only a few, you're bound to put one or two slugs into the engine compartment. Having a couple bullets richochetoff the engine block & tear up some ignition harness is not too bad, at least not fatal . but to have all those thin-walled oil cooling tubes AHEAD of the engine is bad news. Any hits or richochets in the engine section are bound to puncture the oil tubes. then the whole engine is immersed in oil spray, & sometimes it would flash into a fire. All of the 12 FockeWolfes that i shot down sent off a trail of dense boiling oil smoke. >>>"

Carson's accounts/opinions are balanced.

http://idealab.snu.ac.kr/~hobbist/La-5FN/small/La-5FN-06.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-16-2003, 12:44 AM
Sometimes the LEMB forum is worth visiting. There is not much activety but sometimes some 'tidbits' can be found.

Such as this, posted by Felix99 in a thread about Flettner tabs


"In Spate's "Test Pilots", Heinrich Beauvais comments thusly on the flight controls: "One would have liked to have more effective ailerons, as well as lower control forces, at high speeds. I do not remember all the different methods tried to improve this, but the following two are still clear in my mind. One was designed by Blohm & Voss, adding a Flettner trim tab which resulted in a reduction of control forces: however performance was not as smooth and effectiveness had not improved at all.... The rudder had no trim: it was 'ironed out' especially for the dive and produced fairly high aerodynamic forces during the climb. Nevertheless, it seemed the best of compromises: a spring to counteract the strong forces during the climb was considered, but never incorporated." (Page 74)

Anyway, the following is from a test dive on 7.10.44 in good old W.Nr. 18550 (I say that because that a/c was used in just so much of the 109 testing): the test was made by "Willemsen" (he's not known to me. Does anyone have info on him?), on an a/c equipped with ailerons with Flettners, large stabilizer and rudder, a/c weight: 333o kg, and CofG at take-off: 24.6%.

At a corrected speed of 770 kph (.75 Mach at the test altitude), Test pilot Willemsen was able to get the ailerons to travel to 2/3 of their available range (no approx. force required is mentioned), forces were the same to either side, and there was no overbalancing observed."

Draw you own conclusions.



http://a1276.g.akamai.net/7/1276/734/625ed428e022ef/www.harley-davidson.com/PR/MOT/2004/Softail/images/DOM/img_Softail_FXST.jpg

http://www.redneckengineering.com/photogallery/photo23581/curves-done-03.jpg


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

XyZspineZyX
09-16-2003, 03:09 AM
I don't see how some people can argue so dogmatically that the 109 was so great.

It's shortcomings:
- short range
- poor visibility
- poor ground handling
- average (at best) high speed handling
(see the review from Mark Hanna posted by Vo101 Isegrim:
"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.")

And it's strengths:
- high power to weight ratio (translates into good climb and sustained turn)

So what other areas does it excell in? It seems to me that P/W alone as a strength is just not enough to make it the best, particularly considering it's weaknesses. I suppose you could argue that in a 1 vs 1 duel, P/W was the most important single factor, but this was extremely rare in real combat.

XyZspineZyX
09-16-2003, 04:01 AM
Okay, one last stab at it before calling this thread another lost cause. I have no illusions of changing Huck or Issy's mind, any more than I have illusions of collecting NRA donations from Greenpeace.
First, some standard conventions: Issy, pilots use IAS, unless noted otherwise. TAS is for the 'gators (navigators), and those trying to prop up their egos with large numbers (mph and/or kph, instead of kts, are good for this, too.) Pilots care about how the aircraft behaves, and IAS, not TAS, determines this. Hell, we can't even see TAS on any gauge in the cockpit, and we sure don't have the 'wiz wheel out constantly calculating TAS on the fly (actually, the F-16 HUD will show IAS, TAS or GS at the flick of a switch. I don't know of anyone who ever used that switch, except to baby-sit the INS occasionally.)
Next, Paul Coggan and Mark Hanna's comments seem to support Col. Carson. Both mention heavy or very heavy pitch controls, as well as aileron control stiffening up rapidly as speed increases. Specifically, from Mark Hanna: "Above 250 mph however the roll starts to heavy up and up to 300 or so is very similar to a P-51. After that it's all getting pretty solid and you need two hands on the stick for any meaningfull (sic) roll rates." Huck, where do you get the information that leads you to believe the 109 pitch control forces were light? Are you disregarding all these pilot reports and assuming control forces were light merely because the 109's tail was small? Control surface size has little to do with control forces. More important are the control rigging (mechanical advantage and travel), and aerodynamic balancing. Keep in mind that both gentlemen are flying antique warbirds at airshows, not combat equipped aircraft in combat.
Getting back to Paul Coggan and Mark Hanna. Their speeds and g loadings are well below that experienced in combat, and rightly so. The aircraft they're flying are rare, old, and in the case of the G-2, now a static display after a crash due to engine failure. They just start brushing the part of the envelope were the problems occur. I also get the feeling both are more than a little enamored with the experience of flying such rare, exotic aircraft, and as such, may not be entirely objective. Read their reports (the whole thing, not just the parts you like) like an engineer, not a fan. Remember, fan is short for fanatic.
Speaking of objectivity, I'll take Col. Carson's and Eric Brown's any day. Call them all the names you want, but their education and experience far outweigh any of ours. When they were initially evaluating the aircraft, they were doing so as Allied pilots, whose job was to get as much data about the strengths and weaknesses of the opposing aircraft as possible. If the aircraft was better than they made it out to be, they would have been placing the lives of their fellow aviators at risk through faulty intelligence gathering. I know, I had the same job more recently. My shop didn't tart up threat assessments any more than Col. Carson or Capt. Brown did. Huck, as to what facts Capt. Brown used to form his opinion of the 109, I would have to say from flying it and opposing it in combat. How about you? And as stated by others Huck, Brown was Fleet Air Arm, not RAF. He was also a test pilot, though he did fly Spitfires extensively as part of his duties. Like Col. Carson, Capt. Brown also had a high regard for the 190, and a lower opinion of the 109, for similar reasons to Col. Carson. Either these two were part of a secret plot to irritate web surfers posing as engineers sixty years in he future, or they were calling it like they saw it. Guess which version I'm betting on? Issy, you can argue gunpods all you want, they won't affect aileron forces at high speed, nor pitch stiffness (though they will affect initial -not ultimate- roll rate.) Shame on you for trying to argue through distraction again.
As I've already stated, 109 roll rates that compare favorably with those of early Spitfires is damning them with faint praise. To answer your question Issy, I would describe the Spitfire's roll characteristics as poor. Why do you attempt to turn this into a beauty contest instead of an engineering discussion? I could also say that the Bf-109 was superior to the Piper Cub in speed, ceiling and roll rate, but what useful information would that give me about the 109? Come on, say it with me: The Bf-109 rolled poorly at high speeds. I know you can do it. Saying so doesn't insult the German people, make Willy Messerschmitt an idiot, or make your genitalia smaller. It's just a characteristic of that particular airframe.
Huck, I'm confused. Are you trying to say that rudder trim is a handicap, or merely un-needed? Mark Hanna noted: "The rudder is effective and if (sic) medium feel up to 300. It becomes heavier above this speed but regardless the lack of rudder trim is not a problem for the type of operations we carry out with the aeroplane." Again, read the whole comment, not just the parts you like. The operations they carry out with the airplane are short flights at airshows in vintage warbirds. They're not flying combat missions and trying to shoot someone. Mr. Hanna does mention that the 109 would be a poor gun platform, though I don't put much stock in this, as he's never tried to shoot anyone. Yes, centering the ball with rudder is proper piloting, but the allies realized that it was far less fatiguing to the pilot to allow him to trim the aircraft neutral, and use the rudder pedals to adjust from there, instead of having to hold a gross correction for large portions of the flight.
BlitzPig_DDT, if I've got a choice of who's opinion to believe regarding flight models, I'll take the aero engineer over the ignorant, opinionated fanboy any day. Sorry, but saying that "Being a trained aero engineer doesn't really mean squat." WRT a flight simulation is ignorant, self-centered, and insulting. Who do you think is more likely to work for Boeing designing the real thing, Oleg or you? I'm sorry the 109 as represented doesn't meet your expectations, but consider for a moment that the 4+ years of education wasn't all basket weaving classes, and that Oleg Maddox might actually know a thing or two about how aircraft actually fly. Once you earn your aero degree, come back and talk that kind of smack.
Saburo O, thanks for finding the 190 oil cooler reference. I had though Huck "misunderstood" Col. Carson's comments. The cooler was armored in the front, and the engine protected it from behind, but as he said, given a few rounds into the cowling from a low angle deflection shot, bullets and engine parts were likely to bounce around within those closed confines and hit the oil cooler. This design had a lot more surface area to hit than that of other aircraft. And to those pooh-poohing Col. Carson's opinion on this aspect of Luftwaffe aircraft by saying, "he never flew one", read the whole thing. He downed 12 by shooting them in this vulnerable spot. If you need more corroboration, first look up "denial" in Webster's.
Milo, thanks for the post on Flettner tabs. I would have thought the single spar design would have been to elastic to make much use of them at high speed. Seems I was wrong. Don't know why they didn't incorporate them if they were so effective, however.
Bottom line: Everything I've seen so far tells me that the 109 would have been more effective (given a neutral merge) in the left side of its performance envelope, and less effective in the upper right hand corner of the envelope.

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
09-16-2003, 04:13 AM
Blotto, learn text formatting then come back and try to post your egotistical BS.

2 can play that game.

You proved my point. Brown and Carson stated the 190 was superior to the 109. Seems much of, if not most of, the West felt this way. Oleg stated flatly that the 109 was a "better" (more dangerous and effective) combat aircraft than the 190. That indicates that having a degree doesn't mean much of anything. Are all degrees (or - all leanging institutions, if you'd prefer) created equal? Does having a degree automatically make someone objective?

You also did exactly what you lambasted Ise and Huck for doing. Nice. lol

XyZspineZyX
09-16-2003, 05:05 AM
Huckebein_FW wrote:
- Let me rephrase it
-
-
- To sum up .....
-
- In this corner we have Colonel Kit Carson, a ww2 ace
- enjoying his retirement telling patriotic stories
- for american public consumption.
-
-
- In the other corner we have the accounts of Bf-109
- pilots saying that Bf-109 maneuvered beutifully.
-
-
- Now place your bets.

WOW! Now if this is not an perfect example of a bias clown I dont know what is! Hey Huckie.. still no responce from you on that whole conversion error you made.. In light of that.. do you or do you not consider Paul a clown now 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
09-16-2003, 05:07 AM
Blottogg wrote:
- I have no illusions of changing
- Huck or Issy's mind, any more than I have illusions
- of collecting NRA donations from Greenpeace.

ROTFL! Kind of has that feel dont 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
09-16-2003, 05:11 AM
BlitzPig_DDT, what's egotistical about my post? You're the one who seems to think he knows more about aeronautical engineering than an aeronautical engineer. Education doesn't necessarily eliminate bias. Are you saying ignorance does? Pay your dues (and your tuition) before you start strutting your ego. And I apologize for the lack of spaces between paragraphs. I don't want to tax your attention span too far.

(Better?)

You're right, most western evaluations rated the 190 higher than the 109. The Russians, in general, respected the 109 more. Different theater, different circumstances. As I (and others) have stated, the 109 in general was better off on the left side of the envelope. The 109 was better suited for fighting against relatively frail Russian aircraft, low and slow. It compared less favorably in a high speed, high altitude fight against more damage tolerant bombers and escort fighters than the 190. The Focke Wulf had better high speed handling, specifically faster roll and lower stick forces per g than the 109. It also had enough firepower to deal with the four engined heavies, as well as the tougher P-47's and P-38's. Now, who proved who's point, exactly?

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
09-16-2003, 06:05 AM
I am disapointed in you DDT, you have reverted to form. And, you were doing so well up to now since your return./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

The Russians would think the 109 was the better fighter in the east since that was its task, while the Fw190s were used as FBs mostly. Loaded with bombs and >>extra armour<< does not help an a/c perform.

---------

GREAT post Blotto and well written! Don't worry about the lack of space between the paragraphs, it was still easy to read./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif



http://a1276.g.akamai.net/7/1276/734/625ed428e022ef/www.harley-davidson.com/PR/MOT/2004/Softail/images/DOM/img_Softail_FXST.jpg

http://www.redneckengineering.com/photogallery/photo23581/curves-done-03.jpg


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

XyZspineZyX
09-16-2003, 06:20 AM
>>Okay, one last stab at it before calling this
>>thread another lost cause.

I think it was lost from the get go.. Funny part part about all this is the *ones* who early on disregard statments claiming a *bias* are the same ones who disregarded everthing posted that dissagree with what they are saying, and agree with every post that agrees with what they are saying. Now that may not be the defintion of a bias, but it sure looks like the results on one.

>>I have no illusions of changing Huck or Issy's mind,
>> any more than I have illusions of collecting NRA
>>donations from Greenpeace.

LOL! That one still gets me!

>>Next, Paul Coggan and Mark Hanna's comments seem
>>to support Col. Carson.

Agreed.

>>Both mention heavy or very heavy pitch controls, as well
>>as aileron control stiffening up rapidly as speed
>>increases. Specifically, from Mark Hanna: "Above
>>250 mph however the roll starts to heavy up and
>>up to 300 or so is very similar to a P-51. After that
>>it's all getting pretty solid and you need two hands
>>on the stick for any meaningfull
>>(sic) roll rates."

Yet, in Huckies bias mind Carson is a clown for pointing that out, and Paul is not.. Even though they are saying the same thing.

>>Huck, where do you get the information that leads you
>>to believe the 109 pitch control forces were light?

My guess would be from the same methoud he use to say the climb rate of the Me262 was WAY OFF in the game.. Yet when one actually took the time to try it.. it turned out to be better.

>>Are you disregarding all these pilot reports and
>>assuming control forces were light merely because
>>the 109's tail was small?

Did he really? LOL!

>>Control surface size has little to do with control
>>forces.

Agreed.. someone once said, "give me a lever long enough and I can move the world itself" Highlighting the simple, yet clearly miss understood equation

T=F*L

I recall Col. Carson mentioning the short 109 stick (ie small L) and cramped cockpit made it hard to pull the stick (ie small F).

>>More important are the control rigging (mechanical
>>advantage and travel), and aerodynamic balancing.

Agreed!

>>Keep in mind that both gentlemen are flying antique
>>warbirds at airshows, not combat equipped aircraft
>>in combat.

Hold on there! Are you telling me that Huckie is quoting guys flying Air Show stuff? LOL! That explains volumes!

>>Getting back to Paul Coggan and Mark Hanna. Their speeds
>>and g loadings are well below that experienced in combat
>>and rightly so. The aircraft they're flying are rare,
>>old,

EXACTALLY! I thought Huckie was quoting some WWII information. Those guys just aint going to push it like a combat or test pilot would!! Just aint!! Not to mention most of them are not fully configured.. ie guns and ammo and such.

>>and in the case of the G-2, now a static display after
>>a crash due to engine failure.

That was a sad day! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

>>They just start brushing the part of the envelope were
>>the problems occur.

EXACTALLY!!

>>I also get the feeling both are more than a little
>>enamored with the experience of flying such rare,
>>exotic aircraft, and as such, may not
>>be entirely objective.

Agree 100%.. But on that note.. WHO WOULDNT BE!! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

>>Read their reports (the whole thing, not just the parts
>>you like) like an engineer, not a fan. Remember, fan
>>is short for fanatic.

Agreed 100%

>>Speaking of objectivity, I'll take Col. Carson's and
>>Eric Brown's any day. Call them all the names you
>>want, but their education and experience far outweigh
>>any of ours. When they were initially evaluating
>>the aircraft, they were doing so as Allied pilots,
>>whose job was to get as much data about the strengths
>>and weaknesses of the opposing aircraft as possible.
>>If the aircraft was better than they made it out to
>>be, they would have been placing the lives of their
>>fellow aviators at risk through faulty
>>intelligence gathering. I know, I had the same job
>>more recently. My shop
>>didn't tart up threat assessments any more than Col.
>>Carson or Capt. Brown did.

Exactally! But to be fare.. Something Huckie has trouble with is bias and all, Col. Carson wrote most of this stuff 30 years later. Where he had time to look at all the post war reports. His book PERSUE and DESTROY makes referances to the captured and tested "G" model at North American.

>>Huck, as to what facts Capt. Brown used to form his
>>opinion of the 109, I would have to say from flying
>>it and opposing it in combat. How about you?
>>And as stated by others Huck, Brown was Fleet Air
>>Arm, not RAF. He was also a test pilot, though he
>>did fly Spitfires extensively as part of his duties.
>>Like Col. Carson, Capt. Brown also had a high regard
>>for the 190, and a lower opinion
>>of the 109, for similar reasons to Col. Carson.
>>Either these two were part of a
>>secret plot to irritate web surfers posing as engineers
>>sixty years in he future,
>>or they were calling it like they saw it.

ROTFL! Im glad to know Im not the only one that notices how Huckie avoids it when you point out that Col Carson and Brown both like the 190. Which totally debuncks Huckies whole "He was an American with a chip on his shoulder" or "He wanted to sell books to the USA market and to talk good about Lw aircraft means no sale".. Yup.. he dances around that one alot.... and I just LOL when I see him do it!

>>Guess which version I'm betting on?

The same as most would! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

>>Issy, you can argue gunpods all you want, they won't
>>affect aileron forces
>>at high speed, nor pitch stiffness (though they will
>>affect initial -not
>>ultimate- roll rate.) Shame on you for trying to argue
>>through distraction again.

GOOD POINT!!!

>>As I've already stated, 109 roll rates that compare
>>favorably with those of early Spitfires is damning
>>them with faint praise. To answer your question
>>Issy, I would describe the Spitfire's roll
>>characteristics as poor.

On that subject... I dont have it handy.. *BUT* didnt the EARLY Spitfire I have CLOUTH covered elevators and alerions? Or was it just elevators? I know it was one if not both, in that I had an NACA report that went into great detail on how they improved the responce by replacing the cloth with metal. I dont know if the 109 ever had that transition?

>>Why do you attempt to turn this into a beauty contest
>>instead of an engineering discussion? I could also
>>say that the Bf-109 was superior to the Piper Cub
>>in speed, ceiling and roll rate, but what useful
>>information would that give me about the 109? Come
>>on, say it with me: The Bf-109
>>rolled poorly at high speeds. I know you can do it.
>>Saying so doesn't insult the German people, make
>>Willy Messerschmitt an idiot, or make
>>your genitalia smaller. It's just a characteristic of
>>that particular airframe.

ROTFL!

>>Huck, I'm confused. Are you trying to say that rudder
>>trim is a handicap, or merely un-needed? Mark Hanna
>>noted: "The rudder is effective and if (sic) medium
>>feel up to 300. It becomes heavier above this speed
>>but regardless the lack of rudder trim is not a
>>poblem for the type of operations we carry out
>>with the aeroplane." Again, read the whole comment,
>>not just the parts you like.

He is the out of context king! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

>>The operations they carry out with the airplane are
>>short flights at airshows in vintage warbirds.
>>They're not flying combat missions and
>>trying to shoot someone.

EXACTALLY! Unlike Col Carson did so many times! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

>>Mr. Hanna does mention that the 109 would be a poor
>>gun platform, though I don't put much stock in this,
>>as he's never tried to shoot anyone.

Really? Funny how people can extrapolate things! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

>>Yes, centering the ball with rudder is proper piloting,
>>but the allies realized that it was far less fatiguing
>>to the pilot to allow him to trim the aircraft neutral,
>>and use the rudder pedals to adjust from there, instead
>>of having to hold a gross correction for large portions
>>of the flight.

Exactally! Col Carson does consider that to be very important, and in his line of work it WAS! Now I dont know if I would call that a bias.. in that bias implys it was intentinal. I honestly belive that in Col Carsons place it was just a different prespective of what is important. You have to take that into consideration with what Col. Carson says... and Huckie has no problem doing so... But aint it funny how Huckie will not apply that same reasoning when reading Pauls writings.. ie taking into acount the difference between and AIR SHOW and an AIR WAR!!! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

>>BlitzPig_DDT, if I've got a choice of who's opinion
>>to believe regarding flight models, I'll take the
>>aero engineer over the ignorant, opinionated
>>fanboy any day. Sorry, but saying that "Being a
>>trained aero engineer doesn't
>>really mean squat." WRT a flight simulation is
>>ignorant, self-centered, and insulting.

Agreed 100%

>>Who do you think is more likely to work for Boeing
>>designing the real thing, Oleg or you?

My bet is on Oleg! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

>>I'm sorry the 109 as represented doesn't meet your
>>expectations, but consider for a moment that the
>>4+ years of education wasn't all basket weaving
>>classes, and that Oleg Maddox might actually know a
>>thing or two about how aircraft actually fly.

What? And have to admit they are wrong? That is asking alot of them to consider!!! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

>>Once you earn your aero degree, come back and talk
>>that kind of smack.

Well.. might want to check out his GPA too.. before we cut him loose! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

>>Saburo O, thanks for finding the 190 oil cooler
>>reference. I had though Huck "misunderstood" Col
>>Carson's comments. The cooler was armored in the
>>front, and the engine protected it from behind,
>>but as he said, given a few rounds into the
>>cowling from a low angle deflection shot, bullets
>>and engine parts were likely to bounce around within
>>those closed confines and hit the oil cooler. This
>>design had a lot more surface area to hit than that
>>of other aircraft.

Exactally.

>>And to those pooh-poohing Col. Carson's opinion on
>>this aspect of Luftwaffe aircraft by saying, "he
>>never flew one", read the whole thing. He downed
>>12 by shooting them in this vulnerable spot.

LOL! They did? God.. that has to take the cake!

>>If you need more corroboration, first look up "denial"
>>in Webster's.

ROTFL!

>>Milo, thanks for the post on Flettner tabs. I would
>>have thought the single spar design would have been
>>to elastic to make much use of
>>them at high speed. Seems I was wrong. Don't know
>>why they didn't incorporate them if they were so
>>effective, however.

Takes a big man to admit he made a mistake.... Hey Huckie.. taking notes? /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

>>Bottom line: Everything I've seen so far tells me that
>>the 109 would have been more effective (given a
>>neutral merge) in the left side of its performance
>>envelope, and less effective in
>>the upper right hand corner of the envelope.

Everything... and... Everyone.. well except Huckie.. he knows best! /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
09-16-2003, 06:51 AM
Milo, you beat me to it. An important difference between fronts was that the 190 was often used as a Jabo, while the 109 was mostly air-superiority, flying freijagd. Since ~80% of air-to-air kills are from the unobserved bounce, this gives an advantage to the 109. It's easier to surprise someone if you can dictate route and altitude. Jabos had to get low in altitude and (relatively) low on energy, right over the bad guys. Not much chance for them to bounce someone on that mission profile. Still, several Jabo 190 pilots racked up impressive scores.

Milo and tagert, thanks for the support. Let's not bring up GPA though, okay? I never said I was a GOOD engineer.

DDT, I'm sorry for being such an a$$hat. They didn't make me a fighter pilot because of my non-competitive, warm, nurturing personality, unfortunately. After re-reading your posts on the "Open the FM or not" thread, I think I understand a little better where you're coming from. Sorry the FM isn't up to your expectations. If we can't convince you that it's at least pretty close to how the airplane flew, you can always re-load 1.0, and fly that version. I don't fly on-line, but I imagine getting folks to fly on a 1.0 server (and not just Huck and Izzy) wouldn't be too hard.

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
09-16-2003, 07:11 AM
To some extent it is personal preference not numbers and any first person report is biased..

Take this quote for example:

Franz Stigler, a 28-victory Experte, test-flew captured American fighters and commented: "I didn't like the Thunderbolt. It was too big. The cockpit was immense and unfamiliar. After so many hours in the snug confines of the [Me-109], everything felt out of reach and too far away from the pilot. Although the P-51 was a fine airplane to fly...it too was disconcerting. With all those levers, controls and switches in the cockpit, I'm surprised [American] pilots could find the time to fight."

http://www.luftwaffe-experten.com/aircraft/day/me109_text.html

Would we seriously dismiss the P47 because the cockpit is too big or the P51 becuase it has too many switches ? Obviously not but it just shows how careful you need to be reading first hand accounts.





<center> http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0SQDLAtUWiWZ3BKw19!aryp7v3C1h1DuNwpHOOuqhlraGSyMAY KiPEOZAA1OBgsLu*Sa0UQ2my0PiFyvNkJ5K7Clsoy7yNtEvOXY nHDuPNiotpZACY2oJxw/aircraftround.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
09-16-2003, 07:47 AM
WTE_Galway wrote:
- To some extent it is personal preference not numbers
- and any first person report is biased..

Human Nature!

- Take this quote for example:
-
- Franz Stigler, a 28-victory Experte, test-flew
- captured American fighters and commented: "I didn't
- like the Thunderbolt. It was too big. The cockpit
- was immense and unfamiliar. After so many hours in
- the snug confines of the [Me-109], everything felt
- out of reach and too far away from the pilot.
- Although the P-51 was a fine airplane to fly...it
- too was disconcerting. With all those levers,
- controls and switches in the cockpit, I'm surprised
- [American] pilots could find the time to fight."

Brings a whole new meaing to Flying Circus... Small hands.. and they smell like cabbage! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

- Would we seriously dismiss the P47 because the
- cockpit is too big or the P51 becuase it has too
- many switches ? Obviously not but it just shows how
- careful you need to be reading first hand accounts.

Which is why I tend to take the likes of BROWN and Carson over a standard WWII pilot. BROWN because he was a trained TEST PILOT.. They learn to TRY and leave out a bias.. otherwise people could die based on something you report. And Carson because he was a pilot that went on to be an engineer.. Thus he did it and then learned to understand why it was so. Where as standard pilots tend to express things that are relitive to them.. For example, somone like BROWN would say "as tall as this light pole".. and a standard pilot would say "really tall" which means alot if he is 6'4" but not so much if he is 4'6".





<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
09-16-2003, 09:11 AM
BlitzPig_DDT wrote:
- Blotto, learn text formatting then come back and try
- to post your egotistical BS.

Blotto's posts are interesting and balanced and mostly rely on an objective, evidence-based assessment of aircraft, not egotism. I enjoy reading them.

The way to objectively evaluate an aircraft as a weapon of war is to consider the evidence and then draw conclusions from that evidence. Unfortunately, some people who post here have a "favourite" aircraft or nation and then select evidence to support the claim that that aircraft or nation was in some way superior to its opponents.

Regards,

RocketDog.

XyZspineZyX
09-16-2003, 09:46 AM
NO! Don&#180;t start to compare Eric Brown with Kid Carson!!

Eric Browns reports have all what I miss in Kid Carsons...
he is objective and is talking about the subtype HE TESTED.
Disadvantages and advanteges are mentioned at the degree of their weight.

He is not mixing up Emils, Gustavs, complaining about high wingload in the 109 vs Spit and don&#180;t mentioned that the P47 Wingload was 30% higher- who cares? Carson of course not!
Carson took only the arguments he like and are helpfull for his statement...
Noone will doubt the shortcomings of the 109, but if you read Carsons report every P51 pilot who was shot down by this probably crappiest plane which ever hit the sky, must be a real monkey idiot.. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

For Carson are the shortcomings absolutly terrible, and the advantages are simply not interestings- thats the Problem of his "report"!

JG53 PikAs Abbuzze
I./Gruppe

http://www.jg53-pikas.de/
http://mitglied.lycos.de/p123/Ani_pikasbanner_langsam.gif


Message Edited on 09/16/0310:46AM by Abbuzze

XyZspineZyX
09-16-2003, 02:32 PM
MiloMorai wrote:
- I am disapointed in you DDT, you have reverted to
- form.
He's got a point, though. Both you and Huckebein can
sometimes behave like squabbling children, and frankly
I think you are getting to be worse than Huckebein. These
days it seems you'd say the sky was pink if he said it
was blue!

XyZspineZyX
09-16-2003, 02:37 PM
WTE_Galway wrote:
- Would we seriously dismiss the P47 because the
- cockpit is too big or the P51 becuase it has too
- many switches ? Obviously not but it just shows how
- careful you need to be reading first hand accounts.

Well said. You can't dismiss a plane due to one report.
You need to look at reports by various people, test
data, etc., and the methodologies used. You can prove
anything you like with single instances of personal
recollection, pretty much!

XyZspineZyX
09-16-2003, 03:45 PM
Blottogg, Great post. Thank you for taking the time to write it out. I hate seeing all the biased stuff posted here & all the poeple who are being misled by proponents (fans) of certain aircraft.


JG53 PikAs Abbuzze
- I./Gruppe

For Carson the shortcomings are absolutly terrible,
- and the advantages are simply not interesting-
- thats the Problem with his "report"!
-
-
So some guy from JG53 says the problem is Carson doesn't like the 109 ??

It's his (informed ) opinion. And Stigler has a similar view of the P47 & P51- all those nobs & switches.BAh! Just give me a simple airplane!

Some great pilots came to love the 109. That doesn't mean it was perfect.


http://idealab.snu.ac.kr/~hobbist/La-5FN/small/La-5FN-06.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-16-2003, 04:21 PM
MiloMorai wrote:
- I am disapointed in you DDT, you have reverted to
- form. And, you were doing so well up to now since
- your return.

"Disappointed"? Well, good thing I'm not here for your approval I guess. You don't seem to have really changed much though. I just don't bother to get invovled in your attacks on others (often at least).

Call it what you like, but, when people talk down to me, I return in kind. I'm sorry if that doesn't mean with your approval. It's something like self-defense online. lol Had he not done that, everything would have been fine.


- The Russians would think the 109 was the better
- fighter in the east since that was its task, while
- the Fw190s were used as FBs mostly. Loaded with
- bombs and >>extra armour<< does not help an a/c
- perform.

Yet we don't have the Jabo 190s in any form other than the Fs. Never did throughout IL2 either. The 109 was simply a better plane in both games. That doesn't mean that one could not be ruthlessly effective in the 190. Hell, I've seen people be ruthlessly effective in a P-11 on unlimited servers. I was also a 190 jock near the end of the IL2 product life span, and I was rather successful with it. The 109 was simply a more potent plane however (in the game)


- GREAT post Blotto and well written! Don't worry
- about the lack of space between the paragraphs, it
- was still easy to read.

Wasn't difficult to read, it was irritating to read. Almost as bad as that guy that would put double spaces between every sentence. Forget his name though.

XyZspineZyX
09-16-2003, 04:36 PM
Blottogg wrote:
- Milo, you beat me to it. An important difference
- between fronts was that the 190 was often used as a
- Jabo, while the 109 was mostly air-superiority,
- flying freijagd. Since ~80% of air-to-air kills are
- from the unobserved bounce, this gives an advantage
- to the 109. It's easier to surprise someone if you
- can dictate route and altitude. Jabos had to get
- low in altitude and (relatively) low on energy,
- right over the bad guys. Not much chance for them
- to bounce someone on that mission profile. Still,
- several Jabo 190 pilots racked up impressive scores.

Yes, and see what I said to Milo. We weren't using the Jabo'd up variants, just it's performance.

We also were missing many of the benefits of the 190. Great insturmentation, great visibility (in all angles), extreme ease of use, and great ergo-nomics. We were missing them (and still are missing the view) because there was no CEM. Every plane was a 190. Now, even with CEM it's still not right. Planes without automated systems aren't handled correctly. Close, yes. Closer than before, but still not right. And the poor glass they (the sovs) had problems with isn't there (seems it was all given to the 109s here lol), and benefits of overall pit just aren't there either. Like driving a Mercedes-Benz vs. a Yugo.


- DDT, I'm sorry for being such an a$$hat. They
- didn't make me a fighter pilot because of my
- non-competitive, warm, nurturing personality,
- unfortunately. After re-reading your posts on the
- "Open the FM or not" thread, I think I understand a
- little better where you're coming from. Sorry the
- FM isn't up to your expectations. If we can't
- convince you that it's at least pretty close to how
- the airplane flew, you can always re-load 1.0, and
- fly that version. I don't fly on-line, but I
- imagine getting folks to fly on a 1.0 server (and
- not just Huck and Izzy) wouldn't be too hard.
-
- Blotto

Trouble is I fly the P-47. lol

I've tried to say that just because I like the 109 and don't want to see it screwed, and hate all the general LW hatin' that goes on around here, I'm hardly biased toward it. Really, the ideal is (at the moment) to take the 1.11 Jug and the 1.0 109s and put them into one patch. Wastel and IL2 Compare just show way too many problems with the 109 in 1.11 to say it's "good enough". Only the G2 is currently "good enough".

I was gonna respond to your previous post to me point by point, but, I guess this one makes that a kinda pointless.

Seems you assumed a bit too much about my comment about engineers and degrees. I stand by the statement that having a degree doesn't mean much however.

The reason is, it's just a piece of paper, that by itself reveals nothing about the school that handed it out. Nor does it say anything about "good test takers". Nor does it say anything about them having or not having personal bias. Nor does it say anything about the power of marketing.

Bias and marketing can make someone say things they know to be untrue. Bias can lead to selection of certain raw data over others, as well as intentional tweaking of formulae to result in desired data.

I know a Comp Sci major who couldn't install a DVD-ROM drive in his computer without screwing it up. My profession has shown me, beyond any doubt, that degrees are nothing more than paper. They only mean that the posesser *might* be knowledgable. Not that they *are*. And not having one doesn't preclude one from being knowledgable either.

XyZspineZyX
09-16-2003, 04:41 PM
Saburo_0 wrote:
- Some great pilots came to love the 109. That doesn't
- mean it was perfect.

That's the thing though. I doubt anyone here thinks it was "perfect". It's just that the detractors are coming off like it was the worst POS ever designed, obsolete before the ink even dried on Messerschmitt's drafting table.

It wasn't perfect. It *was* good however. Damn good actually.

XyZspineZyX
09-16-2003, 05:22 PM
BlitzPig_DDT wrote:
- We also were missing many of the benefits of the
- 190. Great insturmentation, great visibility (in all
- angles), extreme ease of use, and great ergo-nomics.
- We were missing them (and still are missing the
- view) because there was no CEM. Every plane was a
- 190. Now, even with CEM it's still not right.

I think we still have a way to go before some of the
aspects of additional stuff like this are properly
modelled. One thing that isn't is the relative
survivability of crew members in aircraft, and the
effect of this on the preparedness on crew to do things.
If you believe that your aircraft is very survivable,
then you may be prepared to take more risks in it, and
even interpret events that occur in the light of this,
even if objectively there is no basis for this interpretation.

For example if you are told that your Zero is fragile,
and your wingman blows up due to a lucky hit, you may
intepret that as evidence of its fragility. You become
more cautious yourself.

On the other hand if you are told that the P47 is very
rugged, and you see your wingman blow up due to a lucky
hit, you may say "poor guy, he was unlucky in this situation, but this aircraft is really good all the same".

So if you believed during WW2 that the Fw190, you
might be prepared to fight more aggressively with it,
for example.

Online, noone is scared of actually dying, so you can
be agressive with any type of aircraft. So you get
historical distortions based on the way people will tend
(as a statistical average) fly online compared to real life.

Let's face it, online we all take risks we'd almost
certainly never have taken in WW2. That's one reason why WW2
kill rates are very much lower than people get in the
game.

Plus the whole issue of ergonomics is another big
factor missing. If you had to fly a 2 hour mission,
constantly fighting trim and engine, like you might
in a real life I16, you might be in a poor shape to
engage in combat at the end of the mission. This
doesn't get modelled at all. We can fly combat missions
in our pyjamas - everywhere but the bath, basically!

XyZspineZyX
09-16-2003, 05:40 PM
Blottogg wrote:
-
- First, some standard conventions: Issy, pilots use
- IAS, unless noted otherwise.
-

So ? What relevance has your Golden Rule Statement here?



-
- Next, Paul Coggan and Mark Hanna's comments seem to
- support Col. Carson.

You must have read a completely differnet Carson than I...


- Both mention heavy or very
- heavy pitch controls, as well as aileron control
- stiffening up rapidly as speed increases.
-
- Specifically, from Mark Hanna: "Above 250 mph
- however the roll starts to heavy up and up to 300 or
- so is very similar to a P-51. After that it's all
- getting pretty solid and you need two hands on the
- stick for any meaningfull (sic) roll rates."

Coggan says that at 300mph, 20 lbs (=~1 hand maximum sideways strenght) is enough to make 80-90 degree roll rate. This lighter stickforce for full deflection than ANY other fighter I know of.

Try to face that. That`s not heavy, but light. Eric Brown says the same, ie. "moderately light" ailerons on Bf 109G-6/U2.


- Huck,
- where do you get the information that leads you to
- believe the 109 pitch control forces were light?
-

109 elevator was heavy, however as everything shows, the P-51`s was just heavy... again, Carson mentions that the stick was set in stone in dives; how come he never felt that in his P-51 which had similiar stick forces, or why doesn`t he mentions that, too? The reason is simple: he is overly biased.


- Keep in mind
- that both gentlemen are flying antique warbirds at
- airshows, not combat equipped aircraft in combat.
- Getting back to Paul Coggan and Mark Hanna. Their
- speeds and g loadings are well below that
- experienced in combat, and rightly so.

Sorry, it`s merely you hypothesis, but if you read Hanna`s comment on 4-5Gs are quite easy to pull, as well as Coggan stating that he had pulled rather heavy Gs on the airframe...



The aircraft
- they're flying are rare, old, and in the case of the
- G-2, now a static display after a crash due to
- engine failure. They just start brushing the part
- of the envelope were the problems occur. I also get
- the feeling both are more than a little enamored
- with the experience of flying such rare, exotic
- aircraft, and as such, may not be entirely
- objective. Read their reports (the whole thing, not
- just the parts you like) like an engineer, not a
- fan. Remember, fan is short for fanatic.

- Speaking of objectivity, I'll take Col. Carson's and
- Eric Brown's any day. Call them all the names you
- want, but their education and experience far
- outweigh any of ours.

Oh yeah.

Eric Brown`s experience with Bf 109: 50 minutes flown with Bf 109G-6 with gunpods.

Col. Carson`s experience: Zero, nyema, nothing. I bet he never even seen ANY late war 109, otherwise he wouldn`t say such bullsh*t that the tail struts were never removed, the tailwheel was never retractable, or that later the aircraft did not receive gear fairings..


- When they were initially
- evaluating the aircraft, they were doing so as
- Allied pilots, whose job was to get as much data
- about the strengths and weaknesses of the opposing
- aircraft as possible.

They were not evaluating the aircraft.

The Carson never flew one, ANY version, probably never seen one either from up close, all he is doing is selective qouting from a well known British evaluation of an Emil...

Brown`s "evaluation" was limited to about 50 minutes of familisation with nightfighter Bf 109G-6/U2 with gunpods [and droptank ]...


- If the aircraft was better
- than they made it out to be, they would have been
- placing the lives of their fellow aviators at risk
- through faulty intelligence gathering. I know, I
- had the same job more recently. My shop didn't tart
- up threat assessments any more than Col. Carson or
- Capt. Brown did. Huck, as to what facts Capt. Brown
- used to form his opinion of the 109, I would have to
- say from flying it and opposing it in combat. How
- about you? And as stated by others Huck, Brown was
- Fleet Air Arm, not RAF. He was also a test pilot,
- though he did fly Spitfires extensively as part of
- his duties. Like Col. Carson, Capt. Brown also had
- a high regard for the 190, and a lower opinion of
- the 109, for similar reasons to Col. Carson. Either
- these two were part of a secret plot to irritate web
- surfers posing as engineers sixty years in he
- future, or they were calling it like they saw it.
- Guess which version I'm betting on?

Can I guess ? You are betting on the version of someone who never flew the 109 (any version), and doesn`t even knows basic things about it`s development, yet has a big enough mouth to call a REAL aeronautic engineer, who is, like it or not, considered by most as a genius; you are also betting on the opinion of the otherwise respectable and experienced Eric Brown, who`s experience with 109s however are limited to 50 minutes on decreased boost with an anti-bomber version ?

At the same time, you neglect the opinion of Mark Hanna and Paul Coggen, either of which had a lot more time in 109G versions than Brown (Carson had none at all), not to say you choose to completely ignore the opinion of real Bf 109 combat pilots, who loved the plane just as much as Hanna and Coggan did, not to mention the feeble fact that they flown it for THOUSENDs of flight hours...



-
- Issy, you can
- argue gunpods all you want, they won't affect
- aileron forces at high speed, nor pitch stiffness
- (though they will affect initial -not ultimate- roll
- rate.) Shame on you for trying to argue through
- distraction again.

Blotty, you can repeat that pathetic part again , again and again if you wish. Still, I can`t do anything but laugh when someone says that adding significant weight does not effects control forces, or that adding the weight of a medium sized bomb under each wing will not effect roll inertia and rate... Distraction? No. Basic physics. If you add weight further away, it will require more force to roll it.


- As I've already stated, 109 roll rates that compare
- favorably with those of early Spitfires is damning
- them with faint praise. To answer your question
- Issy, I would describe the Spitfire's roll
- characteristics as poor.

Poor only? The 109E had "stick locked in cement" roll rate according to Carson who you choosed to worship. The Spit I had even heavier controls...


- Come on, say it with me: The Bf-109
- rolled poorly at high speeds.


Why would I say it ? The 109E rolled poorly at high speeds. The later were much improved in this regard, it is shown by pilots, tests, which you all choose to ignore, because it doesn`t fit your set-in-concrete mindset.


- I know you can do it.
- Saying so doesn't insult the German people, make
- Willy Messerschmitt an idiot, or make your genitalia
- smaller. It's just a characteristic of that
- particular airframe.

Sorry, it is not. It`s a myth, parrotted by ignorant people like Carson, who share only one common: they didn`t "waste" their time in researching the subject in-depth, jsut repeat the RAE test with 109E, convinently ignoring all design changes with later versions.


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
09-16-2003, 05:54 PM
remove this stupid post right now - the original post and the first reply kinda sum it up.

all posts after that are useless.

XyZspineZyX
09-16-2003, 05:58 PM
Roll rates at 300mph, deg/sec, stickforce required, extracted from various NACA tests:

Bf 109 G-2 : 80-90 deg/sec , 20 lbs

Spitfire Mk VA (metal ailerons) : 53 deg/sec, 30 lbs
P-47 C-1 : 82 deg/sec, 50 lbs
P-47 D-30 : 50 deg/sec, 30 lbs
P-51B-1NA : 94 deg/sec, 50 lbs
P-80A : 135 deg/sec, 30 lbs
Typhoon : 43 deg/sec, 50 lbs


Intelligent men can make their own conclusions.

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
09-16-2003, 07:06 PM
You did not have to be so obnoxious DDT with your statement to Blotto. He did nothing to deserve what you said.


Aaron only when the 'uber twins' are involved./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif That seems to be the only style they understand.

http://www.cartoonstock.com/lowres/cfu0033l.jpg





http://a1276.g.akamai.net/7/1276/734/625ed428e022ef/www.harley-davidson.com/PR/MOT/2004/Softail/images/DOM/img_Softail_FXST.jpg

http://www.redneckengineering.com/photogallery/photo23581/curves-done-03.jpg


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

XyZspineZyX
09-16-2003, 07:19 PM
MiloMorai wrote:
- You did not have to be so obnoxious DDT with your
- statement to Blotto. He did nothing to deserve what
- you said.

You might feel differently if it were you it was directed at.

In any event, even he seemed to acknowledge it.



Speaking of which - Blotto - apology accepted. Forgot to add that to the last post.

XyZspineZyX
09-16-2003, 09:08 PM
- Roll rates at 300mph, deg/sec, stickforce required,
- extracted from various NACA tests:
-
- Bf 109 G-2 : 80-90 deg/sec , 20 lbs
-
- Spitfire Mk VA (metal ailerons) : 53 deg/sec, 30 lbs
- P-47 C-1 : 82 deg/sec, 50 lbs
- P-47 D-30 : 50 deg/sec, 30 lbs
- P-51B-1NA : 94 deg/sec, 50 lbs
- P-80A : 135 deg/sec, 30 lbs
- Typhoon : 43 deg/sec, 50 lbs

Which Naca test gives the 109G2 80-90 deg/sec rollrate at 300 mph?

XyZspineZyX
09-16-2003, 11:11 PM
Vo101_Isegrim wrote:
-
- Roll rates at 300mph, deg/sec, stickforce required,
- extracted from various NACA tests:
-
- Bf 109 G-2 : 80-90 deg/sec , 20 lbs
-
- Spitfire Mk VA (metal ailerons) : 53 deg/sec, 30 lbs
- P-47 C-1 : 82 deg/sec, 50 lbs
- P-47 D-30 : 50 deg/sec, 30 lbs
- P-51B-1NA : 94 deg/sec, 50 lbs
- P-80A : 135 deg/sec, 30 lbs
- Typhoon : 43 deg/sec, 50 lbs
-
-
- Intelligent men can make their own conclusions.



Why are you now quoting from NACA documentation? Isn't this just unreliable American propaganda, as you and Huckebein so frequenty like to argue?

The above data in no way disputes anything stated by either Brown or Carlson.

Neither does this data, whether accurately presented by you or not, say anything about the behavior of any of these aircraft at greater air speeds. As such, it says nothing useful about roll behavior or required stick pressures at higher speeds, which has been the point of your dispute all along.



Blutarski

XyZspineZyX
09-16-2003, 11:30 PM
Has the relative ruggedness of the 109 been discussed here? I know Carson sez the FW 190 could absorb a lot of hits and keep flying. That certainly is an important part of an aircrafts performance profile that is hard to quantify. What about the 109? If it was really sturdy, and had good firepower, a pilot could learn to love it no matter what it's drag coeffcient.

In the hands of a good pilot, I can easily imagine that the 109 was formidable. However, didnt the Luftwaffe have a hard time training new pilots, and might this have made for some vulnerable 109's flown by less experienced pilots?

Tactics that are matched to a planes performance profile are also really important. This was proven when by all accounts sucky P-40's actually managed to shoot down some Zeroes by using the better diving speed of the Warhawk to advantage. (Wouldn't want to try it myself though!) In a 109 engaged in a low altitude encounter, wouldn't the superior low speed climb rate provide some great opportunities for the pilot to extend, and re-engage at advantage?

Also, an interesting case in point about the relative merits of aircraft is the case of the P-39. US pilots who flew it in combat hated everything about it except for the fact that you could taxi with your arm hung out the window like in a car, but Russian pilots seemed to have liked it quite a bit and used it to good effect.

Slightly off topic:

To all the folks out there from Europe: its great to talk to you guys and hear your opinions about matters of common interest. And for those who are not native English speakers, I wish I could talk to you in your own languages, but alas I can't. Until I can, I sure don't want to be critical of your efforts at English, which are by and large totally understandable.

I hope that Americans and Europeans can learn to understand and appreciate each other even though we naturally have a different way of looking at things. The fact that the US is only 227 years old and was founded in wartime might explain some of our reputation for super patriotism and bellicosity. Stronger religious beliefs and a less complex view of the world are also factors that hinder communication between us. It probably comes from the colonial mindset of survival in a hostile wilderness, and those attitudes created in that environment persist in our culture even now when things are very different.

As for the degree of passion shown by both Europeans and Americans when discussing the relative merits of the war efforts of the respective combatants, its seems pretty natural. For example, my father was a WWII veteran of the US Navy, and his destroyer was sunk by a U Boat. He was badly injured at the age of 17, and never fully recovered. I am sure that many posters on this site, on both sides of the Atlantic, can share similar personal stories. So it's not surprising that biases will sometimes manifest themselves. As my grandmother always said, there two sides to every story. And when you read threads like this, you realize that sometimes there are more!

XyZspineZyX
09-17-2003, 12:22 AM
DDT, the reason your comment got me so steamed is that I worked damn hard for that four-year degree in aero engineering, and I'm sure Oleg did, too. I get offended when someone dismisses all that hard work as "not meaning squat". Whether you believe it or not, that education is important. I'm sorry your experience with degree holders is so poor, but this isn't Art History or weegie boards we're talking about. Earning this degree involves absorbing a lot of knowledge, relevant to the cause, in four years. It is not a field through which one should tread casually. What we learned was the accumulated knowledge of lots of very smart people crunching numbers, numbers that mean something in the real world. It was also the result of lessons learned by watching people die when they didn't pay attention to the numbers (The Christmas Bullet), or who discovered the hard way, that a previously unknown phenomena existed (P-38.)

Izzy, the NACA server is down at the moment. Have you got any document numbers handy so I can look at the data when the server comes back up? My IAS comment was in response to your earlier question as to whether the reports on the 109 were in TAS or IAS. Coggan wrote that at 286 mph (if you're going to use three significant figures, use the right three sig-figs.) he could get 360 degrees of roll in 4-4.5 seconds. Col. Carson writes:

At low speed, the ailerons control was good, response brisk. As speed increased the ailerons became TOO HEAVY but the response was good up to 200mph. Between 200 mph and 300 mph they became UNPLEASANT. Over 300 mph they became IMPOSSIBLE. At 400 mph the stick FELT LIKE IT WAS SET IN A BUCKET OF CEMENT.

I guess you can argue about how many degrees per second are in an "UNPLEASANT", but I don't see a discrepancy here.

The only reference I can find Capt. Brown making to "light and effective" ailerons is on pg. 12 of "Duels in the Sky", referring to an Emil on climbout (i.e. low speed.) Again, I don't see a disagreement here. As to his 50 minutes of flight time in the Gustav, how much time have you logged in one? Probably about as much as me, which is why I value Capt. Brown's opinion. I don't know about your flight experiences, but it took me less than 50 minutes to assess the roll characteristics of any aircraft I flew, and I'm not a trained test pilot. Given the proper training and experience (as Capt. Brown had), 50 minutes would be more than enough time to determine an aircraft's basic handling qualities. You and Huck keep coming back to this 50 minute flight like a mantra anytime anyone disparages the 109, but it's not a factor here (and not in any other evaluation except perhaps maximum range, or pilot relief facilities.) We're on a different discussion here, we're not talking about max speed or turn rate (which the pods or boost level would affect), but control forces. The ailerons don't care what's on the wings; they are affected by airflow, and control inputs. Only initial rate is affected by the pods, and at high speeds, the pod effect was apparently the last thing to be concerned with.

As to Col. Carson's experience level, I wouldn't call an aero degree, a combat tour or two in P-51's, including several 109 kills "Zero, nyema, nothing". I think he's got both of us beat.

The warbird pilot reports don't have them flying the aircraft any faster than 520 kph (322 mph), which is just where the problems start, as I mentioned previously. All I can tell you is to read the whole thing, and not stop after the parts you like. I can't hold your nose to the screen, so we'll just have to agree to disagree.

To Issy and Huck, we've danced around this topic long enough, let me just put the question to you. I graduated from the University of Minnesota with a bachelor's degree in Aerospace Engineering and Mechanics in 1986, and have a total of ~1800 hours fight time in ten aircraft types that I can think of (Beech Sport, Sundowner, T-37, T-38, F-16, Piper Archer, Decathlon, Citabria, Harvard MkIV and Stearman.) What exactly are your experience levels?


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
09-17-2003, 12:51 AM
Blottogg wrote:
- DDT, the reason your comment got me so steamed is
- that I worked damn hard for that four-year degree in
- aero engineering, and I'm sure Oleg did, too. I get
- offended when someone dismisses all that hard work
- as "not meaning squat". Whether you believe it or
- not, that education is important. I'm sorry your
- experience with degree holders is so poor, but this
- isn't Art History or weegie boards we're talking
- about. Earning this degree involves absorbing a lot
- of knowledge, relevant to the cause, in four years.
- It is not a field through which one should tread
- casually. What we learned was the accumulated
- knowledge of lots of very smart people crunching
- numbers, numbers that mean something in the real
- world. It was also the result of lessons learned by
- watching people die when they didn't pay attention
- to the numbers (The Christmas Bullet), or who
- discovered the hard way, that a previously unknown
- phenomena existed (P-38.)

I don't mean to imply that there are "paper aero engineers" in the same sense that there are paper MCSEs, but that the same concept can and does apply.

Take people to barely struggle through the course, do they know as much as someone who aced it? Does someone who is very good at memorization and knowledge regurgitation understand it as well as someone who scores as well but doesn't have those same qualities? How about the school? Certainly not all schools are the same. Some teach students better and more, than others.

Finally, all the knowledge in the world won't stop you from deciding to beleive certain sets of data that coincide with your preferences, nor will it stop you from fudging things to make it work like you think it should. Just because one follows the logical process properly, that doesn't mean his results are accurate if he started with faulty data. Y'know?

And of course, when you have an agenda or pressure by/from marketing forces....you will do or say things that you might know aren't exactly true, or, spin them in such a way as to not be false, per se, but certainly leave a specific and measured impression.

I might be repeating myself, but, I feel it important to get across. You have a degree you worked hard for. Congratulations. But to assume that anyone who has one automatically knows what he's talking about, or that they know more than those without one, is troublesome.

As I said, my profession has shown me that degree holders are nothing special, and neither are their degrees. I'm in IT. I hold many certifications. I know that certs are often more direct than degrees and that a good MCSE will admin an M$ network far better than a good Comp Sci major (on the whole), but in each case, from a hiring perspective it's a matter of "ok, so you have a (insert degree or cert here), great, now, what do you know?" Having to repair a botched DVD-ROM drive installation attempted by a Comp Sci major while I was a "lowly" A+ Tech will remain always burned in my mind I think. lol

Direct personal experience, experience of those I work with and know well, and third hand stories, and logic all coinciding to corroborate the stance I took in regard to degrees. In short - there's a reason they are referred to a Bull $hit, More $hit, and Piled High and deep. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Conversly though, I would not dismiss someone because they posessed a degree. It's just that I would not take their words as gospel. Nor would I dismiss someone for not having a degree.


- Izzy, the NACA server is down at the moment. Have
- you got any document numbers handy so I can look at
- the data when the server comes back up? My IAS
- comment was in response to your earlier question as
- to whether the reports on the 109 were in TAS or
- IAS. Coggan wrote that at 286 mph (if you're going
- to use three significant figures, use the right
- three sig-figs.) he could get 360 degrees of roll in
- 4-4.5 seconds. Col. Carson writes:
-
- At low speed, the ailerons control was good,
- response brisk. As speed increased the ailerons
- became TOO HEAVY but the response was good up to
- 200mph. Between 200 mph and 300 mph they became
- UNPLEASANT. Over 300 mph they became IMPOSSIBLE. At
- 400 mph the stick FELT LIKE IT WAS SET IN A BUCKET
- OF CEMENT.
-
- I guess you can argue about how many degrees per
- second are in an "UNPLEASANT", but I don't see a
- discrepancy here.
-
- The only reference I can find Capt. Brown making to
- "light and effective" ailerons is on pg. 12 of
- "Duels in the Sky", referring to an Emil on climbout
- (i.e. low speed.) Again, I don't see a disagreement
- here. As to his 50 minutes of flight time in the
- Gustav, how much time have you logged in one?
- Probably about as much as me, which is why I value
- Capt. Brown's opinion. I don't know about your
- flight experiences, but it took me less than 50
- minutes to assess the roll characteristics of any
- aircraft I flew, and I'm not a trained test pilot.
- Given the proper training and experience (as Capt.
- Brown had), 50 minutes would be more than enough
- time to determine an aircraft's basic handling
- qualities. You and Huck keep coming back to this 50
- minute flight like a mantra anytime anyone
- disparages the 109, but it's not a factor here (and
- not in any other evaluation except perhaps maximum
- range, or pilot relief facilities.) We're on a
- different discussion here, we're not talking about
- max speed or turn rate (which the pods or boost
- level would affect), but control forces. The
- ailerons don't care what's on the wings; they are
- affected by airflow, and control inputs. Only
- initial rate is affected by the pods, and at high
- speeds, the pod effect was apparently the last thing
- to be concerned with.
-
- As to Col. Carson's experience level, I wouldn't
- call an aero degree, a combat tour or two in P-51's,
- including several 109 kills "Zero, nyema, nothing".
- I think he's got both of us beat.
-
- The warbird pilot reports don't have them flying the
- aircraft any faster than 520 kph (322 mph), which is
- just where the problems start, as I mentioned
- previously. All I can tell you is to read the whole
- thing, and not stop after the parts you like. I
- can't hold your nose to the screen, so we'll just
- have to agree to disagree.
-
- To Issy and Huck, we've danced around this topic
- long enough, let me just put the question to you. I
- graduated from the University of Minnesota with a
- bachelor's degree in Aerospace Engineering and
- Mechanics in 1986, and have a total of ~1800 hours
- fight time in ten aircraft types that I can think of
- (Beech Sport, Sundowner, T-37, T-38, F-16, Piper
- Archer, Decathlon, Citabria, Harvard MkIV and
- Stearman.) What exactly are your experience levels?
-
-
-
- Blotto

At this point, my question is, if the 109 was such a worthless POS, why didn't the RAF wipe the LW out in the BoB? Why didn't we roll over the LW like it was nothing? Why would it continue to be produced in such numbers? Why were so many aces so successful in it and choose not to leave it?

And I guess as something of a supplemental, why would Oleg say that the 109 was better. Not just that the circumstances lead the soviets to view it as more dangerous, but to flatly say that it was better? Certainly indicates some value to the design, especially if weighting peoples words by their possession of an aero engineering degree.

XyZspineZyX
09-17-2003, 01:14 AM
Huckebein_FW wrote:
He says: "and if the Bf 109G could no longer
- take on the later Allied fighters on even terms
- during the last year of the war, this reflected no
- discredit on the design team that had conceived it."
- From what facts did he deducted this?


Maybe he got it from German fighter pilots themselves:

The JG26 War Diaries, June 1, 1944, page 265

"The Third Gruppe was still flying its old Bf-109G-6 Beulen (boils), so named from the bulbous fairings covering the breeches of their cowling-mounted MG131 machine guns. While still an effective dogfighter, the Bf-109 was showing its age and lacked the speed necessary to initiate combat or escape from allied fighters."

Regards,

SkyChimp

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

XyZspineZyX
09-17-2003, 01:17 AM
Huckebein_FW wrote:

- What an idiocy. Trim deflection was precalculated
- for various cruising speeds.


A stupid design feature. Nevermind the plane may have to fly and fight at speeds in excess of cruising, during which the trim characterisitics are less than optimal.

Regards,

SkyChimp

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

XyZspineZyX
09-17-2003, 01:25 AM
Vo101_Isegrim wrote:
-
- Roll rates at 300mph, deg/sec, stickforce required,
- extracted from various NACA tests:
-
- Bf 109 G-2 : 80-90 deg/sec , 20 lbs


Can you post this NACA test?



Regards,

SkyChimp

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

XyZspineZyX
09-17-2003, 02:07 AM
DDT, I don't mean to imply by my comments that the 109 was worthless. Far from it. In one of my earlier posts, I also listed what I considered the type's strengths. The reason those comments got lost in the shuffle is that there doesn't seem to be much contention over the strengths (low speed handling, climb, acceleration, speed, small physical size), just the weaknesses. As the war progressed however, some of the strengths began to be eclipsed by newer types, or at least equaled, and some of its weaknesses were never corrected. The top three aces of all time would not have been able to achieve that status had the aircraft been uncompetitive. They (unlike some others here) recognized the airplanes shortcomings and when possible flew tactics to emphasize its strengths instead.

Sorry to get off topic, but the denial reminds me of a story. My next-door neighbor when I was growing up was an American Airlines DC-10 captain. "Bob" was about as square as they come (a shame, since he used to fly F-100's, and worked on the A-12 project after getting out of the Air Force), and was very "by the book". So much so in fact, that a mutual friend once said "Bob is the kind of guy who, if the aircraft was crashing, would get out the pilot handbook, and explain to you - in great detail - why this could not be happening."

Indeed, some academics can get so involved in minutiae that they loose sight of the overall field of endeavor. Practical experience often counts for more than book learning. There is in aeronautics a certain basic level of academic knowledge required to design aircraft (that or a great deal of luck.) Past that, practical experience and common sense are also necessary. Engineers will forever butt heads with pilots and mechanics over how best to build an aircraft.

As to Oleg's educational institution, I don't know what school he graduated from. Having studied more modern Russian aeronautical efforts at length, I have respect for their body of engineers as a whole.

As for my alma mater, we were told the U of M's aero undergraduate program ranked third in the country at the time (behind MIT and Brown, I think.) My poor GPA makes this kind of moot in my case.

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 punctuation and grammar

Message Edited on 09/16/0307:11PM by Blottogg

XyZspineZyX
09-17-2003, 03:52 AM
Vo101_Isegrim wrote:
-
- Roll rates at 300mph, deg/sec, stickforce required,
- extracted from various NACA tests:

I noticed you didnt mention the altitude that EACH of these tests were done at. I seem to recal somewhere that made a difference? /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

- Bf 109 G-2 : 80-90 deg/sec , 20 lbs
-
- Spitfire Mk VA (metal ailerons) : 53 deg/sec, 30 lbs
- P-47 C-1 : 82 deg/sec, 50 lbs
- P-47 D-30 : 50 deg/sec, 30 lbs
- P-51B-1NA : 94 deg/sec, 50 lbs
- P-80A : 135 deg/sec, 30 lbs
- Typhoon : 43 deg/sec, 50 lbs

Interesting.

- Intelligent men can make their own conclusions.

Intelligent men would have included the doc numbers so others could confirm the data.



<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 09/16/0308:08PM by tagert

XyZspineZyX
09-17-2003, 05:31 AM
SkyChimp wrote:
-
- Huckebein_FW wrote:
- He says: "and if the Bf 109G could no longer
-
-- take on the later Allied fighters on even terms
-- during the last year of the war, this reflected no
-- discredit on the design team that had conceived it."
-- From what facts did he deducted this?
-
-
- Maybe he got it from German fighter pilots
- themselves:
-
- The JG26 War Diaries, June 1, 1944, page 265
-
- "The Third Gruppe was still flying its old Bf-109G-6
- Beulen (boils), so named from the bulbous fairings
- covering the breeches of their cowling-mounted MG131
- machine guns. While still an effective dogfighter,
- the Bf-109 was showing its age and lacked the speed
- necessary to initiate combat or escape from allied
- fighters."
-
- Regards,

ROTFL!!

Ok place your bets...

BET #1: *They* dont respond to this at all, ie pretend they didnt read it.

BET #2: *They* discredit this German pilot with some bogus reason and refer to him as a CLOWN.

BET #3: *They* come back with some snide remark but never really address the issue.. The issue being that BROWN, Carson and This German agree.



<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
09-17-2003, 06:10 AM
How about BET #4: They cover this with smoke and mirrors by discrediting the rear view mirror on the Hurricane and weather or not it lowered its dive speed more then 1MPH. Thats how it typically works.

Gib

tagert wrote:
-
- ROTFL!!
-
- Ok place your bets...
-
- BET #1: *They* dont respond to this at all, ie
- pretend they didnt read it.
-
- BET #2: *They* discredit this German pilot with some
- bogus reason and refer to him as a CLOWN.
-
- BET #3: *They* come back with some snide remark but
- never really address the issue.. The issue being
- that BROWN, Carson and This German agree.
-
-
-
-
- <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>
- <a
- href="http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=for
- um"
- target=_blank>http://dictionary.reference.com/sear
- ch?q=forum</a>
-
- <a
- href="http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=dis
- cussion"
- target=_blank>http://dictionary.reference.com/sear
- ch?q=discussion</a>
-



I am now accepting donations to help get the PBY flyable.

<center><form action="https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr" method="post">
<input type="hidden" name="cmd" value="_xclick">
<input type="hidden" name="business" value="gibbage@lycos.com">
<input type="hidden" name="item_name" value="Gibbages IL2; FB PBY Catalina Fund">
<input type="hidden" name="no_note" value="1">
<input type="hidden" name="currency_code" value="USD">
<input type="hidden" name="tax" value="0">
<input type="image" src="http://gibbageart.havagame.com/donations.gif" border="0" name="submit" alt="Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure!">
</form></center>

XyZspineZyX
09-17-2003, 06:58 AM
Gibbage1 wrote:
- How about BET #4: They cover this with smoke and
- mirrors by discrediting the rear view mirror on the
- Hurricane and weather or not it lowered its dive
- speed more then 1MPH. Thats how it typically works.
-
- Gib

DANG! I forgot that one! Thanks for reminding me! Ok.. place your bets! /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
09-17-2003, 12:08 PM
Blottogg wrote:
-
-
- My IAS
- comment was in response to your earlier question as
- to whether the reports on the 109 were in TAS or
- IAS.
-

I don`t remember making questions.



- Coggan wrote that at 286 mph (if you're going
- to use three significant figures, use the right
- three sig-figs.) he could get 360 degrees of roll in
- 4-4.5 seconds.

What aircraft does this refer to ? Exact type.



Col. Carson writes:
-
- At low speed, the ailerons control was good,
- response brisk. As speed increased the ailerons
- became TOO HEAVY but the response was good up to
- 200mph. Between 200 mph and 300 mph they became
- UNPLEASANT. Over 300 mph they became IMPOSSIBLE. At
- 400 mph the stick FELT LIKE IT WAS SET IN A BUCKET
- OF CEMENT.
-

1, What 109 does this refers to ?
2, Did Carson flew that plane ? Did he flew any 109 ?
3, Was Carson showed massive ignorance regarding 109 development



- I guess you can argue about how many degrees per
- second are in an "UNPLEASANT", but I don't see a
- discrepancy here.

I do. If you can correctly answer my question, you will see them too, unless you are blind to facts.


-
- The only reference I can find Capt. Brown making to
- "light and effective" ailerons is on pg. 12 of
- "Duels in the Sky", referring to an Emil on climbout
- (i.e. low speed.)

And also in "Wings of the LW", on 109G. Qoute: "ailerons were moderately light".

Brown flew the plane, Carson never did.


- Again, I don't see a disagreement
- here. As to his 50 minutes of flight time in the
- Gustav, how much time have you logged in one?

0. Others who agree with my opinion - several thousend.

- Probably about as much as me, which is why I value
- Capt. Brown's opinion.

And he says the ailerons were "moderately light".

-
- As to Col. Carson's experience level, I wouldn't
- call an aero degree, a combat tour or two in P-51's,
- including several 109 kills "Zero, nyema, nothing".
- I think he's got both of us beat.

List me Carsons flight time with 109,. List me his confirmed victories vs. 109s.


More later...

OH.. one more thing:

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/109G_aileron_stability.jpg


I am sure you will argue that, just as you did the other facts...


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
09-17-2003, 12:23 PM
I just read the original post and here is my opinion:

BIASED, ONE SIDED, SHORT SIGHTED AND BULL SH*T.

Don't take everything U read or see as the ultimate truth. Internet is full of crap. Use common sense!

XyZspineZyX
09-17-2003, 02:14 PM
Vo101_Isegrim wrote:
-

-
- OH.. one more thing:
-
<img
- src="http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/109G_ail
- eron_stability.jpg"> -
-
- I am sure you will argue that, just as you did the
- other facts...
-

Can't do any arguing when the scan is basically unreadable.

It does look like it says at 450kph(280mph) it does ~80*/sec.

So at 550kph(340mph) it was what.

So at 650kph(400mph) it was what.

Is that speed TAS or IAS?


http://a1276.g.akamai.net/7/1276/734/625ed428e022ef/www.harley-davidson.com/PR/MOT/2004/Softail/images/DOM/img_Softail_FXST.jpg

http://www.redneckengineering.com/photogallery/photo23581/curves-done-03.jpg


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

XyZspineZyX
09-17-2003, 03:27 PM
MiloMorai wrote:
-
- Can't do any arguing when the scan is basically
- unreadable.
-

LOL. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif Milo, tagert, Blotty, Hop usually troubled with their vision and hearing when facts show up...

-
- Is that speed TAS or IAS?
-


It`s written there...

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
09-17-2003, 03:30 PM
Gibbage1 wrote:
- How about BET #4: They cover this with smoke and
- mirrors by discrediting the rear view mirror on the
- Hurricane and weather or not it lowered its dive
- speed more then 1MPH. Thats how it typically works.
-
- Gib


LOL. Says Gibsy who actually believes the DB 605 was a radial engine. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif Whoa, an opinion to be reckoned with! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Gibsy, when it comes to aircraft technology, you are as lost as 4-year old eskimo kid in a Baghdad`s Medina. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif You`d be better off if you`d shut your mouth, at least then it wouldn`t be so obvious to everyone how ignorant you are. /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
09-17-2003, 03:46 PM
SkyChimp wrote:
-
- Maybe he got it from German fighter pilots
- themselves:
-
- The JG26 War Diaries, June 1, 1944, page 265
-
- "The Third Gruppe was still flying its old Bf-109G-6
- Beulen (boils), so named from the bulbous fairings
- covering the breeches of their cowling-mounted MG131
- machine guns. While still an effective dogfighter,
- the Bf-109 was showing its age and lacked the speed
- necessary to initiate combat or escape from allied
- fighters."
-


Which German pilot said that ? Isn`t it the comment of Donald Caldwell (sp?), the author of the book... isn`t that the reason you have included the "escape clausure", ie.. "maybe..."

Isn`t that Caldwell claims 620 kph as the max. speed for the G-6, rgith from William Green`s books, which are more known for their errors rather than accuracy, whereas the German max. speed. specs for the G-series was:

G1, G-2 : 665 kph (June 1942)
G-6 : 650 kph (January 1943)
G-6/AS : 673 kph (April 1944)
G-14 : 665 kph (May 1944)
G-14/ASM : 680 kph (summer 1944)
G-10 : 690 kph (october 1944)


Seems like Caldwell had similiar troubles in getting the basic specs of 109G series right like as the Carson guy did.


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
09-17-2003, 03:46 PM
What don't you not understand about "Can't do any arguing when the scan is basically unreadable"?

Issy, post a clearer scan of the doc. For all we know it could be some doc you concocted.


What 109 model is it for?

What were the rates for the other speeds I asked for?





http://a1276.g.akamai.net/7/1276/734/625ed428e022ef/www.harley-davidson.com/PR/MOT/2004/Softail/images/DOM/img_Softail_FXST.jpg

http://www.redneckengineering.com/photogallery/photo23581/curves-done-03.jpg


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

XyZspineZyX
09-17-2003, 03:50 PM
More :

"Anyway, the following is from a test dive on 7.10.44 in good old W.Nr. 18550 (I say that because that a/c was used in just so much of the 109 testing): the test was made by "Willemsen" (he's not known to me. Does anyone have info on him?), on an a/c equipped with ailerons with Flettners, large stabilizer and rudder, a/c weight: 333o kg, and CofG at take-off: 24.6%.

At a corrected speed of 770 kph (.75 Mach at the test altitude), Test pilot Willemsen was able to get the ailerons to travel to 2/3 of their available range (no approx. force required is mentioned), forces were the same to either side, and there was no overbalancing observed. "


Now, I wonder, does ability to deflect ailerons to 2/3 at no less than .75 Mach/770kph count as bad ?


From LEMB forums, already posted by Briddy.


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
09-17-2003, 05:15 PM
Vo101_Isegrim wrote:
- Now, I wonder, does ability to deflect ailerons to
- 2/3 at no less than .75 Mach/770kph count as bad ?


It all depends on what roll rates are produced at 2/3 deflection versus full deflection. It might be perfectly fine. But it might not. Do you yourself know what roll rate would be under partial deflection? You represent yourself as an aeronautical engineering authority, whose conclusions are superior to formally trained aero engineers.

You continue to harp upon the point that Colonel Carson never himself flew a 109. Has it ever struck you that, in Carson's service as a wartime fighter pilot, he quite likely saw many of them in combat action from his cockpit? This would qualify as good first person observation, ... except probably to you. You are quite willing to accept similar sorts of testimony regarding US aircraft from German fighter pilots, who also likely never flew the a/c in question.



Blutarski

XyZspineZyX
09-17-2003, 05:16 PM
Vo101_Isegrim wrote:
-
- MiloMorai wrote:
--
-- Can't do any arguing when the scan is basically
-- unreadable.
--
-
- LOL. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif Milo, tagert, Blotty,
- Hop usually troubled with their vision and hearing
- when facts show up...
-
--
-- Is that speed TAS or IAS?
--
-
-
- It`s written there...
-

Issy, this appears to show the roll rate at about 300 mph. Maybe I missed something, but I thought the discussion was about the 109's roll rate at high speed/altitude and the fact that the roll rate decreased rapidly with increasing speed? I don't think anyone's arguing that at lower speeds and altitudes the 109 had a satisfactory roll rate. Could you please post up some roll-rate figures for higher speeds?

Also, I presume the altitude would have an effect on roll rate such that it would decrease with increasing height - what altitude is the test you posted?

Regards,

RocketDog.

XyZspineZyX
09-17-2003, 05:18 PM
RDog,

Don't hold your breath waiting for thos high speed roll rate data from Isegrim.



Blutarski

XyZspineZyX
09-17-2003, 05:20 PM
LOL - I know, but I thought I'd at least ask... /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif .

Regards,

RocketDog.

XyZspineZyX
09-17-2003, 05:58 PM
RocketDog wrote:
- Issy, this appears to show the roll rate at about
- 300 mph.

The discussion has referenced (by various people
as I remember) the rate at 300mph, so it doesn't
seem too unreasonable posting support for the
roll rate at around 300mph. After all, people asked
support for the 80-90 degree roll rate at 300mph
claim that he posted before, so I don't think you can
really criticise him for producing some evidence.

4.5 seconds is indeed an 80 degree roll rate, although
this is at the bottom of Isegrim's range, and 450km/h
is, strictly 281 mph, not 300.

- Also, I presume the altitude would have an effect on
- roll rate such that it would decrease with
- increasing height - what altitude is the test you
- posted?

I don't think the NACA tests of the P47 etc mention
altitude (I can check when I get home and look at the
copy of the pdf of it I have saved). So while it may
be relevant, noone until now seems to have been in the
least concerned about the altitude of the claimed roll
rate, so it seems like shifting the goalposts to suddenly
bring that in. (It may still be relevant, of course).

Mind you, I think some people (on both sides of the
argument) won't be convinced by evidence without a
signed document of authenticity from the Pope, or something.

XyZspineZyX
09-17-2003, 06:03 PM
MiloMorai wrote:
- Can't do any arguing when the scan is basically
- unreadable.

If you use xv and sharpen at setting 75 its readable.

XyZspineZyX
09-17-2003, 06:15 PM
No Aaron, if Barbi is going to post scans they should be readable, without doing any other 'work'.

This applies to all people, as well.

AaronGT wrote:
-
-
- If you use xv and sharpen at setting 75 its
- readable.
-



http://a1276.g.akamai.net/7/1276/734/625ed428e022ef/www.harley-davidson.com/PR/MOT/2004/Softail/images/DOM/img_Softail_FXST.jpg

http://www.redneckengineering.com/photogallery/photo23581/curves-done-03.jpg


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

XyZspineZyX
09-17-2003, 06:29 PM
BLUTARSKI wrote:
- Vo101_Isegrim wrote:
-- Now, I wonder, does ability to deflect ailerons to
-- 2/3 at no less than .75 Mach/770kph count as bad ?
-
-
- It all depends on what roll rates are produced at
- 2/3 deflection versus full deflection. It might be
- perfectly fine. But it might not. Do you yourself
- know what roll rate would be under partial
- deflection? You represent yourself as an
- aeronautical engineering authority, whose
- conclusions are superior to formally trained aero
- engineers.


Instead of asking rethorical questions (a Milo exclusive until now) how about producing some facts?

P-47D at 400mph IAS (and 5000ft) could deflect its ailerons less than half the travel (aprox 12 deg) at 50lb force. At 250mph ailerons could be fully deflected with 30lb, then the force required increased rapidly. Still the roll rate difference from 250-260mph (peak roll rate) to 400mph, where ailerons could be deflected only haft their travel, is only 15deg/sec. All this because lift increases with the square of speed, so much less aileron deflection is required at speed to achive the same roll rate.
Bf-109's 2/3 aileron deflection at 770kmh CAS means excellent aileron response.

Two experienced warbird pilots made it clear that the Bf-109's control forces were similar with those of Mustang. Meaning heavier at slow speeds than early war aircrafts like Spitfire of P-40, heavy too at higher speeds, but lighter than early war airplanes.


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

Message Edited on 09/17/0301:17PM by Huckebein_FW

XyZspineZyX
09-17-2003, 07:51 PM
slopchute wrote:
- Has the relative ruggedness of the 109 been
- discussed here? I know Carson sez the FW 190 could
- absorb a lot of hits and keep flying. That certainly
- is an important part of an aircrafts performance
- profile that is hard to quantify. What about the
- 109? If it was really sturdy, and had good
- firepower, a pilot could learn to love it no matter
- what it's drag coeffcient.
-
- In the hands of a good pilot, I can easily imagine
- that the 109 was formidable. However, didnt the
- Luftwaffe have a hard time training new pilots, and
- might this have made for some vulnerable 109's flown
- by less experienced pilots?
-
- Tactics that are matched to a planes performance
- profile are also really important. This was proven
- when by all accounts sucky P-40's actually managed
- to shoot down some Zeroes by using the better diving
- speed of the Warhawk to advantage. (Wouldn't want to
- try it myself though!) In a 109 engaged in a low
- altitude encounter, wouldn't the superior low speed
- climb rate provide some great opportunities for the
- pilot to extend, and re-engage at advantage?
-
- Also, an interesting case in point about the
- relative merits of aircraft is the case of the P-39.
- US pilots who flew it in combat hated everything
- about it except for the fact that you could taxi
- with your arm hung out the window like in a car, but
- Russian pilots seemed to have liked it quite a bit
- and used it to good effect.
-
- Slightly off topic:
-
- To all the folks out there from Europe: its great to
- talk to you guys and hear your opinions about
- matters of common interest. And for those who are
- not native English speakers, I wish I could talk to
- you in your own languages, but alas I can't. Until I
- can, I sure don't want to be critical of your
- efforts at English, which are by and large totally
- understandable.
-
- I hope that Americans and Europeans can learn to
- understand and appreciate each other even though we
- naturally have a different way of looking at things.
- The fact that the US is only 227 years old and was
- founded in wartime might explain some of our
- reputation for super patriotism and bellicosity.
- Stronger religious beliefs and a less complex view
- of the world are also factors that hinder
- communication between us. It probably comes from the
- colonial mindset of survival in a hostile
- wilderness, and those attitudes created in that
- environment persist in our culture even now when
- things are very different.
-
- As for the degree of passion shown by both Europeans
- and Americans when discussing the relative merits of
- the war efforts of the respective combatants, its
- seems pretty natural. For example, my father was a
- WWII veteran of the US Navy, and his destroyer was
- sunk by a U Boat. He was badly injured at the age of
- 17, and never fully recovered. I am sure that many
- posters on this site, on both sides of the Atlantic,
- can share similar personal stories. So it's not
- surprising that biases will sometimes manifest
- themselves. As my grandmother always said, there two
- sides to every story. And when you read threads like
- this, you realize that sometimes there are more!
-
-
-
-
-

Good post. A pearl among other posts here. Thanks

Regards SheerLuck Holmes

XyZspineZyX
09-17-2003, 07:52 PM
Huckebein_FW wrote:
- BLUTARSKI wrote:
-- Vo101_Isegrim wrote:
--- Now, I wonder, does ability to deflect ailerons to
--- 2/3 at no less than .75 Mach/770kph count as bad ?
--
--
-- It all depends on what roll rates are produced at
-- 2/3 deflection versus full deflection. It might be
-- perfectly fine. But it might not. Do you yourself
-- know what roll rate would be under partial
-- deflection? You represent yourself as an
-- aeronautical engineering authority, whose
-- conclusions are superior to formally trained aero
-- engineers.
-
-
- Instead of asking rethorical question (a Milo
- exclusive until now)


..... Huckebein, there was no rhetorical question there, except perhaps in your fevered mind. Your buddy, Isegrim, is throwing oranges at an apples argument. As I said, 2/3 aileron deflection at 770kph MIGHT be great. But, since the discussion is about roll rate (NOT aileron deflection!!!!!) at high speeds, the important and so far unanswered question is what roll rate is exhibited by a 109 at 770kph. The question is NOT to what degree the ailerons can be deflected at that speed. Can you grasp this distinction or is simple logic too arcane for your mental faculties? <- That IS a rhetorical question.


- how about producing some facts?

When I do not have reliable facts to offer, I do not toss out possible inferences, semi-informed theoretical mathematical calculations or WAG's in their place. I am not a trained aero engineer. I will not make extrapolated WAGs or inferences regarding roll performance and then present them as "facts". Do YOU know what the roll rate of the 109 was at 770kph? Do you have any reliable historical data? <- For your further elucidation, Huckebein, these are NOT rhetorical questions.



- P-47D at 400mph IAS (and 5000ft) could deflect its
- ailerons less than half the travel (aprox 12 deg) at
- 50lb force. At 250mph ailerons could be fully
- deflected with 30lb, then the force required
- increased rapidly. Still the roll rate difference
- from 250-260mph (peak roll rate) to 400mph, where
- ailerons could be deflected only haft their travel,
- is only 15deg/sec. All this because lift increases
- with the square of speed, so much less aileron
- deflection is required at speed to achive the same
- roll rate.
-
- Now you have something to compare.


There is precisely nothing to compare here. It says zero about roll rate performance produced at various deflections and air speeds. Again I ask you, what are the roll rates? Do you know? If you know so much about this topic, please explain to us all in detail (a) why the 109E had a roll rate of 11 degree per second at 400mph, and (b) how the design changes made by German engineers acted to improve this performance in later models. If you can do so, then I will hang upon your every further word like a fanatic acolyte. If you cannot, then your opinions cannot be considered in any way equivalent to those of trained aero engineers. The fact is that certain people may well know more about your favorite subject than you do. Sorry if this fact of life upsets you, but get used to it.



- Two experienced warbird pilots made it clear that
- the Bf-109's control forces were similar with those
- of Mustang. Meaning heavier at slow speeds than
- early war aircrafts like Spitfire of P-40, heavy too
- at higher speeds, but lighter than early war
- airplanes.


Are you referring in part to Eric Brown's comments comparing control and handling of the Bf109G to the early Spit and the P51? If so, I think you will find that Brown's observation was that the Bf109 was very good at air speeds around 250 mph and started to stiffen up to a degree similar to the P51 when approaching 300mph. Full stop. IIRC, he said nothing about handling at speeds greater than 300mph.

Feel free to include a few of your famous snide personal insults in your reply. I presume that you get a cheap thrill from doing so.



Blutarski

XyZspineZyX
09-17-2003, 09:48 PM
Ran a search on Brown & look what popped up.

http://www.1jma.dk/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=1369

Ise argueing the same point elsewhere ??

http://idealab.snu.ac.kr/~hobbist/La-5FN/small/La-5FN-06.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-18-2003, 12:15 AM
Huckles and Issy say the Bf-109 had a fantastic roll rate. Mark Hanna, who flew them, says "You is wrong."

Hanna says of the Bf-109J (export version to Spain)...

...The roll rate is very good and very positive below about 250 mph. This is particularly true of the Charles Church's Collection clipped wing aircraft. Our round tipped aeroplane is slightly less nice to feel. With the speed further back the roll rate remains good, particularly with a bit of help from the rudder. Above 250 mph however the roll starts to heavy up and up to 300 or so is very similar to a P-51. After that it's all getting pretty solid and you need two hands on the stick for any meaningfull roll rates. Another peculiarity is that when you have been in a hard turn with the slats deployed, and then you roll rapidly one way and stop, there is a strange sensation for a second of so of a kind of dead area over the ailerons - almost as if they are not connected ! Just when you are starting to get worried they work again !

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.


In otherwords, the Bf-109 was good at low speeds, average at medium speeds, poor at high speeds.

===========

BTW, if the later Bf-109s were poor performers at high speed, the Bf-109E was horrid:

Hannah says...

...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 bank, 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 factor 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 unmanoeuvrable in roll at high speeds.

Regards,

SkyChimp

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

XyZspineZyX
09-18-2003, 03:07 AM
Posted by SheerLuckHolmes : Allthough ME-109 wasn't such a great plane, brits lost more fighters than germans in BoB.


And your point is??

The Brits were targetting bombers and not fighters. They weren't interested in German fighters unless they interfered with the Brit's primary objective..attacking bombers. So, the Brits had bombers and fighters to contend with, whereas the German fighters only had British fighters to contend with. Although the German fighters shot down more British fighters than they lost, the British fighters did rather better than the German fighters because they shot down Fighters AND Bombers at a ratio of about 1.8 to 1 which was better than what the German fighters achieved.

The unit with the best kills/loss ratio in that battle on either side was 303 Sqn RAF flying...Hurricanes.

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

XyZspineZyX
09-18-2003, 06:32 AM
BLUTARSKI wrote:
-:

-
- Are you referring in part to Eric Brown's comments
- comparing control and handling of the Bf109G to the
- early Spit and the P51? If so, I think you will find
- that Brown's observation was that the Bf109 was very
- good at air speeds around 250 mph and started to
- stiffen up to a degree similar to the P51 when
- approaching 300mph. Full stop. IIRC, he said nothing
- about handling at speeds greater than 300mph.


if you own his book "wings of the Luftwaffe , then you must know, he wrote about his experiences in a dive in the gustav with 644km/h .

later he wrote his highest speed was 708 km /h . but read it yourself.


i have the german version of browns book, but i believe its the same as the english (of course , the text is in german ) /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif





http://www.bayern.de/Layout/wappen.gif

Bavaria is one of the oldest European states.
It dates back to about 500 A.D., when the Roman Empire was overcome by the onslaught of Germanic tribes. According to a widespread theory, the Bavarian tribe had descended from the Romans who remained in the country, the original Celtic population and the Germanic invaders.

Bavarian History : http://www.bayern.de/Bayern/Information/geschichteE.html#kap0

XyZspineZyX
09-18-2003, 07:21 AM
SkyChimp wrote:
- Huckles and Issy say the Bf-109 had a fantastic roll
- rate. Mark Hanna, who flew them, says "You is
- wrong."
-
- Hanna says of the Bf-109J (export version to
- Spain)...
-
- ...The roll rate is very good and very positive
- below about 250 mph. This is particularly true of
- the Charles Church's Collection clipped wing
- aircraft. Our round tipped aeroplane is slightly
- less nice to feel. With the speed further back the
- roll rate remains good, particularly with a bit of
- help from the rudder. Above 250 mph however the roll
- starts to heavy up and up to 300 or so is very
- similar to a P-51. After that it's all getting
- pretty solid and you need two hands on the stick for
- any meaningfull roll rates. Another peculiarity is
- that when you have been in a hard turn with the
- slats deployed, and then you roll rapidly one way
- and stop, there is a strange sensation for a second
- of so of a kind of dead area over the ailerons -
- almost as if they are not connected ! Just when you
- are starting to get worried they work again !
-
- 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.
-
-
- In otherwords, the Bf-109 was good at low speeds,
- average at medium speeds, poor at high speeds.
-
- ===========
-
- BTW, if the later Bf-109s were poor performers at
- high speed, the Bf-109E was horrid:
-
- Hannah says...
-
- ...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 bank, 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 factor 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 unmanoeuvrable in
- roll at high speeds.
-
- Regards,
-
- SkyChimp

In this corner we have Carson. Brown, Hannah... And in that corner we have... Huh? Where did they go? /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

PS what is the title of that book? Sounds like one Ill be wanting to add to my collection?



<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
09-18-2003, 09:51 AM
MiloMorai wrote:
- No Aaron, if Barbi is going to post scans they
- should be readable, without doing any other 'work'.

Perhaps, but it is incredibly petty.

XyZspineZyX
09-18-2003, 11:39 AM
BLUTARSKI wrote:
- Vo101_Isegrim wrote:
-- Now, I wonder, does ability to deflect ailerons to
-- 2/3 at no less than .75 Mach/770kph count as bad ?
-
-
- It all depends on what roll rates are produced at
- 2/3 deflection versus full deflection. It might be
- perfectly fine. But it might not.


In other words : you have no idea of real roll rate values for the 109 at high speeds, yet you continoue to propagate it was poor.


- Do you yourself
- know what roll rate would be under partial
- deflection?

Not the exact value. However I know from Butch2k that the wing twist effects appeared on the 109 at rather high airspeed, making it relatively independent from the major reason for roll rate reduction at high speed, whereas the forces at ,75MAch and 2/3 deflection would be very great, and allow for considerable roll rate.


- You represent yourself as an
- aeronautical engineering authority, whose
- conclusions are superior to formally trained aero
- engineers.

Thats bullsh*t, but again, I have never claimed myself an *aeronautical engineering authority*, altough I know well much more easier for you to attack my person with forged statements on me rather than to try to disprove the facts I posted.



-
- You continue to harp upon the point that Colonel
- Carson never himself flew a 109. Has it ever struck
- you that, in Carson's service as a wartime fighter
- pilot, he quite likely saw many of them in combat
- action from his cockpit?

And, Carson saw them in combat, and through telepathy, or other mystical powers, he started to feel how the plane handles, what control forces are like etc ? /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Kit Carson, Fighter pilot, Aeronautical engineer, and the Last Word for Bf 109 He Never Flew and Does Not Know.



- This would qualify as good
- first person observation,

So, your point is, that we should accept the opinon of Carson who proved his ignorance regarding the development of the Bf 109, and never ever flew one, over pilots like Erich Hartmann, Mark Hanna, Paul Coggan, or just any wartime LW pilot who actually flew the plane for many, many hours..?


- You are quite willing to accept similar sorts
- of testimony regarding US aircraft from German
- fighter pilots, who also likely never flew the a/c
- in question.


Care to expand on that ? Can me tell me WHEN and WHERE exactly I qouted ANY pilot who didnt flew a US fighter regarding of its handling qualities?

What a crap!


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
09-18-2003, 12:08 PM
Saburo_0 wrote:
- Ran a search on Brown & look what popped up.

- Ise argueing the same point elsewhere ??


in eric browns book , wings of the luftwaffe , you could read (if you have the book /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif ) his tested version was:

Bf 109 G6 /U2 Werksnummer 412951 ,
with RAF markings , code TP 814 , (on the pictures in his book with gunpods).



but this wasn´t your question, just a short note from me.




http://www.bayern.de/Layout/wappen.gif

Bavaria is one of the oldest European states.
It dates back to about 500 A.D., when the Roman Empire was overcome by the onslaught of Germanic tribes. According to a widespread theory, the Bavarian tribe had descended from the Romans who remained in the country, the original Celtic population and the Germanic invaders.

Bavarian History : http://www.bayern.de/Bayern/Information/geschichteE.html#kap0

XyZspineZyX
09-18-2003, 12:18 PM
Off topic: Where are you from? Obviously I assume Bavaria, but where abouts? Me mum is from Shellenberg near the Austrian border towards Saltzburg....

<img src=http://home.insightbb.com/%7Edspinnett/NonSpeed/SpeedToys.jpg </img>
http://hometown.aol.com/spinnetti/

XyZspineZyX
09-18-2003, 12:28 PM
SkyChimp wrote:
- Huckles and Issy say the Bf-109 had a fantastic roll
- rate. Mark Hanna, who flew them, says "You is
- wrong."
-
- Hanna says of the Bf-109J (export version to
- Spain)...
-

Thanks for the post, Skychimp. This sounds like an interesting read, could you post up a reference to the book so I can have a go at finding a copy?

Regards,

RocketDog.

XyZspineZyX
09-18-2003, 01:36 PM
hi spinnetti, yes OT /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif ,
i am from an town , southern of munich , not too far from the autobahn to salzburg. called Holzkirchen
a nice place to live .
where are you from ?



http://www.bayern.de/Layout/wappen.gif

Bavaria is one of the oldest European states.
It dates back to about 500 A.D., when the Roman Empire was overcome by the onslaught of Germanic tribes. According to a widespread theory, the Bavarian tribe had descended from the Romans who remained in the country, the original Celtic population and the Germanic invaders.

Bavarian History : http://www.bayern.de/Bayern/Information/geschichteE.html#kap0

XyZspineZyX
09-18-2003, 01:42 PM
EPP_Gibbs wrote:
- Posted by SheerLuckHolmes : Allthough ME-109 wasn't
- such a great plane, brits lost more fighters than
- germans in BoB.
-
-
- And your point is??
-
- The Brits were targetting bombers and not fighters.
- They weren't interested in German fighters unless
- they interfered with the Brit's primary
- objective..attacking bombers. So, the Brits had
- bombers and fighters to contend with, whereas the
- German fighters only had British fighters to contend
- with. Although the German fighters shot down more
- British fighters than they lost, the British
- fighters did rather better than the German fighters
- because they shot down Fighters AND Bombers at a
- ratio of about 1.8 to 1 which was better than what
- the German fighters achieved.
-
- The unit with the best kills/loss ratio in that
- battle on either side was 303 Sqn RAF
- flying...Hurricanes.
-
- "If I had all the money I've spent on drink....I'd
- spend it on drink!"


As I posted later I told that I just wanted poeple to get to think that you just have to know your plane well.

If all that is true that is written by Col' Carson and few others who tell that ME109 and other German planes were crappy, and all US- and Brit planes were superior to all German planes, then we have to believe that German pilots were superior compared to US- and Brit pilots, because they still could shoot quite many allied planes down with crappy planes.

So... If you always keep telling that German planes were pieces of junk, then there is no other explanation for German success in air that German pilots were superoir.

et punctum

( don't take this too seriously /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif )

SheerLuck Holmes

XyZspineZyX
09-18-2003, 01:59 PM
SkyChimp wrote:
- Huckles and Issy say the Bf-109 had a fantastic roll
- rate. Mark Hanna, who flew them, says "You is
- wrong."


Where did he say that ? Oh, wet dreams of 109 trashers..


-
- Hanna says of the Bf-109J (export version to
- Spain)...
-
- ...The roll rate is very good and very positive
- below about 250 mph. This is particularly true of
- the Charles Church's Collection clipped wing
- aircraft. Our round tipped aeroplane is slightly
- less nice to feel. With the speed further back the
- roll rate remains good, particularly with a bit of
- help from the rudder. Above 250 mph however the roll
- starts to heavy up and up to 300 or so is very
- similar to a P-51. After that it's all getting
- pretty solid and you need two hands on the stick for
- any meaningfull roll rates. Another peculiarity is
- that when you have been in a hard turn with the
- slats deployed, and then you roll rapidly one way
- and stop, there is a strange sensation for a second
- of so of a kind of dead area over the ailerons -
- almost as if they are not connected ! Just when you
- are starting to get worried they work again !


OK, so, what does that mean? What does Mark Hanna really says?

He says the _roll rate_ is VERY GOOD below 250mph.

He says the _roll rate_ at 300mph is similiar to P-51. According to NACA chart, P-51 did about 90 deg/sec at this speed, and required no less than 50 lbs stickforce for it.

He says that above 300mph the _stick force_, repeat, the _stickforce_ is heavying up, and thus two hands are required. NOT the roll rate! How much can a pilot pull sideways with onbe hand? 20-23 lbs. Mark Hanna thus says above 300mph the stickforce is more than 20-23lbs. This agrees with paul coggan, who says that at 285 mph the stickforce is 20 lbs.

Mark Hanna and Paul Coggan agree : Mustang had heavier ailerons than Bf 109 already at 300mph !

Mark Hanna and Paul Coggan agree : Skychimp twists it !


-
- In otherwords, the Bf-109 was good at low speeds,
- average at medium speeds, poor at high speeds.
-

The ELEVATOR, repeat, the ELEVATOR. The elevator was good at low speeds, avarage at medium speeds, poor at high speeds.

As Eric Brown said : the rudder was light, the ailerons moderately light, the elevator extremely heavy.



-
- ===========
-
- BTW, if the later Bf-109s were poor performers at
- high speed, the Bf-109E was horrid:
-
- Hannah says...

Hanna says ? No, Skychimp is out of facts (well, he never had any..), so he now forges qoutes from Mark Hanna. The below qoute is from the RAE, again,the RAEs report on a Bf 109E, not Mark Hannas. This report is also qouted by Carson, who tries to sell a Bf 109E report as if it was about a Bf 109 G or K...

It can be read here:

http://www.bf109.com/flying.html

Clearly, the site makes no doubt regards what belongs to the RAEs evaluation of Bf 109E, and what part refers to the Bf 109J flown by Mark Hanna.


Well... chalk up another desperate forging attempt to 109 trashers ! They never have facts, if they show one, you can be sure its forgery, or just made up.



-
- 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 unmanoeuvrable in
- roll at high speeds.



If the Bf 109 E was horrid, then the Spitfire I was as Werner Moelders described it : just pathetic as a fighter. In the same test, the Spitfire I required 55 lbs stickforce for the same roll rate, 4 seconds to make a 45-degree bank! No faster than Bf 109E, and requiring 40% more force from the pilot.

At low speeds the Spitfire I was even worser: 45 degree bank required 2 seconds to perform even at 200mph, whereas the Bf 109 E rolled TWICE as fast, at 1 second, requiring the same force of about 20 lbs.

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
09-18-2003, 02:05 PM
You have visibility problems, Briddy? Funny that Aaron can see that *unreadable* doc so well...

Now we know you have troubles not inside your head, but in front of it, too. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

But, I have pity on you:

Querruder
---------

Rollzeit in Reiseflug (Vw - 450 km/h) : apprx. 4,5 seconds
Ruderwirkung beim sehr hoher geschwindikgeit : gut
Ruderwirkung in langsamflug : sehr gut
Ruderwirkung beim uberziehen : sehr gut
Kurvenwechsel : durfte etwas besser sein
Steuerungsweichkeit : gering


Interesting the note on rudder : very good at slow speeds, good at very high speeds.

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
09-18-2003, 02:38 PM
The usual derogatory posting from Barbi.

Did you take note of this Neville?

It was a crappy scan.


Vo101_Isegrim wrote:

-
- Rollzeit in Reiseflug (Vw - 450 km/h) : apprx. 4,5
- seconds
- Ruderwirkung beim sehr hoher geschwindikgeit : gut
- Ruderwirkung in langsamflug : sehr gut
- Ruderwirkung beim uberziehen : sehr gut
- Kurvenwechsel : durfte etwas besser sein
- Steuerungsweichkeit : gering
-

So nice of you to FINALLY post what you should have done in the first place./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Now where are the roll times for 550kph and 650kph?


Obw, why did you remove the K-4 climb graph from your site?




http://www.cartoonstock.com/lowres/cfu0033l.jpg



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

XyZspineZyX
09-18-2003, 02:53 PM
Vo101_Isegrim wrote:

- Where did he say that ? Oh, wet dreams of 109
- trashers..

Trashers? No, hardly, my little Hungarian friend. Just trying to keep things in perspective. You, however, try to assign mystic qualities to the Bf-109. But what would one suspect from someone who says he "worships" the plane?



- OK, so, what does that mean? What does Mark Hanna
- really says?
-
- He says the _roll rate_ is VERY GOOD below 250mph.
-
- He says the _roll rate_ at 300mph is similiar to
- P-51. According to NACA chart, P-51 did about 90
- deg/sec at this speed, and required no less than 50
- lbs stickforce for it.

He doesn't say "_roll rate_" is the same, he says FORCE is the same. This is evident in his word "heavy up." In otherwords, force is similar to the P-51. And you say the Mustang required 50lbs of force at this speed. therefore, the Bf-109 did too.



- He says that above 300mph the _stick force_, repeat,
- the _stickforce_ is heavying up, and thus two hands
- are required. NOT the roll rate! How much can a
- pilot pull sideways with onbe hand?

He says two hands are required for any MEANINGFUL ROLL RATE. Re-read the report.



- 20-23 lbs. Mark
- Hanna thus says above 300mph the stickforce is more
- than 20-23lbs. This agrees with paul coggan, who
- says that at 285 mph the stickforce is 20 lbs.

Hanna says no such thing. You're fabricating this.

Hanna says "Above 250 mph however the roll starts to ***heavy up*** and up to 300 or so is very similar to a P-51. After that it's all getting ***pretty solid*** and you need two hands on the stick for any ***meaningfull*** roll rates."

You continually blather on about the 50lb force required in the Mustang, so by your standard the Bf-109 rewired 50lbs of force at 300 mph, and way over that at higher speeds.

No wonder the G model had its best roll rate at such a low speed.

BTW, if you read his 109E review, you'll see that he says "Max sideways force a pilot can apply conveniently to the Bf 109 stick 40 lbs."

Stop with the 20 lbs bull$hit. It's a UNTRUE.



- Mark Hanna and Paul Coggan agree : Mustang had
- heavier ailerons than Bf 109 already at 300mph !

He says no such thing. He says roll rate was good, but starts to heavy up, being similar to the P-51 at 300 mph. Above that, two hands are required for MEANINGFUL roll rate. He does not compare them beloew 300mph. he simply syas they are about equal at 300 mph.



- Mark Hanna and Paul Coggan agree : Skychimp twists
- it !

Here's the link to the report, so people can see for themselves:
http://www.bf109.com/flying.html



- The ELEVATOR, repeat, the ELEVATOR. The elevator was
- good at low speeds, avarage at medium speeds, poor
- at high speeds.
-
- As Eric Brown said : the rudder was light, the
- ailerons moderately light, the elevator extremely
- heavy.

Tell that to your partner, Huckles. You guys are diametrically opposed on this issue. Huckles mainatins the Bf-109 had light elevators at all speeds and under all conditions.

BTW, the elevators were "moderately light" at lower speeds.



- Hanna says ? No, Skychimp is out of facts (well, he
- never had any..), so he now forges qoutes from Mark
- Hanna. The below qoute is from the RAE, again,the
- RAEs report on a Bf 109E, not Mark Hannas. This
- report is also qouted by Carson, who tries to sell a
- Bf 109E report as if it was about a Bf 109 G or K...

I forged nothing. That's my commentary and that's why its spaced out from the rest of the text.



- Clearly, the site makes no doubt regards what
- belongs to the RAEs evaluation of Bf 109E, and what
- part refers to the Bf 109J flown by Mark Hanna.
-
-
- Well... chalk up another desperate forging attempt
- to 109 trashers ! They never have facts, if they
- show one, you can be sure its forgery, or just made
- up.

And chalk up another one from the Luftwaffe worshippers. Issy, you are a master of reading into a report that which you want it to say.





Regards,

SkyChimp

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

XyZspineZyX
09-18-2003, 03:20 PM
Carson diddnt say the German planes were"junk",he was simply pointing out areas of strengths and weaknesses.Compared to other top fighters from the mid030's to '42 the 109 was equal or superior in overall performance.
And I doubt Carson considered U.S. planes to have no faults or problem areas.
Exceeding the performance of the 109 was the purpose of allied fighter designers,planes designed after the introduction of the 109 had specific benchmark areas of performance targeted to surpass,which for the most part they were successful.

The later introduction of the FW also benefitted in the same way.Operating speeds of fighters continuously increased during the war and planes that were designed later were built at a time when speeds far exceeded what was current when the 109 was first introduced.
A plane that is on the drawing board to operate at speeds in excess of 400mph has a huge advantage over a plane that was designed to operate at 250-300 mph like the 109.

Contininuous development of a specific airframe can only go so far,especialy under the pressure of total war.Many Experten and veteran 109 pilots believed the F4 was the ultimate development of the 109.Including Gunther Rall.

But the fact remains that there were areas the 109 was able to remain equal and if proper tactics were adhered to, could and did defeat an enemy whose plane had better over-all performance.In the end the allies were able to nuetralize the tactical advantage with their own tactics and superior numbers.The 109 remained a dangerous opponent but was more tactically restricted than its competition.

XyZspineZyX
09-18-2003, 03:52 PM
WalterMitty wrote:
- Carson diddnt say the German planes were"junk",he
- was simply pointing out areas of strengths and
- weaknesses.Compared to other top fighters from the
- mid030's to '42 the 109 was equal or superior in
- overall performance.
-
-
- And I doubt Carson considered U.S. planes to have no
- faults or problem areas.
-
-
- Exceeding the performance of the 109 was the purpose
- of allied fighter designers,planes designed after
- the introduction of the 109 had specific benchmark
- areas of performance targeted to surpass,which for
- the most part they were successful.



Bf-109 was never surpassed by any western design fighter. Give me an example of such of fighter and we'll make a comparison.

From the beginning to the end of war there was no worth to mention competitor for Bf-109. American planes were always unbelievable uncompetitive compared to Bf-109.



- The later introduction of the FW also benefitted in
- the same way.Operating speeds of fighters
- continuously increased during the war and planes
- that were designed later were built at a time when
- speeds far exceeded what was current when the 109
- was first introduced.
- A plane that is on the drawing board to operate at
- speeds in excess of 400mph has a huge advantage over
- a plane that was designed to operate at 250-300 mph
- like the 109.



Bf-109 was designed from the start with high speeds in mind. In 1938 production Emil had a dive speed limit of 750km/h. That's better than everything at that time, and still better at the end of war, with the exception of american planes which put 50kmh more. And that's an Emil!



- But the fact remains that there were areas the 109
- was able to remain equal and if proper tactics were
- adhered to, could and did defeat an enemy whose
- plane had better over-all performance.In the end the
- allies were able to nuetralize the tactical
- advantage with their own tactics and superior
- numbers.The 109 remained a dangerous opponent but
- was more tactically restricted than its competition.


There were no such tactical restrictions. Don't mention range, Bf-109 was not an escort fighter.


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

XyZspineZyX
09-18-2003, 03:57 PM
Whatever,dude.If it makes your life worth living to believe the 109 was the ultimate prop fighter ever,thats ok.After all,your not hurting anybody.

XyZspineZyX
09-18-2003, 04:04 PM
WalterMitty's post rightly places the Me-109 it's proper historical context, a plane that was designed for combat in 1937, when many rival planes were still flying around with open cockpits.

As for Huckebein_FW, your comment about the total inferiority of American planes sounds sort of unbalanced. When I was a kid, I was raised to believe that the P-51 represented the apogee of piston engined flying, period. Now I am older and I have learned that it was a great plane in it's operating environment: high speed, long range, and a little Jabo throw in there. It was not really a great turn and burner at low speeds and altitides, and it was actually a pretty hard plane to fly. Furthermore, a lot of it's success, especially at altitude, was due to the Merlin engine from our cousins across the sea. The fact is, NO plane was perfect: American, German, Russian or British , but the successful ones were really good at some things and tolerable in other areas, and pilots would work with them to use their particular strengths to advantage by changing tactics. The Me-109 was one of those designs that made the grade in combat for the duration of the war, and no one here wants to take that away. It just wasn't perfect and it's design was a little stale relative to the FW-190, for example, by 1944. I'm sure if the war lasted, the Ta-152 would have been the main line piston engined fighter for Germany, not the Me-109L,M,N or O

Germany displayed enormous technical prowess in it's aviation program during the war, no one can say otherwise. But the American designers came up with some solid performers that were certainly competitive and good enough to get the job done. The F6F Hellcat was highly regarded, the P-47 was a great Jabo, and the aforementioned joint effort with Britain, the Mustang, has stood the test of time.



Message Edited on 09/18/0303:36PM by slopchute

XyZspineZyX
09-18-2003, 04:07 PM
WalterMitty wrote:
- Whatever,dude.If it makes your life worth living to
- believe the 109 was the ultimate prop fighter
- ever,thats ok.After all,your not hurting anybody.


Yes, Bf-109 flew in '36. Does it hurt that american designers never put something competitive against it?


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

XyZspineZyX
09-18-2003, 04:08 PM
Quoted by Huckbein: "Bf-109 was never surpassed by any western design fighter. Give me an example of such of fighter and we'll make a comparison.

From the beginning to the end of war there was no worth to mention competitor for Bf-109. American planes were always unbelievable uncompetitive compared to Bf-109."


Forget it chaps, there's no arguing with someone as totally one track as this. Let him trundle through life with a rosy image of '109 Uber Alles' if it makes him happy....

Huck most probably will, for an encore, prove that black is white and white is black.....then get knocked over on the next pedestrian crossing by a low flying 109 .....which of course could fly lower than any other WW2 fighter.
/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif



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

XyZspineZyX
09-18-2003, 04:11 PM
EPP_Gibbs wrote:
- Quoted by Huckbein: "Bf-109 was never surpassed by
- any western design fighter. Give me an example of
- such of fighter and we'll make a comparison.
-
- From the beginning to the end of war there was no
- worth to mention competitor for Bf-109. American
- planes were always unbelievable uncompetitive
- compared to Bf-109."
-
-
- Forget it chaps, there's no arguing with someone as
- totally one track as this. Let him trundle through
- life with a rosy image of '109 Uber Alles' if it
- makes him happy....
-
- Huck most probably will, for an encore, prove that
- black is white and white is black.....then get
- knocked over on the next pedestrian crossing by a
- low flying 109 .....which of course could fly lower
- than any other WW2 fighter.


Excellent personal attacks, congrats to you all!

But in the next post don't forget to mention that competitive american fighter (that never was).


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

XyZspineZyX
09-18-2003, 04:13 PM
Vo101_Isegrim wrote:
-
- You have visibility problems, Briddy? Funny that
- Aaron can see that *unreadable* doc so well...

It wasn't very clear. It was readable without
enhancement, but with sharpening its readability
was much improved. I read a little German, so
that makes readability less of an issue for me (in
the sense that if you can read the language, you
can read more indistinct reproductions).

Saying this, it would have been nice to have had
it enhanced before it was posted, but it seemed
a little churlish to complain so much about the
visibility - others have posted documents of marginal
readibility in the past. Actually Neil Stirling
has the record, I think, for most readable scans
of old documents.

XyZspineZyX
09-18-2003, 04:14 PM
Huckebein_FW wrote:
- Bf-109 was never surpassed by any western design
- fighter. Give me an example of such of fighter and
- we'll make a comparison.
-
- From the beginning to the end of war there was no
- worth to mention competitor for Bf-109. American
- planes were always unbelievable uncompetitive
- compared to Bf-109.

I presume this is hyperbole for comic effect?

XyZspineZyX
09-18-2003, 04:18 PM
AaronGT wrote:
-
- Huckebein_FW wrote:
-- Bf-109 was never surpassed by any western design
-- fighter. Give me an example of such of fighter and
-- we'll make a comparison.
--
-- From the beginning to the end of war there was no
-- worth to mention competitor for Bf-109. American
-- planes were always unbelievable uncompetitive
-- compared to Bf-109.
-
- I presume this is hyperbole for comic effect?


Yes we all are laughing now.

Can you mention that american design?


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

XyZspineZyX
09-18-2003, 04:30 PM
Vo101_Isegrim wrote:
-
- SkyChimp wrote:
-- Huckles and Issy say the Bf-109 had a fantastic roll
-- rate. Mark Hanna, who flew them, says "You is
-- wrong."
-
-
- Where did he say that ? Oh, wet dreams of 109
- trashers..
-
-
--
-- Hanna says of the Bf-109J (export version to
-- Spain)...
--
-- ...The roll rate is very good and very positive
-- below about 250 mph. This is particularly true of
-- the Charles Church's Collection clipped wing
-- aircraft. Our round tipped aeroplane is slightly
-- less nice to feel. With the speed further back the
-- roll rate remains good, particularly with a bit of
-- help from the rudder. Above 250 mph however the roll
-- starts to heavy up and up to 300 or so is very
-- similar to a P-51. After that it's all getting
-- pretty solid and you need two hands on the stick for
-- any meaningfull roll rates. Another peculiarity is
-- that when you have been in a hard turn with the
-- slats deployed, and then you roll rapidly one way
-- and stop, there is a strange sensation for a second
-- of so of a kind of dead area over the ailerons -
-- almost as if they are not connected ! Just when you
-- are starting to get worried they work again !
-
-
- OK, so, what does that mean? What does Mark Hanna
- really says?
-
- He says the _roll rate_ is VERY GOOD below 250mph.
-
- He says the _roll rate_ at 300mph is similiar to
- P-51. According to NACA chart, P-51 did about 90
- deg/sec at this speed, and required no less than 50
- lbs stickforce for it.
-
- He says that above 300mph the _stick force_, repeat,
- the _stickforce_ is heavying up, and thus two hands
- are required. NOT the roll rate! How much can a
- pilot pull sideways with onbe hand? 20-23 lbs. Mark
- Hanna thus says above 300mph the stickforce is more
- than 20-23lbs. This agrees with paul coggan, who
- says that at 285 mph the stickforce is 20 lbs.
-
- Mark Hanna and Paul Coggan agree : Mustang had
- heavier ailerons than Bf 109 already at 300mph !
-
- Mark Hanna and Paul Coggan agree : Skychimp twists
- it !
-

I think Skychimp has it right. I appreciate that English isn't your first language, but the critical word in Hanna's writing is where he says "above 250 mph HOWEVER". In English, the word "however" is used to *contrast* two statements, one before the word and one after.

Here the statement before is that the roll rate is good and positive below 250 mph and the statement after is that the roll starts to "heavy up" and then requires two hands to get meaningful roll rates. The word "however" would make absolutely no sense here at all if the roll rate remained the same at higher speeds.

Similarly, the phrase "you need two hands on the stick for any meaningfull roll rates" is hard to interpret in any way other than that the roll rate became poor. The key words here are "any meaningful". If the roll rate remained high he would have almost certainly written something like "significant roll rates", or simply just said that the roll rate remained high.

So, sorry to have to disagree with you, but to a first-language English speaker Hanna's writing clearly gives the impression of control force increasing and roll rate decreasing as the aircraft's speed gets higher.

Regards,

RocketDog.

XyZspineZyX
09-18-2003, 04:31 PM
One post saying the scan was "basically unreadable" and another asking for a better scan is "churlish"? What ever you say Neville. It was not an UNreasonable request to have a better scan. I also did say later for >>>ALL<<< to post readable scans./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif So, nice edit in your post at 04:51AM, my time./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif


AaronGT wrote:
-
- It wasn't very clear. It was readable without
- enhancement, but with sharpening its readability
- was much improved. I read a little German, so
- that makes readability less of an issue for me (in
- the sense that if you can read the language, you
- can read more indistinct reproductions).
-
- Saying this, it would have been nice to have had
- it enhanced before it was posted, but it seemed
- a little churlish to complain so much about the
- visibility - others have posted documents of
- marginal
- readibility in the past. Actually Neil Stirling
- has the record, I think, for most readable scans
- of old documents.
-



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



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

XyZspineZyX
09-18-2003, 04:33 PM
Vo101_Isegrim wrote:

- In other words : you have no idea of real roll rate
- values for the 109 at high speeds,

..... What's your point??? I openly stated that I do not know what the high speed roll rates of the later Bf109 series were. And I said as much. Did you fail reading comprehension in school?? I repeat my original question to you, boy genius: DO YOU KNOW??? CAN YOU PROVIDE VERIFIABLE DATA???? Or will you continue to dance aroubnd with all sorts of "pseudo-facts"?


- yet you continoue to propagate it was poor.

..... I absolutely never said that the high speed roll rate was poor!!! If you will trouble yourself to actually read what was written, I stated 2/3 aileron deflection at 770kph might actually be just fine, but was not definitive evidence, in and of itself, of a good roll rate. You not only create straw man arguments, you grow the grass, dry it, and create your own convenient figures.



-- Do you yourself
-- know what roll rate would be under partial
-- deflection?
-
- Not the exact value.

..... Thank you for your honesty. I will forever treasure this moment in time.



- However I know from Butch2k
- that the wing twist effects appeared on the 109 at
- rather high airspeed, making it relatively
- independent from the major reason for roll rate
- reduction at high speed, whereas the forces at
- ,75MAch and 2/3 deflection would be very great, and
- allow for considerable roll rate.

..... Let's put this into plain language for the viewing public. Colonel Carson is a biased American. Eric Brown is an unacceptable source. The German aero engineer (whose name I have forgotten) was incompetent in his calculations. But information provided by forum participant Butch2K meets your high standards for reliable data.

So, based upon Butch2K's advice to you that the wing structure of the Bf109 did not display torsional flexure until "rather high airspeed", it is your estimate that .75 mach and 2/3 aileron deflection would produce a "considerable roll rate". If someone were to present such an argument to you, here is what you would reply:

(1) Stupid theories from someone who knows nothing.
(2) You accept data from some forum lurker? Hah!
(3) Wing twist? Show me the report!
(4) "Considerable roll rate" is not a scientific term.



-- You represent yourself as an
-- aeronautical engineering authority, whose
-- conclusions are superior to formally trained aero
-- engineers.
-
- Thats bullsh*t, but again, I have never claimed
- myself an *aeronautical engineering authority*,
- altough I know well much more easier for you to
- attack my person with forged statements on me rather
- than to try to disprove the facts I posted.

..... "Forged statements"???? - how laughable! Such a craven retreat into this sudden false modesty will gain you no cover at this point. You are the one who endlessly criticizes any aeronautical engineer whose data and opinions contradict your own. If you never explicity claimed to be an *aeronautical engineering authority*, your behavior has openly done so repeatedly.



-- You continue to harp upon the point that Colonel
-- Carson never himself flew a 109. Has it ever struck
-- you that, in Carson's service as a wartime fighter
-- pilot, he quite likely saw many of them in combat
-- action from his cockpit?
-
- And, Carson saw them in combat, and through
- telepathy, or other mystical powers, he started to
- feel how the plane handles, what control forces are
- like etc ?
-
- Kit Carson, Fighter pilot, Aeronautical engineer,
- and the Last Word for Bf 109 He Never Flew and Does
- Not Know.

..... Another desperate and increasingly tiresome Isegrim response of last resort - the famous high-side ad hominem attack. The appraisals of US a/c performance by German WW2 pilots, which you like to quote, must have similarly come via telepathy and mystical powers, yet you have no compunction about accepting their validity when they support your beliefs. Get your dictionary out and read the definition of HYPOCRITE. You meet the standards eminently.



-- This would qualify as good
-- first person observation,
-
- So, your point is, that we should accept the opinon
- of Carson who proved his ignorance regarding the
- development of the Bf 109, and never ever flew one,
- over pilots like Erich Hartmann, Mark Hanna, Paul
- Coggan, or just any wartime LW pilot who actually
- flew the plane for many, many hours..?

..... No! You are just raising another of you home made straw man arguments. Carson flew in active combat and without doubt witnessed the flight behavior of Bf109's in action. By that standard, his first person observations have a degree of first person validity. No one, least of all I, has ever said that his report was the final judgment on the Bf109 as an entire model series. OTOH, this is not to say that his criticisms of the 109E, for example, are not perfectly valid

As regards your other arguments -

As you well know but choose to ignore, Hanna and Coggan have rarely if ever exceeded 550kph or 15,000 feet. They do not put high stresses on these priceless historic a/c. They do exhibition flying at speeds typically less than 500kph. They report excellent handling characteristics in this speed regime. NO ONE HAS EVER DISPUTED THIS FACT! Hoever, the question at hand has to do with high speed roll rate performance and not low speed handling.

Erich Hartmann or any other LW pilot would most likely. have said that they liked their a/c simply because they were well accustomed to them. Objective analysis must account for this sort of subjectivity. Pilot comments such as: "I didn't like the P47 because the cockpit was too big", or "I didn't like the Bf109 because the cockpit was too small" are not meaningful. A report such as: "I easily caught the enemy a/c in a full power 50 degree power dive" or "the enemy aircraft was able to turn inside me" or "I was unable to follow the enemy a/c through his roll reversal" carry more weight, although, even in those cases the conditions are not sufficienty controlled to assume full scientific validity.

Col Carson undoubtedly saw the Bf109 in combat action. Without question, he also had access to the relevant USAAC evaluation flight reports. Col Carson also saw the FW190 in combat action and certainly had access to similar evaluation data. He got the FW190 spot on. In fact, he said it was a GREAT fighter a/c. So spare us all the lame bits about Carson being a chauvinist and flag waver. You have no case.


-- You are quite willing to accept similar sorts
-- of testimony regarding US aircraft from German
-- fighter pilots, who also likely never flew the a/c
-- in question.
-
- Care to expand on that ? Can me tell me WHEN and
- WHERE exactly I qouted ANY pilot who didnt flew a US
- fighter regarding of its handling qualities?
-
- What a crap!


..... Please, Isegrim, don't make me laugh.



Blutarski

XyZspineZyX
09-18-2003, 05:07 PM
@ Blutarski
pls, answer my question .did you read browns book ?

you wrote :
- Are you referring in part to Eric Brown's comments he said nothing about handling at speeds greater than 300mph.



@ Huckebein, it is enough now , the 109 was a good plane , but it is far to be an "holy" piece of art .


http://www.bayern.de/Layout/wappen.gif

Bavaria is one of the oldest European states.
It dates back to about 500 A.D., when the Roman Empire was overcome by the onslaught of Germanic tribes. According to a widespread theory, the Bavarian tribe had descended from the Romans who remained in the country, the original Celtic population and the Germanic invaders.

Bavarian History : http://www.bayern.de/Bayern/Information/geschichteE.html#kap0

XyZspineZyX
09-18-2003, 07:50 PM
Boandlgramer wrote:
- @ Blutarski
- pls, answer my question .did you read browns book ?
-
- you wrote :
-- Are you referring in part to Eric Brown's comments he said nothing about handling at speeds greater than 300mph.


..... I do have Brown's book in my library, have read it, but it has been a long time since I have done so. I was relying upon what had been extracted and posted here by others for immediate reference.

In any case, the central point remains. Except for the 109E. no one, including Isegrim and Huckebein, has produced any explicit data on the high speed roll rate performacne of the 109.



- the 109 was a good - plane , but it is far to be an "holy" piece of art

..... I quite agree with your appraisal of the 109 - an effective and dangerous fighter in competent hands with its own array of good and bad points. It amazes me how some people just become so unimaginably irrational about this stuff.



Blutarski

XyZspineZyX
09-18-2003, 07:58 PM
Huckebein_FW wrote

And I doubt Carson considered U.S. planes to have no
-- faults or problem areas.


Oh so you haven't read his book ?
Bf-109 was never surpassed by any western design
- fighter. Give me an example of such of fighter and
- we'll make a comparison.

P-38
P-39
P-40
P-47
P-51
Wildcat
Hellcat
Corsair
Bearcat


-
- From the beginning to the end of war there was no
- worth to mention competitor for Bf-109. American
- planes were always unbelievable uncompetitive
- compared to Bf-109.

YOu know Huck you might be right. I think Messerschmitt 109s killed more German pilots than any single type of American plane. maybe I'll post an article I have at home. A friend of Macky Steinhoff's stating that 11000 out of 33000 109s were written off in landing accidents. Must be a fine airplane that.

Fanatics R Funny!!!!!



http://idealab.snu.ac.kr/~hobbist/La-5FN/small/La-5FN-06.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-18-2003, 10:24 PM
BLUTARSKI wrote:
- Vo101_Isegrim wrote:
-
-- In other words : you have no idea of real roll rate
-- values for the 109 at high speeds,
-
- ..... What's your point??? I openly stated that I do
- not know what the high speed roll rates of the later
- Bf109 series were. And I said as much. Did you fail
- reading comprehension in school?? I repeat my
- original question to you, boy genius: DO YOU KNOW???
- CAN YOU PROVIDE VERIFIABLE DATA???? Or will you
- continue to dance aroubnd with all sorts of
- "pseudo-facts"?
-
-
-
-- yet you continoue to propagate it was poor.
-
- ..... I absolutely never said that the high speed
- roll rate was poor!!! If you will trouble yourself
- to actually read what was written, I stated 2/3
- aileron deflection at 770kph might actually be just
- fine, but was not definitive evidence, in and of
- itself, of a good roll rate. You not only create
- straw man arguments, you grow the grass, dry it, and
- create your own convenient figures.



-
-- However I know from Butch2k
-- that the wing twist effects appeared on the 109 at
-- rather high airspeed, making it relatively
-- independent from the major reason for roll rate
-- reduction at high speed, whereas the forces at
-- ,75MAch and 2/3 deflection would be very great, and
-- allow for considerable roll rate.
-
- ..... Let's put this into plain language for the
- viewing public. Colonel Carson is a biased American.

Correction, Carson is a biased and totally ignorant American who wrote an article without doing even BASIC research. You deny that, fine.

-
- Eric Brown is an unacceptable source.
-

No, Eric`s Brown said the ailerons were "moderately light" on the Bf 109G. I have no problem with his comments, while keeping in mind what 109 version he flew. I, unlike you, don`t make up qoutes from him.


-
- The German
- aero engineer (whose name I have forgotten) was
- incompetent in his calculations.
-

In calculations, probably not. However, he could get the correct power, weight etc. values for the plane in question, and he used a French wind tunnel test of a 109F equipped with a bomb to prove that his theoretical estimations were correct.



-
- But information
- provided by forum participant Butch2K meets your
- high standards for reliable data.
-

1000% correct on this one. I doubt hardly anybody who lives today knows more on the 109 than Butch.



- So, based upon Butch2K's advice to you that the wing
- structure of the Bf109 did not display torsional
- flexure until "rather high airspeed", it is your
- estimate that .75 mach and 2/3 aileron deflection
- would produce a "considerable roll rate". If someone
- were to present such an argument to you, here is
- what you would reply:
-
- (1) Stupid theories from someone who knows nothing.
- (2) You accept data from some forum lurker? Hah!
- (3) Wing twist? Show me the report!
- (4) "Considerable roll rate" is not a scientific
- term.
-


I don`t remember when I have given you permission to speak in my name...



-
--- You represent yourself as an
--- aeronautical engineering authority, whose
--- conclusions are superior to formally trained aero
--- engineers.
--
-- Thats bullsh*t, but again, I have never claimed
-- myself an *aeronautical engineering authority*,
-- altough I know well much more easier for you to
-- attack my person with forged statements on me rather
-- than to try to disprove the facts I posted.
-
- ..... "Forged statements"???? - how laughable!

Crime is perhaps laughable for you; for me, it`s something to be punished.



- Such
- a craven retreat into this sudden false modesty will
- gain you no cover at this point.

Pathetic... you said I claim myself an aeronautical expert. That was totally unfounded. I said I am no aeronautical expert.

You call this "false modesty".

I think you`re nuts.



- You are the one who
- endlessly criticizes any aeronautical engineer whose
- data and opinions contradict your own.

Not only my own.... everybody else`s as well..



-
- If you never
- explicity claimed to be an *aeronautical engineering
- authority*, your behavior has openly done so
- repeatedly.
-

That`s kinda like that altough Blutarski never claimed himself an idiot, his behaviour has done so repeatadly.

"Snake bites it`s own tail"; typical logical flaw from people who can`t even notice how much self-dillusional their own behaviour is.



-
--- You continue to harp upon the point that Colonel
--- Carson never himself flew a 109. Has it ever struck
--- you that, in Carson's service as a wartime fighter
--- pilot, he quite likely saw many of them in combat
--- action from his cockpit?
--
-- And, Carson saw them in combat, and through
-- telepathy, or other mystical powers, he started to
-- feel how the plane handles, what control forces are
-- like etc ?
--
-- Kit Carson, Fighter pilot, Aeronautical engineer,
-- and the Last Word for Bf 109 He Never Flew and Does
-- Not Know.
-
- ..... Another desperate and increasingly tiresome
- Isegrim response of last resort - the famous
- high-side ad hominem attack.


AKA the truth.



- The appraisals of US
- a/c performance by German WW2 pilots, which you like
- to quote, must have similarly come via telepathy and
- mystical powers, yet you have no compunction about
- accepting their validity when they support your
- beliefs. Get your dictionary out and read the
- definition of HYPOCRITE. You meet the standards
- eminently.


Get the dictionary and look up the word LIAR. That`s a person who puts words and qoutes into someone`s mouth with intent and knownladge of he never said it, and explicitely said again he never did.



-
--- This would qualify as good
--- first person observation,
--
-- So, your point is, that we should accept the opinon
-- of Carson who proved his ignorance regarding the
-- development of the Bf 109, and never ever flew one,
-- over pilots like Erich Hartmann, Mark Hanna, Paul
-- Coggan, or just any wartime LW pilot who actually
-- flew the plane for many, many hours..?
-
- ..... No! You are just raising another of you home
- made straw man arguments. Carson flew in active
- combat and without doubt witnessed the flight
- behavior of Bf109's in action. By that standard, his
- first person observations have a degree of first
- person validity. No one, least of all I, has ever
- said that his report was the final judgment on the
- Bf109 as an entire model series. OTOH, this is not
- to say that his criticisms of the 109E, for example,
- are not perfectly valid


Well at least something that we can nearly agree of.




- As regards your other arguments -
-
- As you well know but choose to ignore, Hanna and
- Coggan have rarely if ever exceeded 550kph or 15,000
- feet.

- They do not put high stresses on these
- priceless historic a/c. They do exhibition flying at
- speeds typically less than 500kph. They report
- excellent handling characteristics in this speed
- regime. NO ONE HAS EVER DISPUTED THIS FACT! Hoever,
- the question at hand has to do with high speed roll
- rate performance and not low speed handling.
-


So, let me conclude, you, and your other trasher buddies, in one part deny that Hanna or Coggan exceed 550 kph, yet at the same time you also claim that it`s exactly Hanna`s and Coggan`s own experiences that prove that the 109 had poor roll rate at high speeds, those speeds, again, you claim they never reached...



-
- Erich Hartmann or any other LW pilot would most
- likely. have said that they liked their a/c simply
- because they were well accustomed to them. Objective
- analysis must account for this sort of subjectivity.
- Pilot comments such as: "I didn't like the P47
- because the cockpit was too big", or "I didn't like
- the Bf109 because the cockpit was too small" are not
- meaningful. A report such as: "I easily caught the
- enemy a/c in a full power 50 degree power dive" or
- "the enemy aircraft was able to turn inside me" or
- "I was unable to follow the enemy a/c through his
- roll reversal" carry more weight, although, even in
- those cases the conditions are not sufficienty
- controlled to assume full scientific validity.
-

Agree, though this again deprieves poor Carson`s opinion being accepted as of full scientific validity. Let`s just say it`s closer to pilot stories.


- Col Carson undoubtedly saw the Bf109 in combat
- action. Without question, he also had access to the
- relevant USAAC evaluation flight reports.

Merely hypothesis..


- Col Carson
- also saw the FW190 in combat action and certainly
- had access to similar evaluation data.


Hypothesis again.. you`re building your castle on sand.


- He got the
- FW190 spot on. In fact, he said it was a GREAT
- fighter a/c. So spare us all the lame bits about
- Carson being a chauvinist and flag waver. You have
- no case.

Carson is an ignorant regarding the 109, I don`t care to expand further on his personal qualities; they are irrevelant at the time.

Nota bene, it was others again who called him flag waver and chauvinst, not without fundation I must add.



-
--- You are quite willing to accept similar sorts
--- of testimony regarding US aircraft from German
--- fighter pilots, who also likely never flew the a/c
--- in question.
--
-- Care to expand on that ? Can me tell me WHEN and
-- WHERE exactly I qouted ANY pilot who didnt flew a US
-- fighter regarding of its handling qualities?
--
-- What a crap!
-
-
- ..... Please, Isegrim, don't make me laugh.


In other words : Blutarski said I qouted German combat pilots regarding US a/c performance and handling, he was asked to support this statement of his which I called false, and he utterly failed at that.

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
09-18-2003, 10:43 PM
SkyChimp wrote:
-
- Vo101_Isegrim wrote:
-
-- Where did he say that ? Oh, wet dreams of 109
-- trashers..
-
- Trashers? No, hardly, my little Hungarian friend.
- Just trying to keep things in perspective. You,
- however, try to assign mystic qualities to the
- Bf-109. But what would one suspect from someone who
- says he "worships" the plane?

Mystic qualities ? /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif What`s mystical about light aileron forces ?


-
-- OK, so, what does that mean? What does Mark Hanna
-- really says?
--
-- He says the _roll rate_ is VERY GOOD below 250mph.
--
-- He says the _roll rate_ at 300mph is similiar to
-- P-51. According to NACA chart, P-51 did about 90
-- deg/sec at this speed, and required no less than 50
-- lbs stickforce for it.
-
- He doesn't say "_roll rate_" is the same, he says
- FORCE is the same.

A few lines below you will tell the exact opposite. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

-
-- He says that above 300mph the _stick force_, repeat,
-- the _stickforce_ is heavying up, and thus two hands
-- are required. NOT the roll rate! How much can a
-- pilot pull sideways with onbe hand?
-
- He says two hands are required for any MEANINGFUL
- ROLL RATE. Re-read the report.
-

"Two hands required" translate to ~25lbs + stickforce. Still very light.



-
-- 20-23 lbs. Mark
-- Hanna thus says above 300mph the stickforce is more
-- than 20-23lbs. This agrees with paul coggan, who
-- says that at 285 mph the stickforce is 20 lbs.
-
- Hanna says no such thing. You're fabricating this.
-

Mark Hanna says one hand is enough up to about 300 mph.
With one hand, pilots can exert about 20-23 lbs sideways.

For you : 1 hand = 20-23 lbs.

Interestingly enough, Coggan says exactly 20 lbs required at 290mph.

Enough said.



-
- Hanna says "Above 250 mph however the roll starts to
- ***heavy up*** and up to 300 or so is very similar
- to a P-51. After that it's all getting ***pretty
- solid*** and you need two hands on the stick for any
- ***meaningfull*** roll rates."
-
- You continually blather on about the 50lb force
- required in the Mustang, so by your standard the
- Bf-109 rewired 50lbs of force at 300 mph, and way
- over that at higher speeds.
-

Source for 50 lbs required at 300mph? Coggan says 20 lbs. Hanna says 1 hand required, which eqauls about 20 lbs again.

NACA chart shows 50 lbs stickforce for P-51B at 300mph.

50 is more than 20.



-
- No wonder the G model had its best roll rate at such
- a low speed.
-
- BTW, if you read his 109E review, you'll see that he
- says "Max sideways force a pilot can apply
- conveniently to the Bf 109 stick 40 lbs."
-
- Stop with the 20 lbs bull$hit. It's a UNTRUE.
-

I don`t see any logical connection between these 3 sentences.


-
-- Mark Hanna and Paul Coggan agree : Mustang had
-- heavier ailerons than Bf 109 already at 300mph !
-
- He says no such thing. He says roll rate was good,
- but starts to heavy up, being similar to the P-51 at
- 300 mph. Above that, two hands are required for
- MEANINGFUL roll rate. He does not compare them
- beloew 300mph. he simply syas they are about equal
- at 300 mph.

Hanna says 1 hand is enough for 109 at 300mph. How many hands you need for meaningful roll rates in a P-51, Chimp? I say 2, based on the NACA chart.



-
-- The ELEVATOR, repeat, the ELEVATOR. The elevator was
-- good at low speeds, avarage at medium speeds, poor
-- at high speeds.
--
-- As Eric Brown said : the rudder was light, the
-- ailerons moderately light, the elevator extremely
-- heavy.
-
- Tell that to your partner, Huckles. You guys are
- diametrically opposed on this issue. Huckles
- mainatins the Bf-109 had light elevators at all
- speeds and under all conditions.


And? Why can`t Huck have different opinion on that than I? My opinion is that the 109 had heavy elevators, but they didn`t cause too serious restriction in combat.

BTW, Huckie is just trying to help you, you should practice more with the heavy elevator of the 109, so that the similiarly heavy P-51, and the excessively heavy P-80 elevators don`t catch you pants down. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif



-
-- Hanna says ? No, Skychimp is out of facts (well, he
-- never had any..), so he now forges qoutes from Mark
-- Hanna. The below qoute is from the RAE, again,the
-- RAEs report on a Bf 109E, not Mark Hannas. This
-- report is also qouted by Carson, who tries to sell a
-- Bf 109E report as if it was about a Bf 109 G or K...
-
- I forged nothing. That's my commentary and that's
- why its spaced out from the rest of the text.

Are the 109E comments from Hanna or RAE, Chimp? You said it`s Hanna`s, whereas they come from RAE.



-
- And chalk up another one from the Luftwaffe
- worshippers. Issy, you are a master of reading into
- a report that which you want it to say.
-

Why, thank you. It`s my job to get the correct meaning of documents you know.

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
09-19-2003, 02:03 AM
There is a book called "wings of the luftwaffe" by captain eric brown isbn 0891412972

he flew the 109G6 and stated that the fastest he dove the 109G6 was to 440 mph below 10,000ft and the solidity of control was such that this was the limit in my book

XyZspineZyX
09-19-2003, 05:11 AM
pinche_gabacho wrote:
- There is a book called "wings of the luftwaffe" by
- captain eric brown isbn 0891412972
-
- he flew the 109G6 and stated that the fastest he
- dove the 109G6 was to 440 mph below 10,000ft and the
- solidity of control was such that this was the limit
- in my book

Not sure if that is the same book by Brown that others have quoted from... Yours sounds a bit different? Would you mind posting that whole paragrah? Sounds like another one to add to the LONG LIST of people who have stated the same.



<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
09-19-2003, 05:22 AM
Saburo_0 wrote:
plane. maybe I'll post
- an article I have at home. A friend of Macky
- Steinhoff's stating that 11000 out of 33000 109s
- were written off in landing accidents. Must be a
- fine airplane that.

No .. not 11,000

The figure commonly stated is 5% of 109's written off in take off, landing AND taxi related incidents. A combination of poor forward vis. and narrow track being the main factors.

The narrow track is a result of the wheels being mounted on the fuselage to reduce load on the wings.

Even allowing for 36000 109's (if you count the ones made in other axis nations) .. 5% is till only 1800 written off .. not 11,000 and that 1800 is in ALL ground related incidents not just landing.





<center> http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0SQDLAtUWiWZ3BKw19!aryp7v3C1h1DuNwpHOOuqhlraGSyMAY KiPEOZAA1OBgsLu*Sa0UQ2my0PiFyvNkJ5K7Clsoy7yNtEvOXY nHDuPNiotpZACY2oJxw/aircraftround.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
09-19-2003, 05:48 AM
I've repeatedly heard 1/3 as the 'common' number WTE. Could you post some sources for 5%? Not being an a@@hat here, I just want to know!

Barfly
Executive Officer
7. Staffel, JG 77 "Black Eagles"

http://www.7jg77.com

XyZspineZyX
09-19-2003, 06:54 AM
Huckebein_FW wrote:
- Excellent personal attacks, congrats to you all!

WHAT A CLOWN!



<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
09-19-2003, 08:47 AM
This is all very hilarious! people getting steamed up arguing over something 60 years ago about which they have no personal experience, quoting from texts written by writers who may or may not have had personal experience,,.


...who cares! It's done, it's dealt, it's history!


Another "famous blue stone of Galveston "moment

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

XyZspineZyX
09-19-2003, 12:58 PM
Huckebein_FW wrote:
- Yes we all are laughing now.
-
- Can you mention that american design?

Remind me of that sea level speed of the 109,
and that of the P51? Or the high altitude speed
of the P47M and that of the 109? And what was
that 109 range figure?

The 109 was competitive, but in every aspect
of its performance it was beaten by one Allied
aircraft or another. Similarly, most Allied aircraft
were beaten in one aspect or other of their performance
by LW aircraft.

We can play willy-waving pick-and-choose performance
aspects until the cows come home (if the cows don't
die of boredom first).

Let's face it, this whole thread is getting pretty
pathetic, and a lot of people are behaving like children
stomping up and down when someone insults their favourite
kiddie pop band, or something. Some people here will
argue the sky is pink if another says it is blue, or
throw up the silliest, and most pointless, objections
even when someone comes up with evidence.

A few have retained their dignity, and some composure
at least.

But, to paraphrase that famous B17 gunner Clark Gable,
as Rhett Butler, frankly my dear, I don' give a damn.

Anyway - I am out of here - I'm at a conference all
next week.

XyZspineZyX
09-19-2003, 03:56 PM
Congrats Isegrim!!!!


That is perhaps the absolutely lamest defence I have ever seen in my life. Couldn't help but laugh; you absolutely made my morning; In all honesty, you are such a hopeless fan-boy.

The following will probably be completely wasted upon you, but in the belief that hope springs eternal, I nevertheless make the effort. On the subject of roll rates, here is further evidence of the dangers inherent in making semi-informed extrapolations in the realm of aeronautical engineering analysis -


QUOTE -

Being able to roll out quickly from a dive is a useful tactical manoeuvre. Such a breakaway required a high rate of bank at high speeds under the maximum force (about 23kg (50lb)) that the average pilot could reasonably be expected to apply. It also needed good stability and control in the turn at or near the pilot's blackout point. The time to bank through a given angle, for a given pilot's force, varies for geometrically similar aircraft with the fourth power of the wingspan. This led to the 'clipped wing' (span reduced by 11.5%) Spitfire of 1942 that could roll 150 deg per second at 170kts compared with 105 deg/sec for one having a normal elliptical wing. There is a damping effect that depends on the aspect ratio and rate of roll. For a given aspect-ratio the difficulty of providing light ailerons also varies as the fourth power of the span.

....Now, Isegrim, pay close attention to the following:

The problem of aileron balance during World War Two was so delicate that comparatively small variations would make all the difference between good and bad control at high speed. Aileron hinge moments are very sensitive to small protuberances on the control surface, as well as to the curvature of the profile. Since the standard of workmanship in wartime was bound to deteriorate owing to the dilution of skilled labour with semi- and unskilled workers, there was a large variation in aileron heaviness between individual aircraft of a given type.

- UNQUOTE


What does this all mean? It means that extremely small design and configuration factors, such as hinge moment, external mass balances, transitional curvatures, misalighments, etc, can very greatly influence roll rates at high speeds. Unless you happen to have your own private wind-tunnel in your garden, it is impossible to know the degree to which these factors would influence the roll performance of any aircraft, including the Bf109. If you ignore the influence of such factors, your estimates can be off by orders of magnitude.

I will happily post the citation for you, but I want to first give you the opportunity to tell us all yet again what a moron the author must be.

The only point I have ever attempted to make here is that knowing the aileron deflection and speed does not mean that a correct roll rate value can necessarily be estimated or assumed. It amazes me how you fling yourself off the deep end over this.



Blutarski

XyZspineZyX
09-19-2003, 04:20 PM
Nicely done Blutarski! I have to say I am enjoying all of this, even though I kind of forget what the original point was. Let me try to anticipate the response:

- such a hopeless fan-boy.

If being a fan boy means you are a liar thats true.

- the dangers inherent in making semi-informed
- extrapolations in the realm of aeronautical
- engineering analysis -

The only semi-informed people here are you and that flag waving John Bircher Colonel Carson.

- 'clipped wing' (span reduced by 11.5%) Spitfire of
- 1942

The Me-109 had a clipped wing in 1936.

- skilled labour with semi- and unskilled workers,
- there was a large variation in aileron heaviness
- between individual aircraft of a given type.

True, the workers in the USA might be illiterate, but
the workers in Germany quoted Goethe and listened
to Beethoven while they worked and such imperfections were not present in Luftwaffe aircraft.

- happen to have your own private wind-tunnel in your
- garden,

I dont have a wind tunnel but maybe you could blow a fart at an Me-109 model and figure it out for yourself. That is the closest you or your pal Carson will ever get to reality.

-
- I will happily post the citation for you, but I want
- to first give you the opportunity to tell us all yet
- again what a moron the author must be.

Why dont you do that or should we trust someone who
lies and distorts the truth! What is it you say should the wolf gard the chicken house?

-
- necessarily be estimated or assumed. It amazes me
- how you fling yourself off the deep end over this.
-
You should be commited to an institute for the chronically hypocritical for your own safety.

XyZspineZyX
09-19-2003, 04:39 PM
WTE_Galway wrote:
-
- - No .. not 11,000
-
- The figure commonly stated is 5% of 109's written
- off in take off, landing AND taxi related incidents.
- A combination of poor forward vis. and narrow track
- being the main factors.
-
- The narrow track is a result of the wheels being
- mounted on the fuselage to reduce load on the wings.
-
- Even allowing for 36000 109's (if you count the ones
- made in other axis nations) .. 5% is till only 1800
- written off .. not 11,000 and that 1800 is in ALL
- ground related incidents not just landing.
-
-
-Well I didn't take the figure as authoritative, tho i have read in hartmans' book & Lipferts accounts about the difficulty of landing the 109 for new pilots . I was just taking the P these boys seem silly to me. From what i've read only Willoy Messr.s ego kept the 109 being improved in some basic ways that would have helped, like fixing those splayed out wheels. Teh Spit had a similar outward retracting undercarridgebut was much easier to handle on the ground etc per reports/...blah blah .

German technology gets too much credit IMHO. It was ussually tactics & training that were responsible for their successes. This is esp. true in aircombat.
Hartman would have scored as much if he flew P-51s & liekly would have been a great ace even in P-40s IMHO.


-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- <center> <img
- src="http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0SQDLAtUWiWZ3BK
- w19!aryp7v3C1h1DuNwpHOOuqhlraGSyMAYKiPEOZAA1OBgsLu
- *Sa0UQ2my0PiFyvNkJ5K7Clsoy7yNtEvOXYnHDuPNiotpZACY2
- oJxw/aircraftround.jpg "> </center>



http://idealab.snu.ac.kr/~hobbist/La-5FN/small/La-5FN-06.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-19-2003, 05:34 PM
Slopchute,

I see you are a new subscriber to the forum. Welcome. Give Huck and Isegrim a kiss for me before you put the lights out tonight.



Blutarski

XyZspineZyX
09-19-2003, 07:45 PM
BLUTARSKI wrote:
- Slopchute,
-
- I see you are a new subscriber to the forum.
- Welcome. Give Huck and Isegrim a kiss for me before
- you put the lights out tonight.

Is this a case of kissing cousins? Didn't Elvis make a movie about this? If so, is Huck the red headed Elvis? /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
09-19-2003, 07:54 PM
Should't mods drop in here already?


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

XyZspineZyX
09-19-2003, 08:16 PM
Yupp. Pilots of all nationalities always seem to figure out ways to stay alive and put a hurt on the opposition, as long as their planes had some redeeming value. But there were some extreme cases of equipment mismatch such as the F2 (Buffalo Brewster) vs A6M Zero where no amount of tactics or training (other than hiding underground) would have kept the Brewster from being Brewed up.

XyZspineZyX
09-19-2003, 08:22 PM
slopchute wrote:

-- I will happily post the citation for you, but I want
-- to first give you the opportunity to tell us all yet
-- again what a moron the author must be.
-
- Why dont you do that or should we trust someone who
- lies and distorts the truth! What is it you say
- should the wolf gard the chicken house?



Slopchute/Isegrim/Huckebein,


Sorry I missed your request for the citation. Here it is -


FUNDAMENTALS OF FIGHTER DESIGN
Ray Whitford
Airlife Publishing, Shrewsbury England
(c) 2000
ISBN 1 84037 112 9



Nighty night. Don't let the P47's bite.



Blutarski

XyZspineZyX
09-19-2003, 08:41 PM
BTW Sen. Blutarski, the post where I was quoting you was meant to be satire... not actual opinion. I was amused by Isegrim's posts and was positing a possible response. I dont know enough about aeronautics/history to get into it for real with you either you or Huck/Ise... As I have stated in other posts I am in the "Me-109 superb in it's day but tired by 1944 camp". My aviation experience is that I play IL-2, watch the history channel occasionally, and fly to Florida once a year http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif



Message Edited on 09/19/0307:49PM by slopchute

XyZspineZyX
09-19-2003, 08:47 PM
Saburo_0 wrote:
Huck wrote:



Bf-109 was never surpassed by any western design
- fighter. Give me an example of such of fighter and
- we'll make a comparison.

P-38
P-39
P-40
Wildcat



muahahaha... you just made the joke of the week http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif


a real expert http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Message Edited on 09/19/0308:49PM by NuFoerki

XyZspineZyX
09-19-2003, 09:10 PM
Slopchute,

Please accept my sincerest apologies.

I missed the humorous intent of your post. I guess I have been spending too much time on the Isegrim/Huckebein internet transmission frequency.



Blutarski

XyZspineZyX
09-19-2003, 09:15 PM
Yeah, my feelings exactly... couldn't tell whether or not
he was joking. But here's a serious response in case.

The Wildcat and the P-40 which were obsolete at the time they entered service. The Wildcat had hand-cranked landing gear! The P-40 was underpowered and had poor maneuverablity.

The P-39 as a design had a lot of potential, which was later realized as the P-63, when the war in Europe was about over. As the P-39, the plane had problems with it's engine and armaments. The Allison engine performed poorly at altitude and was unreliable. The 37mm cannon jammed frequently. The Brits outright rejected it when they were desperate for aircraft in early 1942 because of the sluggish high altitude performance and it's tendency to flat spin, and the USAAF withdrew it from the European theatre after 1942. It seemed to work well enough for the Russians though, who admittedly got the most from this quirky plane. You could debate whether these were flaws inherent in the design, or just bugs that needed to be worked out.

The P-38 is a beautiful plane, but could never out turn the Me-109 except at very low speeds, and was inferior in almost every other performance measure. Perhaps the later models might have evened this up a bit, especially the late war supercharged models. It was a logistics/maintenance nightmare, with special parts that only worked for the left or right side engines, which rotated in different directions to eliminate the torque effect. It was withdrawn from combat in Europe by 1943 and replaced with the P-47 and P-51.



NuFoerki wrote:
- Saburo_0 wrote:
- Huck wrote:
-
-
-
-
- Bf-109 was never surpassed by any western design
-- fighter. Give me an example of such of fighter and
-- we'll make a comparison.
-
- P-38
- P-39
- P-40
- Wildcat
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- muahahaha... you just made the joke of the week http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
-
-
- a real expert http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
-
- Message Edited on 09/19/03 08:49PM by NuFoerki





Message Edited on 09/19/0308:19PM by slopchute

XyZspineZyX
09-19-2003, 10:47 PM
Sorry slopchute, the P-38 was still used by squadrons of the 8th AF till mid 1944.(20, 55, 364, 479 FG)


slopchute wrote:
-
-
-
- The P-38 is a beautiful plane, but could never out
- turn the Me-109 except at very low speeds, and was
- inferior in almost every other performance measure.
- Perhaps the later models might have evened this up a
- bit, especially the late war supercharged models. It
- was a logistics/maintenance nightmare, with special
- parts that only worked for the left or right side
- engines, which rotated in different directions to
- eliminate the torque effect. It was withdrawn from
- combat in Europe by 1943 and replaced with the P-47
- and P-51.
-


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



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

XyZspineZyX
09-19-2003, 11:11 PM
Thanks for the correction, I'm sure that's true.
They were replaced by Mustangs though...weren't they?
My point was that the USAAF felt that the P-38 needed to be
replaced because it couldnt really go one on one with
German single engine fighters.

MiloMorai wrote:
- Sorry slopchute, the P-38 was still used by
- squadrons of the 8th AF till mid 1944.(20, 55, 364,
- 479 FG)
-
-
- slopchute wrote:
--
--
--
-- The P-38 is a beautiful plane, but could never out
-- turn the Me-109 except at very low speeds, and was
-- inferior in almost every other performance measure.
-- Perhaps the later models might have evened this up a
-- bit, especially the late war supercharged models. It
-- was a logistics/maintenance nightmare, with special
-- parts that only worked for the left or right side
-- engines, which rotated in different directions to
-- eliminate the torque effect. It was withdrawn from
-- combat in Europe by 1943 and replaced with the P-47
-- and P-51.
--
-
-
-
<img
- src="http://www.stenbergaa.com/stenberg/west-battl
- eline.jpg"> -
-
-
- "Only a dead 'chamber pot' is a good 'chamber pot'!"

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 03:51 AM
uh , i was just teasing by naming every Yankee fighter i could think of because you can argue anything-& some folks seem to. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

I have some more fuel i could throw on the fire ...but think i wont, maybe i'll post it when folks are friendly enough to discuss the relative merits of some ww2 fighters in a pleasant way, not get into fist fights over it.

http://idealab.snu.ac.kr/~hobbist/La-5FN/small/La-5FN-06.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 04:02 AM
BLUTARSKI, thanks for the book title. I've got his earlier "Design for Air Combat" which I also recommend. I'll be looking up this new one, too. And give up trying to convince the Luftwhiners. I know I have. I've run out of ways to present the data such that it will sink in to them (they'll no doubt proclaim this as vindication of their claims. "See, even the engineers stop arguing with us. We must be right!") The less biased posters seem to have the picture, but these guys have definitely lost the plot. In their eyes, everybody's got it wrong but them and the few posters who agree with them. I wonder what color the sky is in their world?

At the risk of fanning flames that are almost out, I would like to point out that the high speed aileron deflection that a lot of people are getting all hot and bothered over is for a Flettner tab equipped aircraft. Milo mentioned this test arrangement several pages back, and I expressed surprise that they would work as well as they did with the 109's wing. I also wondered why such a useful modification was never put into serial production. I'm still wondering. I don't doubt the 2/3-control deflection, nor the unquantified high roll rate this would produce at 770 kph. It is not representative of series production 109's however, unless the Flettner tabs were introduced to the 109 production line at some point. To my knowledge, they were not. The test aircraft does show that someone in the 109 food chain was concerned enough about the standard aircraft's high speed roll performance to modify the test aircraft. The Luftwhiners mentioned the tabs initially (thank you), but failed to mention their significance, and lead everyone to believe this control deflection/airspeed combination was for all 109's. Their style of posting and arguing leads me to believe at least one of them is a lawyer.

Flettner tabs look like trim tabs, but move in opposition to the control surface in order to reduce control forces. In other words, the tab moves down when the aileron moves up, and vice versa. Another way to think about it is as an aileron for the aileron (though Flettner tabs work can work on the rudder and elevators, too.) The tab actually reduces the effectiveness of the control surface slightly (just as the aileron in this position reduces the lift of the entire wing), but because it is on the aileron's trailing edge, the aerodynamic forces acting on the tab have the maximum leverage available to act on the aileron (pushing the control up in this case), reducing control forces dramatically. While the ailerons aren't any more effective for a similar deflection (indeed, they're very slightly less effective), much larger deflections are possible at high dynamic pressure (i.e. high speed), allowing more of the aileron's total travel to be used than would otherwise be the case. "Spades" have a similar effect, though they are mechanically more simple, and draggier. Spades are fixed plates attached to the ailerons by arms extending below and forward of the aileron hinge. Imagine the 109's balancing weights on the FB model, with the bullets replaced by flat plates parallel to the wing. Aerobatic aircraft use these since they're effective, cheap, and their drag isn't a big problem when you're flying a fixed gear Extra 300 anyway. Before anyone asks, AFAIK spades were never used on the 109.

I'm out of town next week (taking the dog to be CT scanned for cancer surgery) so carry on the discussion without me. Or better yet, move on to more productive topics.


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
09-20-2003, 07:47 AM
Blottogg wrote:
- BLUTARSKI, thanks for the book title. I've got his
- earlier "Design for Air Combat" which I also
- recommend. I'll be looking up this new one, too.
- And give up trying to convince the Luftwhiners. I
- know I have. I've run out of ways to present the
- data such that it will sink in to them (they'll no
- doubt proclaim this as vindication of their claims.
- "See, even the engineers stop arguing with us. We
- must be right!") The less biased posters seem to
- have the picture, but these guys have definitely
- lost the plot. In their eyes, everybody's got it
- wrong but them and the few posters who agree with
- them. I wonder what color the sky is in their
- world?

ROTFL!

- At the risk of fanning flames that are almost out, I
- would like to point out that the high speed aileron
- deflection that a lot of people are getting all hot
- and bothered over is for a Flettner tab equipped
- aircraft. Milo mentioned this test arrangement
- several pages back, and I expressed surprise that
- they would work as well as they did with the 109's
- wing. I also wondered why such a useful
- modification was never put into serial production.
- I'm still wondering. I don't doubt the 2/3-control
- deflection, nor the unquantified high roll rate this
- would produce at 770 kph. It is not representative
- of series production 109's however, unless the
- Flettner tabs were introduced to the 109 production
- line at some point. To my knowledge, they were not.

That is interesting.

- The test aircraft does show that someone in the 109
- food chain was concerned enough about the standard
- aircraft's high speed roll performance to modify the
- test aircraft.

Good point.

- The Luftwhiners mentioned the tabs
- initially (thank you), but failed to mention their
- significance, and lead everyone to believe this
- control deflection/airspeed combination was for all
- 109's. Their style of posting and arguing leads me
- to believe at least one of them is a lawyer.

ROTFL.. Funny.. they actually give lawyers a bad name.. and not the other way around.. A first.. for lawyers! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

- Flettner tabs look like trim tabs, but move in
- opposition to the control surface in order to reduce
- control forces. In other words, the tab moves down
- when the aileron moves up, and vice versa. Another
- way to think about it is as an aileron for the
- aileron (though Flettner tabs work can work on the
- rudder and elevators, too.) The tab actually
- reduces the effectiveness of the control surface
- slightly (just as the aileron in this position
- reduces the lift of the entire wing), but because it
- is on the aileron's trailing edge, the aerodynamic
- forces acting on the tab have the maximum leverage
- available to act on the aileron (pushing the control
- up in this case), reducing control forces
- dramatically. While the ailerons aren't any more
- effective for a similar deflection (indeed, they're
- very slightly less effective), much larger
- deflections are possible at high dynamic pressure
- (i.e. high speed), allowing more of the aileron's
- total travel to be used than would otherwise be the
- case. "Spades" have a similar effect, though they
- are mechanically more simple, and draggier. Spades
- are fixed plates attached to the ailerons by arms
- extending below and forward of the aileron hinge.
- Imagine the 109's balancing weights on the FB model,
- with the bullets replaced by flat plates parallel to
- the wing. Aerobatic aircraft use these since
- they're effective, cheap, and their drag isn't a big
- problem when you're flying a fixed gear Extra 300
- anyway. Before anyone asks, AFAIK spades were never
- used on the 109.

Very interesting.. I was wondering what that Flettner Tab stuff was when I read milos post. Thanks for breaking it down into terms I could understand.

- I'm out of town next week (taking the dog to be CT
- scanned for cancer surgery) so carry on the
- discussion without me. Or better yet, move on to
- more productive topics.

Good luck with the dogs!



<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
09-20-2003, 07:58 AM
Huckebein_FW wrote:
- Should't mods drop in here already?

Said the guy who started off calling a WWII vet a clown. Typical.



<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
09-20-2003, 10:54 AM
Blottogg wrote:

- Flettner tabs look like trim tabs, but move in
- opposition to the control surface in order to reduce
- control forces. In other words, the tab moves down
- when the aileron moves up, and vice versa.

Interesting post, thanks.

Good luck with the dog.

Regards,

Rocketdog.

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 11:14 AM
RocketDog wrote:
-
- Blottogg wrote:
-
-- Flettner tabs look like trim tabs, but move in
-- opposition to the control surface in order to reduce
-- control forces. In other words, the tab moves down
-- when the aileron moves up, and vice versa.
-
- Interesting post, thanks.
-
- Good luck with the dog.
-
- Regards,
-
- Rocketdog.
-

Ah, that's what they're called. Knew what they were, but the name didn't ring any bells - well, it has been 20 yrs since I did this stuff /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

So, anyone know if they were fitted to production 109s or was it just a 'smokescreen?'

Doesn't the IL-2 have them? I could swear you see them moving contra the ailerons if you look sideways from the cockpit. Must look again next time I fly.

And what RD said about the dog: GL.


Kernow
249 IAP

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 11:34 AM
tagert wrote:
- Huckebein_FW wrote:
-- Should't mods drop in here already?
-
- Said the guy who started off calling a WWII vet a
- clown. Typical.


When someone writtes an article so poorly researched that each paragraph comes with a horde of mistakes, both technical and historical, then that someone deserves to be called a clown. If we take Col. Kit Carson's particular case, a person so self-deluded that he wanted to give Messerschmitt team, arguably the best at that time, advices to transform Bf109 in a 400mph fighter (?!!), "clown" becames a soft word. Being a ww2 veteran is not a license for stupidity.


Disparaging comments like "109 was obsolete by 1942" at the beginning of the article completely discredit Carson and make his endeavour not worth a comment. What really set this thread on fire was the section about aileron stick forces. Carson says Bf109 ailerons were excessively heavy at high speeds, obviously taking that information from british test on Bf109E (british tests on Bf109 are something to ignore from the beginning, since they are in such a glaring contradiction with russian tests on 109, made with the same war weary Bf109s). Yet Emil served for only a year from the moment the war started full scale in '41. In '41 a new redesigned wing with different ailerons appeared with F series. Ailerons on F model had the same chord with those on Emil but they had HALF the span. That means HALF the aileron area, a huge modification made to improve the stick forces at high speeds. This is why 109 pilots could get 2/3 aileron deflection even at very high speeds like 770km/h CAS.


And tagert your lap-dog behaviour won't make you any popular. Your posts resumes to ROTFL, interesting, very interesting, agreed and LMAO. When your apprehension will rise to 5 procent of what is discussing here call my name again. Until then enjoy in silence posts from our forum specialists Rocketdog and BLUTARSKI that do not what a Flettner tab is. Or from Blottog who knows that already.




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

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 12:36 PM
Blottogg wrote:
- BLUTARSKI, thanks for the book title. I've got his
- earlier "Design for Air Combat" which I also
- recommend. I'll be looking up this new one, too.
- And give up trying to convince the Luftwhiners. I
- know I have. I've run out of ways to present the
- data such that it will sink in to them (they'll no
- doubt proclaim this as vindication of their claims.
- "See, even the engineers stop arguing with us. We
- must be right!") The less biased posters seem to
- have the picture, but these guys have definitely
- lost the plot. In their eyes, everybody's got it
- wrong but them and the few posters who agree with
- them. I wonder what color the sky is in their
- world?


It`s a telling sign as you run out of facts and arguements. Instead, you try to fill the space with your own self-dillusional remarks how everybody must be agreeing you, and how good your "data" (what data? You haven`t posted ANY data, Blotty...) was. In your world, only those who agree with you are "less biased". Typical. Instead of arguements, again we see the demonizing trick: if you don`t agree with me, you`re luftwhiner, biased, etc.

You really deserve pity for being so incompetent even in your own work area.


-
- At the risk of fanning flames that are almost out, I
- would like to point out that the high speed aileron
- deflection that a lot of people are getting all hot
- and bothered over is for a Flettner tab equipped
- aircraft. Milo mentioned this test arrangement
- several pages back, and I expressed surprise that
- they would work as well as they did with the 109's
- wing. I also wondered why such a useful
- modification was never put into serial production.
- I'm still wondering.

'You is wrong'.

Flettner tabs WERE introduced in series production on both rudder and ailerons. The rudder modification was more common, basically all 109s from 1943 onwards had Flettner tabs on their rudders. Aileron Flettner tabs were introduced on the K-4, but were also present on late G-6s, G-14s and probably G-10s as well.



http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/K4flettrudd.jpg


http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/K4flettquer.jpg


Oh, and before we hear the "oh those are just drawings"-matra...:

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/G-14fletquer.jpg



- I don't doubt the 2/3-control
- deflection, nor the unquantified high roll rate this
- would produce at 770 kph. It is not representative
- of series production 109's however, unless the
- Flettner tabs were introduced to the 109 production
- line at some point. To my knowledge, they were not.

This is about the 4th time you repeat that Flettners were not on 109s. You seem to be desperate, at least I think that`s why you repeat this, as you know their existence ruins the very foundation of your arguements.

Otherwise, the value of your knowladge and "expert opinion" is comparable to Carson`s.

Is it some tradiation carried on by US aeronautical engineers to only study at school, then write opionion on aircraft of which`s basic consturction and development they are completely unfamiliar with? It seems to be the case.



- The test aircraft does show that someone in the 109
- food chain was concerned enough about the standard
- aircraft's high speed roll performance to modify the
- test aircraft. The Luftwhiners mentioned the tabs
- initially (thank you), but failed to mention their
- significance, and lead everyone to believe this
- control deflection/airspeed combination was for all
- 109's.


LOL, it`s always the mantra that is supposed to make up for the lack of facts and the capability to present an intelligent arguement. Test aircraft, only test aircraft, not serial aircraft, not serial aircraft, not serial aircraft...



- Their style of posting and arguing leads me
- to believe at least one of them is a lawyer.
-

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


-
- Flettner tabs look like trim tabs, but move in
- opposition to the control surface in order to reduce
- control forces. In other words, the tab moves down
- when the aileron moves up, and vice versa. Another
- way to think about it is as an aileron for the
- aileron (though Flettner tabs work can work on the
- rudder and elevators, too.) The tab actually
- reduces the effectiveness of the control surface
- slightly (just as the aileron in this position
- reduces the lift of the entire wing), but because it
- is on the aileron's trailing edge, the aerodynamic
- forces acting on the tab have the maximum leverage
- available to act on the aileron (pushing the control
- up in this case), reducing control forces
- dramatically. While the ailerons aren't any more
- effective for a similar deflection (indeed, they're
- very slightly less effective), much larger
- deflections are possible at high dynamic pressure
- (i.e. high speed), allowing more of the aileron's
- total travel to be used than would otherwise be the
- case.


Great. Now we know that serial 109s were capable of "much larger deflections are possible at high dynamic pressure, allowing more of the aileron's total travel to be used than would otherwise be the case. "





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
09-20-2003, 12:44 PM
The most pathetic and saddest phenomenon here however is when you, tagert and blutarski suddenly disappear in the other guy`s a$$ after each post, covering it with kisses, testing how much further his tongue can reach. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif "Oh, you were so funny", "Oh, you are so right", "Oh, you really told them". Pathetic.

A sad little company, forced to live by mutual a$$licking, as they proved to be incompetent to win the audience with their arguementive style, facts, or ideas. The only way left for them is to kiss the other guy`s lower face every time, and hope they get something in return next time.

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
09-20-2003, 04:12 PM
Huckebein_FW wrote:
- tagert wrote:
-- Huckebein_FW wrote:
--- Should't mods drop in here already?
--
-- Said the guy who started off calling a WWII vet a
-- clown. Typical.
- *CLIP CUT N PASTE*

You missed the point Huckie... Not suprising really. The point was you have the odasity to CALL IN THE MODIRATORS when someone talks about you in a negative way, but, you feel totally justified calling a WWII Vet a "clown". I just fond that funny, how you can justify that in your mind.. But I find most of what you write funny.. in a sad way!



<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