PDA

View Full Version : Skip Holmes "willie messerschmitt's 109/The flying gun.."



stalkervision
03-09-2007, 02:04 PM
Fine little interview on the 109

http://www.skipholm.com/willy-messerschmitt.htm

http://www.skipholm.com/images/ME109%201sm.jpg

John_Wayne_
03-09-2007, 02:22 PM
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/2072/breed.html

JG52Karaya-X
03-09-2007, 02:29 PM
wow, the haters are very quick today

HayateAce
03-09-2007, 02:37 PM
Carson sums up the 190:

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.

BillyTheKid_22
03-09-2007, 02:42 PM
I am laugh!!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif

stalkervision
03-09-2007, 02:56 PM
(3) Vicious high speed snap rolls if stalled under significant "g" load.

Never have ever heard this before about the me-109. In fact I have heard totally the opposite.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif Sounds like the Corsair! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

faustnik
03-09-2007, 03:05 PM
Originally posted by HayateAce:
Carson sums up the 190:

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.

You left out some of Carson's main points on the 190:

<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">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.</span>

<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">The Fw 190's handling qualities were generally excellent. </span>

<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">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.</span>

stalkervision
03-09-2007, 03:07 PM
Why Col. "Kit" Carson was wrong
This text refers to a famous article,
"The Best of the Breed", Airpower, July, 1976 Vol. 6 No. 4 by Col. "Kit" Carson

Intention of this page here is to correct serious errors in this particular article, which happened due to a serious lack of knowledge about the 109 technics and design history. It begins right here (quotes from the article in "italics"):

"But another household work, the highly propagandized Me-109G, was obsolete when it was built and was aerodynamically the most inefficient fighter of its time. It was a hopeless collection of lumps, bumps, stiff controls, and placed its pilot in a cramped, squarish cockpit with poor visibility."

I don´t want to talk about how much propaganda was done around the spitfire or for american fighters (usually by economic backgrounds or to find new volunatry pilots), let alone russian products. There exist in every country enough "propaganda", so shssst.

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 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. The usually turbulent flow in the tail section lead to a very low overall surface area in this area.
- 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.
- Centered propellor position, thrust line going right through the COG, also allowing for better view forward down

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!

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. 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.

" 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? But it´s getting even better. Look at this weight statistic of a Spit9:



What can we see? Spit 9 carried 5x17.5lb = 87.5lb ballast weight. Isn´t it interesting that Carson considers the ballast/trim weight on a 109E as an incredible design fault, but obviously didn´t know (or avoids to mention) that the Spitfire series (at least the 9) was blessed with even more ballast weight? This alone says a lot about the bias of Carson and his poor knowledge of WW2 fighter technics.

"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". 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. Though washout is an easy and uncomplicated way to achieve good handling characteristics at high AoA, it reduces total possible lift. 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. Results of different measurements, quite often depending on correction factors, Reynolds number and other influences (wind tunnel geometry) 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 of the Naca Report server
109E: 1.48 from full scale Windtunnel test in Charlais Meudan 2)

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 (15.1m^2) 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, maybe even too low!

If we calculate now a "liftloading" by dividing wingloading with maximum lift coefficient (The formula used is: LL = Weight/(Wingarea*Max_Lift_Coeff.), we get the following values (lower is better):

Aircraft Weight [lb] Aspect Ratio Max. Lift Coefficient Wingarea [ft^2] Liftloading [lb/ft^2]
Spit 1 1) 6050 5.62 1.12 242 22.3
109 E 5600 6.0 1.48 174 21.7
P-51 B 2) 9400 5.815 1.28 234 31.4
Spit 9 1) 7450 5.62 1.12 242 27.5
109 G6 7159 6.0 1.48 171 28.3

1) The airfoil of the Spitfires did not change, thus the data from the SpitV wing was taken.
2) The wingload of a P-51B based on 9400lb is 39.9 lb/ft^2 and NOT only 35, the value Carson uses!

The Emil´s liftloading is even slightly better to the spitfire ones´. The G2 would beat the Spit9, but the G6 is slightly worse. On the other hand even a G6 is clearly better than the P-51B´s. This data is without the usage of slats and/or combat flaps!
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...
In the table the aspect ratio is included. It´s important to know that the 109 had a higher aspect ration than a Spit. Often people think the elliptical wing of a Spitfire had huge advantages. They´re wrong. The influence of wing shape and aspect ratio is discussed here.
"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.

"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.
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. Early spitfires did have only 2-pitch settings for their propellor, one for takeoff, one for the flight! 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. 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?


"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. Due to the 2R1 airfoil pitching moments were rather small compared to the outdated 4-digit airfoil of a spitfire for example. The balance effect was not the best, true, but german pilots succesfully got the nose up by violence or by trim. A hard elevator also protected the airframe from too high G-forces. 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. 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. 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?? I already said that Carson is often quoting the RAE test report of the 109-E. In the very same document, the following chart is included, comparing the aileron force of a 109-E to the Spit-1:



Now what does this chart tell us? The 109-E needed for a 1/5 aileron deflection at 400mph 37lb stick force, the Spit-1 57lb. This is a 54% higher stickforce for the Spit pilot. To build up the same moment like in a 109, the stick of a spitfire must have been 54% longer, so it probably would have looked out of the roof window...
Why didn´t Carson mention the worse stickforce characteristics of the Spit-1, which is written down in the same report he uses for his article? I think you, the reader, slowly gets an impression about the bias of Carson and the way he choses and presents his data...

It also should be noted that in technical language you distinguish between an observation, a judgement based on given requirements, and a conclusion. 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. 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. 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!

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? This is no extraordinary high force for pulling. Did english test pilots lack muscles?
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. Of course, if we calcualte just with wingloadings then we get for the radius of the Spit: 829feet / 32 * 25 = 695feet ~690feet
Unfortunatly - i can´t say it often enough - it´s lift/weight that determines the minimum radius and not just wingarea/weight. 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!

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:

(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!
(2) Not true, radius smaller than USAAF aircraft, experienced pilots could turn into Spitfires. 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!
(3) Rudder and aileron trim had to be installed back then in germany for aircraft over 5 tons weight only. 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)
(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
(6) Partly correct, but view forward down was better than that of many other fighters. Erla hood was later an overall improvment
(7) Not true for interceptor role. True for long range escort tasks.

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!
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.



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.
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.

"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 Charlais Meudon with the 109V24, a prototyte of the 109F, showed a CD of 0.24-0.3, depending on surface condition. 0.36 is close to the test with a 500kg bomb. Somebody must have mistaken the test with the installed bomb as a test for a clean 109. What an error! And this is once more just the CD value, to know more about total drag characteristics you have to multiply it with wingarea. Well, the Spit did have a lot of wingarea, right? Let´s see:
Spit: 0.21*244 = 51.24
109: 0.3*171 = 51.3
The 109V24 is equal to a Spitfire, even assuming a really bad drag coefficient for the 109, and the best you can find for the Spitfire. 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... :
109V24: 0.3*161 = 48.3
Fact: Even in the worst condition you can expect, the 109 posessed a lower drag than a Spitfire in best condition! History also tells us that 109 usually was faster when both fighters used same power settings.

"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 that it survived so long. The interest for jets simply drew away attention from the prop driven aircraft, until it was broken 30 years later by rather sportive reasons. However it clearly shows why Messerschmitt is still known as a pioneer in low drag and light construction.

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 forget 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. 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. At high altitudes you better don´t want to "blink" anyway when you try to get through hundreds of enemy fighters. 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. 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!

(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? So once more BS! Btw, the razorback design of the P51-B was considered to have less drag than the later bubble canopy of the D.

(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! Furthermore, the slats are in the area where air is accelerated, thus the air won´t separate as easily.
(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. Bölkow(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 :/$/"§$!"§$ !!!
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.
After the war exactly the same "boundary layer fence", today´s expression, was used for the 109 build in Spain which lacked the slats. The 109 was the first aircraft to carry boundary layer fences, even before the war!



Spanish build 109 with boundary layer fences

(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.


That´s it!

Pictures and graphs..

http://mitglied.lycos.de/luftwaffe1/Carson/Carson.html



Werbung anzeigen

Philips Digital PhotoFrame™. Klicke hier. Blog was Du fďÂż˝hlst auf www.Jubiiblog.de (http://www.Jubiiblog.de)

JG52Karaya-X
03-09-2007, 03:09 PM
I'll get out the popcorn, anybody want some of that too?

I'm very sorry actually for the thread starter, he only posted an interesting pilot interview and in just a few posts it go hi-jacked.

way to go...

stalkervision
03-09-2007, 03:19 PM
that's always the way it goes... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

Badsight-
03-09-2007, 03:48 PM
stalkervision , the 109 wasnt a comfortable plane to fly

cramped cockpit & a constant need for left rudder

besides those things , Kit Carson's critisims of the 109 can be levelled at the Spitfire as well . something he ever bothered to do ?

HayateAce
03-09-2007, 03:54 PM
Maybe you didn't read c l o s e l y enough:

190: Poor turning radius due to high wing loading.

Abbuzze
03-09-2007, 04:02 PM
Originally posted by Badsight-:
stalkervision , the 109 wasnt a comfortable plane to fly

cramped cockpit & a constant need for left rudder


Yes if you have to fly a captured one... the trimtabs were labled "do not touch". If you need constand pressure in flight the trim is wrong and someone touched it. 109 were pretrimmed to fly straight at cruising speed. And as already mentioned the spitfire cockpit was nearly as cramped. Spitfire I/II pilots reported that they pressed their ellbow at the side of the cockpit to improve the aileron stickmovment - I think this gave a nice impression of the space around the pilot. I don´t believe this make the Spitfire a bad plane...

Badsight-
03-09-2007, 04:09 PM
"at cruising speed"

you hit the nail on the head - the 109 needed a constant rudder input , "at anything but your preset trimtab cruise speed level"

as for your spitfire cockpit comment , please pull the other one . not a valid comment . one plane was much more cramped than the other

Badsight-
03-09-2007, 04:10 PM
Originally posted by HayateAce:
Maybe you didn't read c l o s e l y enough:

190: Poor turning radius due to high wing loading. like the P-51 Mustang

but turning ability was secondary to manouverability , like every single Zero pilot found out

VMF-214_HaVoK
03-09-2007, 04:14 PM
Why oh why does this have to happen every single time. Same scenario as always. A person post an article on a specific plane rather it be axis or allied and right away the opposing side has to run out and find something that contradicts it. Fact is you can do this with just about every aircraft discussion.

Oh ****, Oleg might change the game I better run out and find something that says different. Its getting so sad and annoying that I dont even know why Im taking the time out of my day to type this. Not like anyone is going to see the light and suddenly allow others to have their thread without an attempt to hijack it and turn it into a mudslinging contest. My plane is better then yours...wawawawa.

Its like people do it just so they can justify to themselves why they get shot down a lot. Fact is they do so because they are not very good. I hate to be the bearer of bad news but its time to wake up and make a serious effort to get better. If your good you can win the fight in any plane regardless if its the so called inferior plane. Most think a plane is not good if he/she can not win that ridiculous sustained turn fight on the deck in their favorite arcade server. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

stalkervision
03-09-2007, 04:27 PM
Originally posted by Badsight-:
stalkervision , the 109 wasnt a comfortable plane to fly

cramped cockpit & a constant need for left rudder

besides those things , Kit Carson's critisims of the 109 can be levelled at the Spitfire as well . something he ever bothered to do ?

Ahh No.. Mr Hanna was quite comfortable flying the 109 as were many many pilots including British ones..It is a bit hard to get into though for sure but one flies in a semireclining position unlike other ww2 planes. Does that sound uncomfortable to you? Also the 109 rudder has a positive camber built into it to compensate for torque effects at crusing speed and from all I have read the plane is quite neutral at these speeds because of this.

stalkervision
03-09-2007, 04:34 PM
Originally posted by VMF-214_HaVoK:
Why oh why does this have to happen every single time. Same scenario as always. A person post an article on a specific plane rather it be axis or allied and right away the opposing side has to run out and find something that contradicts it. Fact is you can do this with just about every aircraft discussion.

Oh ****, Oleg might change the game I better run out and find something that says different. Its getting so sad and annoying that I dont even know why Im taking the time out of my day to type this. Not like anyone is going to see the light and suddenly allow others to have their thread without an attempt to hijack it and turn it into a mudslinging contest. My plane is better then yours...wawawawa.

Its like people do it just so they can justify to themselves why they get shot down a lot. Fact is they do so because they are not very good. I hate to be the bearer of bad news but its time to wake up and make a serious effort to get better. If your good you can win the fight in any plane regardless if its the so called inferior plane. Most think a plane is not good if he/she can not win that ridiculous sustained turn fight on the deck in their favorite arcade server. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

Yup...Totally. Do these people even realise what real combat is all about which btw the 109 excels at? It's dive/shoot um in the back/zoom and boom. The pilot that sticks around for a "turning contest" is a dead one..

DIRTY-MAC
03-09-2007, 05:20 PM
Originally posted by HayateAce:
Maybe you didn't read c l o s e l y enough:

190: Poor turning radius due to high wing loading.

He He,no one takes you seriusly any more.... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

BaronUnderpants
03-09-2007, 06:27 PM
Originally posted by stalkervision:
Why Col. "Kit" Carson was wrong
This text refers to a famous article,
"The Best of the Breed", Airpower, July, 1976 Vol. 6 No. 4 by Col. "Kit" Carson

Intention of this page here is to correct serious errors in this particular article, which happened due to a serious lack of knowledge about the 109 technics and design history. .......................


Pictures and graphs..

http://mitglied.lycos.de/luftwaffe1/Carson/Carson.html



Werbung anzeigen

Philips Digital PhotoFrame™. Klicke hier. Blog was Du fďÂż˝hlst auf www.Jubiiblog.de (http://www.Jubiiblog.de)



Good post stalker..very informative. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif


If the Bf 109 was as obselete as some claim..i can think of a ****load of other ac`s that was even more so. And yet, they flew in WWII to and some of them are today considered as beeing some of the greatest....go figure. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif


All ac has its shortcommings, it does this and that good and this and that bad and so on...to make it out like the Bf109 is one grass straw away from a complete faliure is just stupid.

BillyTheKid_22
03-09-2007, 06:37 PM
http://www.cebudanderson.com/images/dogfight01.jpg



Col. Leonard "Kit" Carson http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif



http://www.cebudanderson.com/images/m0071a.jpg

stalkervision
03-09-2007, 06:46 PM
Originally posted by BaronUnderpants:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stalkervision:
Why Col. "Kit" Carson was wrong
This text refers to a famous article,
"The Best of the Breed", Airpower, July, 1976 Vol. 6 No. 4 by Col. "Kit" Carson

Intention of this page here is to correct serious errors in this particular article, which happened due to a serious lack of knowledge about the 109 technics and design history. .......................


Pictures and graphs..

http://mitglied.lycos.de/luftwaffe1/Carson/Carson.html



Werbung anzeigen

Philips Digital PhotoFrame™. Klicke hier. Blog was Du fďÂż˝hlst auf www.Jubiiblog.de (http://www.Jubiiblog.de)



Good post stalker..very informative. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif


If the Bf 109 was as obselete as some claim..i can think of a ****load of other ac`s that was even more so. And yet, they flew in WWII to and some of them are today considered as beeing some of the greatest....go figure. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif


All ac has its shortcommings, it does this and that good and this and that bad and so on...to make it out like the Bf109 is one grass straw away from a complete faliure is just stupid. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

thanks a lot. that's nice to hear. I am glad you appreciated it.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

skarden
03-09-2007, 07:25 PM
Originally posted by VMF-214_HaVoK:
Why oh why does this have to happen every single time. Same scenario as always. A person post an article on a specific plane rather it be axis or allied and right away the opposing side has to run out and find something that contradicts it. Fact is you can do this with just about every aircraft discussion.

Oh ****, Oleg might change the game I better run out and find something that says different. Its getting so sad and annoying that I dont even know why Im taking the time out of my day to type this. Not like anyone is going to see the light and suddenly allow others to have their thread without an attempt to hijack it and turn it into a mudslinging contest. My plane is better then yours...wawawawa.

Its like people do it just so they can justify to themselves why they get shot down a lot. Fact is they do so because they are not very good. I hate to be the bearer of bad news but its time to wake up and make a serious effort to get better. If your good you can win the fight in any plane regardless if its the so called inferior plane. Most think a plane is not good if he/she can not win that ridiculous sustained turn fight on the deck in their favorite arcade server. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

Perfectly said havok,an INTERESTING article immediately ripped to shreds regardless of it's intention(which i think is just suppose to be guess what......an Interesting article! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif) by ppl who seems to have far to much spare time on their hands and dont seem to want to have a disscusion as much as have a nice little spat that not everbody agree's with them all of the time.
HayateAce's um......creative choice of editing of Carsons 190 summary is a perfect example of what im talking about. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

DIRTY-MAC
03-10-2007, 04:13 AM
Col. Leonard "Kit" Carson http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif



http://www.cebudanderson.com/images/m0071a.jpg [/QUOTE]


Is that a 30mm bullet hole going through the side of that cockpit?
Lucky hes in such a good fysical chape http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Abbuzze
03-11-2007, 01:43 AM
Originally posted by Badsight-:
"at cruising speed"

you hit the nail on the head - the 109 needed a constant rudder input , "at anything but your preset trimtab cruise speed level"

as for your spitfire cockpit comment , please pull the other one . not a valid comment . one plane was much more cramped than the other

Here the tales you asked for:

http://www.battleofbritain.net/0011.html



Flying the Spitfire was like driving a sports car. It was faster than the old Hurricane , much more delicate. You couldn't roll it very fast, but you could make it go up and down much easier. A perfect lady. It wouldn't do anything wrong. The Hurricane would drop a wing if you stalled it coming in, but a Spitfire would come wafting down. You couldn't snap it into a spin. Beautiful to fly, although very stiff on the ailerons - you had to jam your elbow against the side to get the leverage to move them. And so fast!!! If you shut the throttle in a Hurricane you'd come to a grinding halt; in a Spitfire you just go whistling on.
[1] P/O H.G.Niven 601 & 602 Squadrons, having flown both Hurricane and Spitfire.

Kurfurst__
03-11-2007, 05:23 AM
Originally posted by Badsight-:
"at cruising speed"

you hit the nail on the head - the 109 needed a constant rudder input , "at anything but your preset trimtab cruise speed level"

'Constant rudder input' - why? What happens if you just don't? Nothing - you fly with some slip on and that's it. For manouvering, where it would matter, you really want to tell me with the always changing speedin dogfights, you contiously re-trimming your plane? Stepping on the rudder for the needed amount sounds much more natural and quick for me for combat, and also there's no chance that you've overtrimmed your plane and then you have to bother to re-trim it again correctly.

I don't quite get your fixation on trim tabs. That's something I just never missed. It's useful for a large bomber, but after all that's why in Gertmany only 5+ ton planes were to have rudder tab, or late war bad-weather LW fighters which had auto pilots for the rudder.


as for your spitfire cockpit comment , please pull the other one . not a valid comment . one plane was much more cramped than the other

From the link above :

The first impression of the stock Buchon cockpit in Harold's ˜109' is bewilderment due to the handles, wheels, switches, and color-coded lines and switches, but after some time spent understanding the layout, the cockpit becomes straight forward. The cockpit is small, about the size of a Spitfire or A-4 fighter.

I can only underline that, having access to accurate wartime drawings of the two cocpits and seem them from up really close. Yep one is more cramped than the other, not by much though. But I don't want to break you heart by telling which. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Grendel-B
03-11-2007, 01:16 PM
Originally posted by Badsight-:
stalkervision , the 109 wasnt a comfortable plane to fly

cramped cockpit & a constant need for left rudder


You're repeating urban myths, mate.

I've interviewed so far 20+ 109 pilots. I've asked about the trimming as well, and nobody has ever mentioned the need to push any rudder. You know, trimming was invented before the first 109 was built. You set the trim to certain speed and the plane flew nicely. There was no need to push the rudder on other speeds either. The need to constantly push pedal to fly straight is just one of the urban myths floating around.

Besides, if you fit to the cockpit of the 109, it was a very nice place. "Fit you like a glove to your hand", many 109 pilots have said. Comfortable, very good cockpit layout. Small, yes, but efficient.

La7_brook
03-11-2007, 10:50 PM
Originally posted by stalkervision:
Why Col. "Kit" Carson was wrong
This text refers to a famous article,
"The Best of the Breed", Airpower, July, 1976 Vol. 6 No. 4 by Col. "Kit" Carson

Intention of this page here is to correct serious errors in this particular article, which happened due to a serious lack of knowledge about the 109 technics and design history. It begins right here (quotes from the article in "italics"):

"But another household work, the highly propagandized Me-109G, was obsolete when it was built and was aerodynamically the most inefficient fighter of its time. It was a hopeless collection of lumps, bumps, stiff controls, and placed its pilot in a cramped, squarish cockpit with poor visibility."

I don´t want to talk about how much propaganda was done around the spitfire or for american fighters (usually by economic backgrounds or to find new volunatry pilots), let alone russian products. There exist in every country enough "propaganda", so shssst.

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 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. The usually turbulent flow in the tail section lead to a very low overall surface area in this area.
- 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.
- Centered propellor position, thrust line going right through the COG, also allowing for better view forward down

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!

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. 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.

" 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? But it´s getting even better. Look at this weight statistic of a Spit9:



What can we see? Spit 9 carried 5x17.5lb = 87.5lb ballast weight. Isn´t it interesting that Carson considers the ballast/trim weight on a 109E as an incredible design fault, but obviously didn´t know (or avoids to mention) that the Spitfire series (at least the 9) was blessed with even more ballast weight? This alone says a lot about the bias of Carson and his poor knowledge of WW2 fighter technics.

"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". 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. Though washout is an easy and uncomplicated way to achieve good handling characteristics at high AoA, it reduces total possible lift. 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. Results of different measurements, quite often depending on correction factors, Reynolds number and other influences (wind tunnel geometry) 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 of the Naca Report server
109E: 1.48 from full scale Windtunnel test in Charlais Meudan 2)

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 (15.1m^2) 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, maybe even too low!

If we calculate now a "liftloading" by dividing wingloading with maximum lift coefficient (The formula used is: LL = Weight/(Wingarea*Max_Lift_Coeff.), we get the following values (lower is better):

Aircraft Weight [lb] Aspect Ratio Max. Lift Coefficient Wingarea [ft^2] Liftloading [lb/ft^2]
Spit 1 1) 6050 5.62 1.12 242 22.3
109 E 5600 6.0 1.48 174 21.7
P-51 B 2) 9400 5.815 1.28 234 31.4
Spit 9 1) 7450 5.62 1.12 242 27.5
109 G6 7159 6.0 1.48 171 28.3

1) The airfoil of the Spitfires did not change, thus the data from the SpitV wing was taken.
2) The wingload of a P-51B based on 9400lb is 39.9 lb/ft^2 and NOT only 35, the value Carson uses!

The Emil´s liftloading is even slightly better to the spitfire ones´. The G2 would beat the Spit9, but the G6 is slightly worse. On the other hand even a G6 is clearly better than the P-51B´s. This data is without the usage of slats and/or combat flaps!
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...
In the table the aspect ratio is included. It´s important to know that the 109 had a higher aspect ration than a Spit. Often people think the elliptical wing of a Spitfire had huge advantages. They´re wrong. The influence of wing shape and aspect ratio is discussed here.
"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.

"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.
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. Early spitfires did have only 2-pitch settings for their propellor, one for takeoff, one for the flight! 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. 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?


"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. Due to the 2R1 airfoil pitching moments were rather small compared to the outdated 4-digit airfoil of a spitfire for example. The balance effect was not the best, true, but german pilots succesfully got the nose up by violence or by trim. A hard elevator also protected the airframe from too high G-forces. 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. 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. 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?? I already said that Carson is often quoting the RAE test report of the 109-E. In the very same document, the following chart is included, comparing the aileron force of a 109-E to the Spit-1:



Now what does this chart tell us? The 109-E needed for a 1/5 aileron deflection at 400mph 37lb stick force, the Spit-1 57lb. This is a 54% higher stickforce for the Spit pilot. To build up the same moment like in a 109, the stick of a spitfire must have been 54% longer, so it probably would have looked out of the roof window...
Why didn´t Carson mention the worse stickforce characteristics of the Spit-1, which is written down in the same report he uses for his article? I think you, the reader, slowly gets an impression about the bias of Carson and the way he choses and presents his data...

It also should be noted that in technical language you distinguish between an observation, a judgement based on given requirements, and a conclusion. 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. 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. 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!

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? This is no extraordinary high force for pulling. Did english test pilots lack muscles?
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. Of course, if we calcualte just with wingloadings then we get for the radius of the Spit: 829feet / 32 * 25 = 695feet ~690feet
Unfortunatly - i can´t say it often enough - it´s lift/weight that determines the minimum radius and not just wingarea/weight. 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!

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:

(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!
(2) Not true, radius smaller than USAAF aircraft, experienced pilots could turn into Spitfires. 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!
(3) Rudder and aileron trim had to be installed back then in germany for aircraft over 5 tons weight only. 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)
(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
(6) Partly correct, but view forward down was better than that of many other fighters. Erla hood was later an overall improvment
(7) Not true for interceptor role. True for long range escort tasks.

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!
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.



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.
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.

"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 Charlais Meudon with the 109V24, a prototyte of the 109F, showed a CD of 0.24-0.3, depending on surface condition. 0.36 is close to the test with a 500kg bomb. Somebody must have mistaken the test with the installed bomb as a test for a clean 109. What an error! And this is once more just the CD value, to know more about total drag characteristics you have to multiply it with wingarea. Well, the Spit did have a lot of wingarea, right? Let´s see:
Spit: 0.21*244 = 51.24
109: 0.3*171 = 51.3
The 109V24 is equal to a Spitfire, even assuming a really bad drag coefficient for the 109, and the best you can find for the Spitfire. 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... :
109V24: 0.3*161 = 48.3
Fact: Even in the worst condition you can expect, the 109 posessed a lower drag than a Spitfire in best condition! History also tells us that 109 usually was faster when both fighters used same power settings.

"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 that it survived so long. The interest for jets simply drew away attention from the prop driven aircraft, until it was broken 30 years later by rather sportive reasons. However it clearly shows why Messerschmitt is still known as a pioneer in low drag and light construction.

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 forget 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. 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. At high altitudes you better don´t want to "blink" anyway when you try to get through hundreds of enemy fighters. 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. 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!

(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? So once more BS! Btw, the razorback design of the P51-B was considered to have less drag than the later bubble canopy of the D.

(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! Furthermore, the slats are in the area where air is accelerated, thus the air won´t separate as easily.
(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. Bölkow(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 :/$/"§$!"§$ !!!
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.
After the war exactly the same "boundary layer fence", today´s expression, was used for the 109 build in Spain which lacked the slats. The 109 was the first aircraft to carry boundary layer fences, even before the war!



Spanish build 109 with boundary layer fences

(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.


That´s it!

Pictures and graphs..

http://mitglied.lycos.de/luftwaffe1/Carson/Carson.html



Werbung anzeigen

Philips Digital PhotoFrame™. Klicke hier. Blog was Du fďÂż˝hlst auf www.Jubiiblog.de (http://www.Jubiiblog.de) http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif nice come back , "Kit" Carson who? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

Blutarski2004
03-12-2007, 08:25 AM
You gentlemen are, of course, aware that Kurfurst was the author of the "retort" to Carson's article.

Blutarski2004
03-12-2007, 08:45 AM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Badsight-:
"at cruising speed"

you hit the nail on the head - the 109 needed a constant rudder input , "at anything but your preset trimtab cruise speed level"

'Constant rudder input' - why? What happens if you just don't? Nothing - you fly with some slip on and that's it. For manouvering, where it would matter, you really want to tell me with the always changing speedin dogfights, you contiously re-trimming your plane? Stepping on the rudder for the needed amount sounds much more natural and quick for me for combat, and also there's no chance that you've overtrimmed your plane and then you have to bother to re-trim it again correctly.

I don't quite get your fixation on trim tabs. That's something I just never missed. It's useful for a large bomber, but after all that's why in Gertmany only 5+ ton planes were to have rudder tab, or late war bad-weather LW fighters which had auto pilots for the rudder.


as for your spitfire cockpit comment , please pull the other one . not a valid comment . one plane was much more cramped than the other

From the link above :

The first impression of the stock Buchon cockpit in Harold's ˜109' is bewilderment due to the handles, wheels, switches, and color-coded lines and switches, but after some time spent understanding the layout, the cockpit becomes straight forward. The cockpit is small, about the size of a Spitfire or A-4 fighter.

I can only underline that, having access to accurate wartime drawings of the two cocpits and seem them from up really close. Yep one is more cramped than the other, not by much though. But I don't want to break you heart by telling which. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>



..... So far as I understand, the assymetrical airfoil of the ME109's vertical stabilizer served to counteract torque roll at cruising speeds. The trim tab (not pilot controllable) could be variably set on the ground to move the stable speed range up or down as desired.

However .....

The assymetrical airfoil of the vertical stabilizer would become a problem when the plane was dived to very high speeds, when a greatly increased counteracting force (lift vector) of the vertical stabilizer would exceed torque roll tendency and cause the aircraft to roll. It was at this point that the pilot had to hold down L rudder. The higher the dive speed, the greater the rudder effort required.

HayateAce
03-12-2007, 11:00 AM
So, if I understand correctly, the 109 lost its air wars to the Spitfires and Hurries during BoB, and then to the P47s and P51s over Europe.

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

Bewolf
03-12-2007, 11:34 AM
Yeah, as any war in history was only decided by its weapons and not tactics, numbers and men.


The stupidity of some people (no intended offense, just an observation) is thrilling at times.

Kurfurst__
03-12-2007, 01:41 PM
Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
You gentlemen are, of course, aware that Kurfurst was the author of the "retort" to Carson's article.

Doh. You have been told you about 8 times already that it's not mine article. Are you really that dumb and thick that it does not sink is and you need to be told the 9th time?!!

It's becoming taxing. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif

As for dives, what's the problem kicking the rudder for 10 secs in a dive..? Most pilot handbooks warn against the dangers of trimming the aircraft into the dive, there are sudden loads at recovery etc. Anyway, the point is that somehow, no operational Bf 109 (or FW 190, for that matter) seem to complain about the lack of rudder trim.

M_Gunz
03-12-2007, 02:22 PM
Originally posted by Abbuzze:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Badsight-:
stalkervision , the 109 wasnt a comfortable plane to fly

cramped cockpit & a constant need for left rudder


Yes if you have to fly a captured one... the trimtabs were labled "do not touch". If you need constand pressure in flight the trim is wrong and someone touched it. 109 were pretrimmed to fly straight at cruising speed. And as already mentioned the spitfire cockpit was nearly as cramped. Spitfire I/II pilots reported that they pressed their ellbow at the side of the cockpit to improve the aileron stickmovment - I think this gave a nice impression of the space around the pilot. I don´t believe this make the Spitfire a bad plane... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is why Galland and other 190 pilots would joke that Hartmann walked in circles, the
one leg so much stronger from standing on the rudder pedal. Rudder trim of 109's was
adjusted to cruise speed as you note, cruise only.

Abbuzze
03-12-2007, 02:56 PM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:

That is why Galland and other 190 pilots would joke that Hartmann walked in circles, the
one leg so much stronger from standing on the rudder pedal. Rudder trim of 109's was
adjusted to cruise speed as you note, cruise only.

I never read this comment by a german pilot in any book. Beside the 109 had an endurance of 1 hour. How many of this is climbing and cruising - how many is combat at high speed.

Beside if you are passing the speed of cruising trim the foot which had to press is changing, I think this should be enough practice for the other leg http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

If you read a test, and the pilot had to push the same foot all the time - the plane is totaly miss trimmed.

Blutarski2004
03-12-2007, 03:05 PM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
You gentlemen are, of course, aware that Kurfurst was the author of the "retort" to Carson's article.

Doh. You have been told you about 8 times already that it's not mine article. Are you really that dumb and thick that it does not sink is and you need to be told the 9th time?!!

It's becoming taxing. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... K, you can deny your authorship 900 times, and I still won't believe that you did not pen that item. Your style of expository writing is like Paul McCartney's music - it has a unique and unmistakeable signature.




As for dives, what's the problem kicking the rudder for 10 secs in a dive..? Most pilot handbooks warn against the dangers of trimming the aircraft into the dive, there are sudden loads at recovery etc. Anyway, the point is that somehow, no operational Bf 109 (or FW 190, for that matter) seem to complain about the lack of rudder trim.


..... I'm not sure what you are arguing. Did I state anything untrue?

stalkervision
03-12-2007, 03:31 PM
Originally posted by Abbuzze:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:

That is why Galland and other 190 pilots would joke that Hartmann walked in circles, the
one leg so much stronger from standing on the rudder pedal. Rudder trim of 109's was
adjusted to cruise speed as you note, cruise only.

I never read this comment by a german pilot in any book. Beside the 109 had an endurance of 1 hour. How many of this is climbing and cruising - how many is combat at high speed.

Beside if you are passing the speed of cruising trim the foot which had to press is changing, I think this should be enough practice for the other leg http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

If you read a test, and the pilot had to push the same foot all the time - the plane is totaly miss trimmed. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Me neither and I have Galland's book.."The first and the last" Pry tell share your source with us won't you buddy?

and I have Hartman's book too.

This should be interesting about him..

Cajun76
03-12-2007, 03:43 PM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
You gentlemen are, of course, aware that Kurfurst was the author of the "retort" to Carson's article.

Doh. You have been told you about 8 times already that it's not mine article. Are you really that dumb and thick that it does not sink is and you need to be told the 9th time?!!

It's becoming taxing. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif

As for dives, what's the problem kicking the rudder for 10 secs in a dive..? <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">Most pilot handbooks warn against the dangers of trimming the aircraft into the dive, there are sudden loads at recovery etc</span> . Anyway, the point is that somehow, no operational Bf 109 (or FW 190, for that matter) seem to complain about the lack of rudder trim. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That would be elevator trim, not rudder trim...

And even if you didn't write that article (although I didn't think it possible to find someone as rabid about the 109 as you http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/heart.gif ), what qualification does the article writer have? WWII Ace? WWII Pilot? WWII military service? Established historian? Tuesday night bingo player?

The article is poorly written, and chock full of asymetrical comparisons. Anyone who watches car commercials can see this.

Car A trunk is bigger that Car B....(Car B is smallest of 5 cars)
Car A has more power than Car C.....(Car C has the worst power of 5 cars)
Car A is roomier than Car D.........(Car D has no backseat)
Car A is lower priced than car E....(Car E is the most expensive)

Car A is junk, but looks great when compared to specific worst attributes of competitors.

Prime example: Carson talks about This:


the highly propagandized Me-109<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">G</span>

But the article writer mentions This:


The efficienz of the 109 airframe was proven very early in 1937, when a Emil airframe

Yep, Emil, circa 1937 vs. a 109<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">G</span>

It would be http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif if it weren't so http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

Kurfurst__
03-12-2007, 04:53 PM
Originally posted by Cajun76:
That would be elevator trim, not rudder trim...

Let me see, you claim it's impossible to endanger the airframe with extreme rudder trim resulting large sudden sideways loads when exiting from the dive?


And even if you didn't write that article (although I didn't think it possible to find someone as rabid about the 109 as you http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/heart.gif ), what qualification does the article writer have? WWII Ace? WWII Pilot? WWII military service? Established historian? Tuesday night bingo player?

An active Austrian aero engineer, but obviously I won't give away his personal ID. It's fairly easy to see his expertise on this page : http://mitglied.lycos.de/luftwaffe1/flugmechanik/index.html


The article is poorly written, and chock full of asymetrical comparisons. Anyone who watches car commercials can see this.

Let me see if I got it wrong. There's an aero engineer, who makes this stuff for living. He makes certain statemens, underlines it with physical facts, and you dismiss those because you've seen car commercials.


Prime example: Carson talks about This:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> the highly propagandized Me-109<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">G</span>

But the article writer mentions This:


The efficienz of the 109 airframe was proven very early in 1937, when a Emil airframe

Yep, Emil, circa 1937 vs. a 109<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">G</span>

It would be http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif if it weren't so http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yawn. The 'highly propagandized' Bf 109 G airframe was basically a slightly modified Bf 109F airframe - local strenghtenings and such being the prime differences. The differences are so slight that in fact Me 109G Ersatzteilliste only shows the items that are different from Bf 109F Ersatzteilliste.. The 109F itself is an aerodynamicall refined version of the base 109E airframe. As a matter of fact the writer of the article simply notes that the effiency of 109 airframe was already proven by the 109E in 1937, not to say the later more refined versions.

Of course according to Carson : "...between 1935 to 1942, without major changes in power plant or aerodynamics"

So in 1942, the Messerschmitt 109 still had a RR Kestrel powering a Bf 109V (Versuchs=prototype) airframe. In CarsonWorld.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif Anyway, Carson doesn't know sh*t on this, as illustrated.

That's the best part how Niklas ridicules Carson btw :

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

""The fastest "G" subtype was the G-10 capable of 344 mph at SL or 428 mph at 24,000 ft. "
Later on :
"Object: to make it a 400 mph plus airplane"

Above he mentions the G-10 with 425mph, did he already forget that the 109 was able to go as fast?

Poor Carson, he probably grown a bit senile by 1976, or just simply drank away his brains, if he ever had any. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Cajun76
03-12-2007, 06:16 PM
First of all, who are you to disparage a combat vet!? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

As for the rest:


Let me see, you claim it's impossible to endanger the airframe with extreme rudder trim resulting large sudden sideways loads when exiting from the dive?

Give me an example. The danger, so I've heard, is exceeding airframe limits once a plane recovers from compressibility effects by building up too many Gs as the control surfaces rapidly become effective. I've never heard of a dive recovery that gets out of compressibility by rudder. Enlighten me.


Let me see if I got it wrong. There's an aero engineer, who makes this stuff for living. He makes certain statements, underlines it with physical facts, and you dismiss those because you've seen car commercials.


You got it wrong.

The person that wrote the article makes certain technical statements in order to evoke a certain result that is not correct, much like how a lawyer will misrepresent "fact" to take an opposite position to the prosecution, or a car commercial will make comparisons to make their product look better. If it happens to be your favorite car, it's easy to be fooled. Just propaganda and advertising, that "article" is not a rebuttal.

I would also be very surprised that a professional aero engineer would write something so bombastic instead of taking a mature, reasoned approach.

I'm not 100% for Carson here, I think he had his bias just as you have yours. The truth is somewhere in the middle, but closer to Carson. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif

I refuse to jump on the Goebbels/109 propaganda machine. He loved touting it, and his myths about it are alive and well in some peoples minds. I prefer to take a more, but not totally, objective view, as I can't bring myself to think of the the European Continentals interceptors: British, German, Russian and certainly not Italian as war winners.

klower
03-12-2007, 07:57 PM
OK, this is a pedantic point, but I do take issue with describing the 109 airframe as efficient (I assume that's what's meant by "efficienz"). It has low drag because it is small. This is not the same as being efficient. I would describe the p-51 as an efficient airframe, it being a much larger airframe capable of higher speed than the smaller 109 with the same or less power. That extra space can be used for things like more gas and ammunition, making it a more potent offensive weapon, capable of deep penetration into enemy airspace. True that extra size had it's price (higher weight, lower climb performance, etc.). If one designed an airframe with a p-51's low drag in the same size class as a 109 it's performance (at least as far as top speed goes) would greatly exceed the 109. That is efficiency. Small size is just that, small size.

Blutarski2004
03-13-2007, 07:37 AM
Originally posted by klower:
OK, this is a pedantic point, but I do take issue with describing the 109 airframe as efficient (I assume that's what's meant by "efficienz"). It has low drag because it is small. This is not the same as being efficient. I would describe the p-51 as an efficient airframe, it being a much larger airframe capable of higher speed than the smaller 109 with the same or less power. That extra space can be used for things like more gas and ammunition, making it a more potent offensive weapon, capable of deep penetration into enemy airspace. True that extra size had it's price (higher weight, lower climb performance, etc.). If one designed an airframe with a p-51's low drag in the same size class as a 109 it's performance (at least as far as top speed goes) would greatly exceed the 109. That is efficiency. Small size is just that, small size.


..... A very good point, sir.

Blutarski2004
03-13-2007, 07:41 AM
Originally posted by Cajun76:
I would also be very surprised that a professional aero engineer would write something so bombastic instead of taking a mature, reasoned approach.


..... Very well put.

Kurfurst__
03-13-2007, 08:53 AM
Originally posted by Cajun76:
First of all, who are you to disparage a combat vet!? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

You did not answer the question. And who is this combat vet, who is supposed to know better than every serious historian

Let's take example Erich Hartmann. I'd find his personal experience regarding how to fly and handle the 109, what were the tactics employed and which proved effecive etc. very valuable on that subject. He has an insane amount of experience with that. However, I'd never give much weight about the technical details and development on the Bf 109, this was simply not his field of expertise.

While reading and interviewing actual WW2 veterans my personal lasting impression was that fighter pilot's technical knowladge base was extremely limited. Most late war LW pilots wouldn't bother to tell apart 109Gs and Ks because for all practical purposes, they were the same and handled the same as any other 109s. They had to fly the aircraft after all, not repair or design them. They could be perfectly ignorant about new cowlings, new engines and such. All they need to know is how to use the aircraft effectively.

Which of course doesn't change the fact that this Carson guy doesn't know sh*t about what's he is writing. His ignornace is perfectly listed, refuted with just by a few examples in that article. The fact that our dear Carson is appearantly unaware of *ANY* changes in the Bf 109 airframe between 1935-1942 tells the whole story in one sentence. Any good, well researched 109 book is able to refute the mass of ignorance Carson is throwing up, Carson who never flew the aircraft himself, probably not even seen it on the ground either. Appearantly all he did was reading about 2-3 post war publications on it and repeated those with a couple of his, sorry to say, stupid and ignorant remarks.


The person that wrote the article makes certain technical statements in order to evoke a certain result that is not correct, much like how a lawyer will misrepresent "fact" to take an opposite position to the prosecution, or a car commercial will make comparisons to make their product look better. If it happens to be your favorite car, it's easy to be fooled. Just propaganda and advertising, that "article" is not a rebuttal.

I find this a perfect description of Kit Carson's 'article'.


I would also be very surprised that a professional aero engineer would write something so bombastic instead of taking a mature, reasoned approach.

The 'quality' of Carson's statements hardly require something bombastic. Carson makes simply statements, which are so utterly wrong they can be refuted in a one-liner. Why waste more time on such an ignorant nonsense I say.

I've never seen a university professor bothering to present bombastic arguements if his arguing partner is a 4 year old either.


I'm not 100% for Carson here, I think he had his bias just as you have yours. The truth is somewhere in the middle, but closer to Carson. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif

Yep, some people say there are UFO, who kidnap your wife and then she becomes pregnant, other say there are no UFOs and it was your neighbour. The truth is probably somehwere in the middle. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif


I refuse to jump on the Goebbels/109 propaganda machine. He loved touting it, and his myths about it are alive and well in some peoples minds. I prefer to take a more, but not totally, objective view, as I can't bring myself to think of the the European Continentals interceptors: British, German, Russian and certainly not Italian as war winners.

The Bf 109 certainly did not need dr. Goebbels for help, nor was it particularly propagandized AFAIK. It had plenty of achievements on it's own, and the combat pilots who flew it homogenously love the aircraft. It certainly won 'a couple of' wars between 1935-1942.

As for your approach - see the 'war winning machine' propaganda remarks - I find them utterly primitive and simplictic. Level bombers, dive bombers, interceptors, air superiority fighters and such, each having it's right place in an air force for selected tasks that work as a team, designed with different sets of strenght and weaknesses to fullfill that tasks. It is only a display of your limited comprehension of different requirements that prevent you from grasping that European countries simply did not need such range as the US was forced to evolve it's own INTERCEPTORS such as the P-38 or P-47 for long range duties. In the case of the P-38, it was developed with powerful cannon armament originally to bring down enemy bombers, and the range was only selected because the considerable coastline and distances in the US it was to patrol. No European country had such long borders to require such range. Even the aircraft in your sig, the P-47, started out as an interceptor with a meager 660 km or so range in it's initial version.

Uhhm, looks like US design were interceptors as well, and were only retrofitted as an afterthough with more fuel when their 'war winning' strategy of unescorted bombers miserably failed, and suddenly they needed 'war winning' fighters that could fly from bases in Enland to Germany - a requirement that was never needed for the LW, which enjoyed bases and could hop in for a visit from just the other side of the channel.

Kurfurst__
03-13-2007, 09:10 AM
Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by klower:
OK, this is a pedantic point, but I do take issue with describing the 109 airframe as efficient (I assume that's what's meant by "efficienz"). It has low drag because it is small. This is not the same as being efficient. I would describe the p-51 as an efficient airframe, it being a much larger airframe capable of higher speed than the smaller 109 with the same or less power. That extra space can be used for things like more gas and ammunition, making it a more potent offensive weapon, capable of deep penetration into enemy airspace. True that extra size had it's price (higher weight, lower climb performance, etc.). If one designed an airframe with a p-51's low drag in the same size class as a 109 it's performance (at least as far as top speed goes) would greatly exceed the 109. That is efficiency. Small size is just that, small size.

..... A very good point, sir. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Reminds me of the classic conversation between Ersnt Heinkel and Willy Messerschmitt after
Heinkel is boasting about the effiency of the airframes he builds. Messerschmitt's reply :

'Well, I build the fast ones.' http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
Then he laid back, and sit on the World Speed Record for some 30 years.

Besides the whole notion that it was small only but not efficient is nonsense. Here's the US Wright Field view on it :

The Messerscmitt fusalge is remarkably clean and bulletlike. The engine is compactly mounted in the nose and enclosed by easily removeable cowling. Proturbulances that mar the clean lines are cut to the minimum by partially submerging the coolant radiators in the wing.

Seems like US experts disagree with Mr. Carson..

The aircraft had a Cd of 0.023, with wing area (16.05m2) as reference, that's a pretty good, fairly typical figure for a WW2 fighter. This translates to an equivalent drag of 0,36915 m2, quite compareable to the Mustang's. Of course you might try to 'scale down' the Mustang - this would raise some problems as neither the pilot nor the engine, nor the guns would fit in it. They did into the 109.

As for the range, it appears the Mustang possessed about 50% greater range than the 109:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/me109/me109g6-tactical-appb.jpg

Frankly I don't see any difficulty with adding 50% more fuel into the 109 (400->600 liters), which would give it equal range equivalent weight and bulk installations were carried through the war, and the 109K already had the option to carry +25% more fuel (400+115). The wings would quite easily cope with 100-100 liters (75-75 kg) of fuel in each wing considering the underwing cannons they routinely carried weighted about 112 kg each. It was never needed, except for a few 'super-recce' 109s built, though, which carried two 66 gallon droptanks under the wings.

I don't expect someone like Blutarki to be able to realize that, luckily he had already found his place as the lapdog in the nodding chorus. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

luftluuver
03-13-2007, 09:14 AM
So Kurfurst we not see you ragging on the short range of the Spitfire any more will we. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif


...that European countries simply did not need such range...

Kurfurst__
03-13-2007, 09:25 AM
Well for defense of the British isles, the Spitfire certainly didn't need any more range than it had.
OTOH, the UK is hardly a typical continental European country, sharing borders etc with it's potential foes.

Zoom2136
03-13-2007, 09:49 AM
Stakervision....

If you're in school... man you have way to much time on your hands... better hit the books than this forum....

If you're at work... better watch out for your boss as he is probably going to can your a.s.s.

HAAAA, maybe you're an out of work.... or a welfare (???) recipient then you have all the time in the world... to poor out **** like that...

BTW... are you a aeronautical engineer... I guess not... you would be far to busy to hang around these forums...

Always funny to hear from guys who have apparently no proper training in the field of aeronautics... but claim to know better than guys who actually flown these warbirds...

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

luftluuver
03-13-2007, 10:28 AM
Mustang III range with 2 62.5gal drop tanks > 1710mi.
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/mustang-III-ads-7.jpg

luftluuver
03-13-2007, 10:33 AM
'Well, I build the fast ones.
Then he laid back, and sit on the World Speed Record for some 30 years. Only because Heinkel was forbidden to make another attempt. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

Kurfurst__
03-13-2007, 11:20 AM
Originally posted by luftluuver:
Mustang III range with 2 62.5gal drop tanks > 1710mi.
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/mustang-III-ads-7.jpg

Well, that's another interesting set of data. Curiously while the max cruise ranges agree well, your link shows much higher range at economical cruise. There's nothing strange is that, there are figures 20% higher for the Bf 109 as well stating 1250 miles range on econocruise with a single droptank. Take your pick.

Blutarski2004
03-13-2007, 11:23 AM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by klower:
OK, this is a pedantic point, but I do take issue with describing the 109 airframe as efficient (I assume that's what's meant by "efficienz"). It has low drag because it is small. This is not the same as being efficient. I would describe the p-51 as an efficient airframe, it being a much larger airframe capable of higher speed than the smaller 109 with the same or less power. That extra space can be used for things like more gas and ammunition, making it a more potent offensive weapon, capable of deep penetration into enemy airspace. True that extra size had it's price (higher weight, lower climb performance, etc.). If one designed an airframe with a p-51's low drag in the same size class as a 109 it's performance (at least as far as top speed goes) would greatly exceed the 109. That is efficiency. Small size is just that, small size.

..... A very good point, sir. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Reminds me of the classic conversation between Ersnt Heinkel and Willy Messerschmitt after
Heinkel is boasting about the effiency of the airframes he builds. Messerschmitt's reply :

'Well, I build the fast ones.' http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
Then he laid back, and sit on the World Speed Record for some 30 years.

Besides the whole notion that it was small only but not efficient is nonsense. Here's the US Wright Field view on it :

The Messerscmitt fusalge is remarkably clean and bulletlike. The engine is compactly mounted in the nose and enclosed by easily removeable cowling. Proturbulances that mar the clean lines are cut to the minimum by partially submerging the coolant radiators in the wing.

Seems like US experts disagree with Mr. Carson..

The aircraft had a Cd of 0.023, with wing area (16.05m2) as reference, that's a pretty good, fairly typical figure for a WW2 fighter. This translates to an equivalent drag of 0,36915 m2, quite compareable to the Mustang's. Of course you might try to 'scale down' the Mustang - this would raise some problems as neither the pilot nor the engine, nor the guns would fit in it. They did into the 109.

As for the range, it appears the Mustang possessed about 50% greater range than the 109:

<snip>

I don't expect someone like Blutarki to be able to realize that, luckily he had already found his place as the lapdog in the nodding chorus. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... The principal low expectation on this thread is related to your degree of civility. Try to conduct a discussion without resorting to all the snide and puerile personal insults? They really pose an embarrassment to you.

If you stop to READ what was said instead of leaping off the deep end every time you scent any sort of criticism, whether real or imagined, you would note that Klower made a simple point ...

... that the ME109 was aerodynamically efficient because it was relatively small compared to other fighters.

... nothing more, nothing less and nothing to do with weight, fuel capacity, range, slats, flettner tabs, or any other aspect of the ME109.

Oh yes, and by the way, you have neglected to mention in your fair minded critique of Mr Carson that: (a) he was a 15 victory fighter pilot; (b) he held a degree in aeronautical engineering himself; (c) you have no earthly idea whether Carson ever test-flew an ME109 or not.


Have a nice day.

Kurfurst__
03-13-2007, 11:48 AM
Before prearching about civility, you should try behaving accordingly yourself.
Instead you choose to put the same sorry conspriacy ideas of yours over and over again shamelessly, despite being told by now about the 10th time they are baseless.

Well, fact remains Carson is totally ignorant of the subject he made lenghty, erroneous mouth-frothing about.
All he's doing is (mis-)quoting the June 1940 British report on the ex-LW/ex-French Bf 109E-3 WNr 1304, then apply it to all versions the followed.

As for your 'points'...

a, Then what?
b, I haven't noticed from what he writes.
c, Well then, what 109 did Mr. Carson is supposed to flew? What he writes just a word-by-word repeat of mid-1940 British reports.

Anyway, enjoy your private little world where some guy called Carson, after reading two papers on the 109 is an expert of the subject and overwrites what the producing company and respected 109 historians say on the subject, overwrites what actual 109 pilots say, and where everything that squashes that little world must be a part of a big world-wide conspiracy. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

Blutarski2004
03-13-2007, 12:01 PM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Before prearching about civility, you should try behaving accordingly yourself.
Instead you choose to put the same sorry conspriacy ideas of yours over and over again shamelessly, despite being told by now about the 10th time they are baseless.

Well, fact remains Carson is totally ignorant of the subject he made lenghty, erroneous mouth-frothing about.
All he's doing is (mis-)quoting the June 1940 British report on the ex-LW/ex-French Bf 109E-3 WNr 1304, then apply it to all versions the followed.

As for your 'points'...

a, Then what?
b, I haven't noticed from what he writes.
c, Well then, what 109 did Mr. Carson is supposed to flew? What he writes just a word-by-word repeat of mid-1940 British reports.

Anyway, enjoy your private little world where some guy called Carson, after reading two papers on the 109 is an expert of the subject and overwrites what the producing company and respected 109 historians say on the subject, overwrites what actual 109 pilots say, and where everything that squashes that little world must be a part of a big world-wide conspiracy. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif


..... Nice emoticon. Get back to me when you calm down.

RocketDog
03-13-2007, 01:40 PM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
...prearching...same sorry conspriacy...shamelessly...totally ignorant...mouth-frothing...private little world...big world-wide conspiracy...

On form as usual.

RD.

Blutarski2004
03-13-2007, 02:11 PM
Originally posted by RocketDog:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
...prearching...same sorry conspriacy...shamelessly...totally ignorant...mouth-frothing...private little world...big world-wide conspiracy...

On form as usual.

RD. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... Too true. I especially liked the "mouth-frothing" image. I think is a recent addition to the repertoire.

Abbuzze
03-13-2007, 02:54 PM
Originally posted by klower:
OK, this is a pedantic point, but I do take issue with describing the 109 airframe as efficient (I assume that's what's meant by "efficienz"). It has low drag because it is small. This is not the same as being efficient. I would describe the p-51 as an efficient airframe, it being a much larger airframe capable of higher speed than the smaller 109 with the same or less power. That extra space can be used for things like more gas and ammunition, making it a more potent offensive weapon, capable of deep penetration into enemy airspace. True that extra size had it's price (higher weight, lower climb performance, etc.). If one designed an airframe with a p-51's low drag in the same size class as a 109 it's performance (at least as far as top speed goes) would greatly exceed the 109. That is efficiency. Small size is just that, small size.

But you miss some things... efficience also mean the needed resource to build it (human power), the necessary materials and the price you have to pay for.

This are facts which also the USAAF had in mind when they used the P51 for groundattacks in Korea war instead of the P47... because the P51 was cheaper!

Efficience means how many resouces do you need to reach something. The solution which need less afforts, is more efficient.

So a plane in size, quality, performance(range) and price of a P51 would be inefficient, if it had to do the duties of a 109...

BaronUnderpants
03-13-2007, 03:07 PM
So, what exactly makes Kit Carsons article correct?

And what makes factory specs/info and comments from Bf 109 aces incorrect?

Kind of important me think.

Abbuzze
03-13-2007, 03:11 PM
ups sorry

Bremspropeller
03-13-2007, 03:44 PM
*knock,knock*


Hey, it's Tagert!

Shall I open the door?

TheBandit_76
03-13-2007, 04:00 PM
As I understand it, the P51 Mustang did what it was designed to do much better than the 109.

luftluuver
03-13-2007, 04:13 PM
Originally posted by Abbuzze:
This are facts which also the USAAF had in mind when they used the P51 for groundattacks in Korea war instead of the P47... because the P51 was cheaper! The USAAF did not use P-51s in Korea. The USAF did tho. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif P-51 was were already in theatre while the P-47 was not. Almost all the ANG P-47 units were based east of the Mississippi while the ANG P-51s units were to the west.

luftluuver
03-13-2007, 04:22 PM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Well, that's another interesting set of data. Curiously while the max cruise ranges agree well, your link shows much higher range at economical cruise. There's nothing strange is that, there are figures 20% higher for the Bf 109 as well stating 1250 miles range on econocruise with a single droptank. Take your pick. What 109 could afford to stooge along at most economical speed over occupied Europe if it wanted to stay in one piece?

Blutarski2004
03-13-2007, 04:31 PM
Originally posted by BaronUnderpants:
So, what exactly makes Kit Carsons article correct?

And what makes factory specs/info and comments from Bf 109 aces incorrect?

Kind of important me think.



..... Please notice that I made no comment whatsoever regarding either Carson's article or the now famous retort. I just grew bloody tired of the endless spewing of cheap insults and invective which have been heaped upon Carson by our friend from Budapest. Agree or disagree with Carson's analyses as you like, but at least do so with a proper understanding of the man's background. Carson had firsthand experience as a successful (15 kills) WW2 fighter pilot over NWE and himself held a degree in aeronautical engineering.

Permit me to raise one point of interest to demonstrate the nature of things here -

Carson mentions in his article a drag value .036 for the ME109G. "Preposterous and ridiculous" is the response - Carson is a moron! The drag value of the ME109 is MUCH lower according to our resident Boyar.

It then emerges ...

... that this .036 drag value for the ME109G series was computed by Dr Ing Sighard Hoerner, a world renowned GERMAN aerodynamicist, author of the principal textbook on the subject of fluid dynamics, and CHIEF AERODYNAMICIST FOR MESERSCHMITT AG during ww2. "Preposterous and ridiculous" is again the response. Hoerner is a senile old jerk who can't even get his figures straight and doesn't know what he is talking about.

It then emerges ...

... that Hoerner's calculation produced a net speed result that fell within 1 PERCENT of an official Rechlin ME109G performance test chart which is hosted on Kurfurst's own ME109 website. Dead silence and no response whatsoever from our friend on this point, however.

I hope you see the point I'm trying to make here. Look for a lengthy 4,000 line diatribe from Kurfurst in response to this. It will describe me as a liar and a co-conspirator in the worldwide plot to defame the memory of the ME109.

Well, I've gone overlong on this post, it's time for dinner, and tonight is my meeting with the other co-conspirators....;-)

RocketDog
03-13-2007, 06:57 PM
Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
...and tonight is my meeting with the other co-conspirators

Keep going, comrade, we'll wear him down eventually.

Cheers,

RD.

TheBandit_76
03-13-2007, 07:35 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/partyhat.gif

M_Gunz
03-13-2007, 08:14 PM
Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
Well, I've gone overlong on this post, it's time for dinner, and tonight is my meeting with the other co-conspirators....;-)

Same old barn as the WWI Allied Conspiracy used to meet? Don't forget your ID card and Hat.

klower
03-13-2007, 09:08 PM
Originally posted by Abbuzze:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by klower:
OK, this is a pedantic point, but .... Small size is just that, small size.

But you miss some things... efficience also mean the needed resource to build it (human power), the necessary materials and the price you have to pay for.

This are facts which also the USAAF had in mind when they used the P51 for groundattacks in Korea war instead of the P47... because the P51 was cheaper!

Efficience means how many resouces do you need to reach something. The solution which need less afforts, is more efficient.

So a plane in size, quality, performance(range) and price of a P51 would be inefficient, if it had to do the duties of a 109... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Good point, I'm not trying to make a value judgement about the 109 vs the p-51, they are different types for different missions. In some respects the 109 was more efficient, for example 109 was more efficiently designed to facilitate repair and maintenance, and it was more efficiently arranged to pack all of the necessary weapons and other things into a smaller airframe. My point, however was related to aerodynamic efficiency (perhaps I should have been more clear on this).

I think your point about more resources needed to reach something can be refined in relation to aerodynamic efficiency, like how much power it takes to keep a certain volume and weight at a certain speed. Drag coefficient is a quantative expression of this. I understand that the 109 is not outstanding in this department, at least not compared to say a P-51.

Kurfurst__
03-14-2007, 02:38 AM
Messerschmitt AG drag polars Cd = 0.023. Blutarski 'forgot' to mention that he was already shown this, and other documents.

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e133/Kurfurst/109G_polar.jpg

The Bf 109V24 prototype of Bf 109F was test measured on 1:1 scale windtunnel in Chalueis Meudon, France. The results were Cd = 0.024-30, depending on surface quality. V24 however was somewhat inferior to the production 109F with it's squadrish wingtips etc.

Hoerner, who was promoted to the title of 'CHIEF AERODYNAMICIST FOR MESERSCHMITT AG' by Blutarski (in the 4000+ pages of Messerschmitt documentation I have, I've never seen his name btw, though that does not exclude the possibility he had some positionthere), was simply doing an fictional calculating example in book, with ad hoc figures. Generally, he gives very optimistic values for propolusion effiency, and lower than normal maximum speed - that would be hardly important since it's merely an example of how to do a drag analysis, but to someone as dumb and/or dishonest as Blutarski it doesn't matter, he will cheerfully ignore the actual tested Cd data of Messerschmitt AG in favour of an ex-Mtt employee's calculated guesswork done some three decades later he worked there.

I do not see point of addressig the other series fictional claims of Blutarski, who's obviously very fond of paranoid conspiracy theories. I feel very little need to do that. Instead,

Keep it clean please, aiming abusive comments towards other users is against forum T&C.
Ignore +1.

RocketDog
03-14-2007, 03:53 AM
Google Sighard Hoerner and one finds:

"Dr. S. Hardy F. Hoerner studied mechanical engineering at the Institute of Technology in Munchen (Dipl.Ing.) he earned a degree as Dr.-Ing. in aerodynamics at the Institute of Technology in Braunschweig, and he obtained a degree as Dr.-Ing..habil. from the TH Berlin."

and,

"As an aerodynamicist for Germany's Fiesler Corporation, Dr. Sighard Hoerner, Ph.D., worked on the Fiesler Storch (Stork), a short takeoff and landing (STOL) reconnaissance and liaison aircraft. During the Second World War, Hoerner worked as head of design aerodynamics for Junkers and later for Messerschmitt. After the war, he was invited to come to the United States to work on aerodynamic research at Wright Field, in Dayton, Ohio. There, while working on new concepts for high performance for Navy fighters, Hoerner designed the wing tip that bears his name. He was one of the first aerodynamicists to acknowledge the existence of the wingtip vortex, the corkscrew-shaped wake that forms on a wing's outboard edge, and the Hoerner wing tip was specifically designed to minimize the effects of wingtip vortices on lift, drag, stability, and control."

RD.

luftluuver
03-14-2007, 04:03 AM
Interesting RocketDog. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif


During the Second World War, Hoerner worked as <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">head of design aerodynamics</span>for Junkers and later for <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">Messerschmitt</span>.

Blutarski2004
03-14-2007, 04:54 AM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
Well, I've gone overlong on this post, it's time for dinner, and tonight is my meeting with the other co-conspirators....;-)

Same old barn as the WWI Allied Conspiracy used to meet? Don't forget your ID card and Hat. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... We just move from victim to victim.

;-)

Blutarski2004
03-14-2007, 06:05 AM
Gentlemen,

Well, the predictable response has arrived right on schedule. I rest my case.



I rest my case.

Kurfurst__
03-14-2007, 07:09 AM
Originally posted by RocketDog:
"As an aerodynamicist for Germany's Fiesler Corporation, Dr. Sighard Hoerner, Ph.D., worked on the Fiesler Storch (Stork), a short takeoff and landing (STOL) reconnaissance and liaison aircraft. During the Second World War, Hoerner worked as head of design aerodynamics for Junkers and later for Messerschmitt. After the war, he was invited to come to the United States to work on aerodynamic research at Wright Field, in Dayton, Ohio."

Compare differences.. :

https://oscommerce.darcorp.com/product_info.php?products_id=77

"Dr. S. Hardy F. Hoerner studied mechanical engineering at the Institute of Technology in Munchen (Dipl.Ing.) he earned a degree as Dr.-Ing. in aerodynamics at the Institute of Technology in Braunschweig, and he obtained a degree as Dr.-Ing..habil. from the TH Berlin. He served at one time as research assistant at the Deutsche Versuchsanstalt Fur Luftfahrt (DVL, near Berlin), as aerodynamicist in the Fieseler Corporation (working on the first STOL airplane, the "Stork") and later for a time as head of design aerodynamics in the Junkers A.G. He was then research aerodynamicist at the Messerschmitt A.G. "

Appearantly Hoerner was not employed at Messerschmitt for actual design work, but worked as a theoretical aerodynamist in the research depertment, like when he was an assistant at DVL.

I am all ears about Hoerner's legendary design activity at Messerschmitt AG, and the Werknummers of the 109s that carson guy allegadly flew, as per Blutarski's claims.

RocketDog
03-14-2007, 07:30 AM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Appearantly Hoerner was not employed at Messerschmitt for actual design work, but worked as a theoretical aerodynamist in the research depertment

Yep - that pretty much demolishes any credibility the poor Dr Hoerner might have had when it comes to knowledge of aerodynamics.

RD.

Kurfurst__
03-14-2007, 07:36 AM
It is not Hoerner who's crebibility is diminishing because of this, but the ones who fervently stated as fact that he was the lead design engineer of Messerschmitt, and joyfully dismiss the actal drag polars of prepeared by Messerschmitt AG during the war, shown above.

Generally speaking, it is difficult to take statements seriously from people who make up the facts on the go, dismiss evidence and then tell a selective, manipulated story about it.

stathem
03-14-2007, 07:44 AM
Blutarski made no such claim.

Blutarski stated he was chief aerodynamist at Willie's place.

The article you linked said he was "research aerodynamicist at the Messerschmitt A.G."

Note for non-native english speakers, that the lack of an 'a' or 'the' in the bold text above is very important. From the article Kurfurst quoted one cannot tell if he was 'chief', 'one of the', or 'the only', research aerodynamicist.

Blutarski certainly never stated that he was "lead design engineer of Messerschmitt".

Those are your words only , Kurfurst.

luftluuver
03-14-2007, 07:57 AM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
It is not Hoerner who's crebibility is diminishing because of this, but the ones who fervently stated as fact that he was the lead design engineer of Messerschmitt....

Generally speaking, it is difficult to take statements seriously from people who make up the facts on the go, dismiss evidence and then tell a selective, manipulated story about it. Lol, http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif the kettle calling the pot black. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

Kurfurst, please take a refresher coarse in reading comprehension for you just blew what there is left of any of your credibility, again.

Blutarski:

<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">CHIEF AERODYNAMICIST FOR MESERSCHMITT AG during ww2.</span>

Bellator_1
03-14-2007, 08:36 AM
Carson's assessment is indeed incorrect and very suspect, and if he's serious he couldn't have been the smartest book in the aeronautical class he went to. Countless 109 pilots have absolutely no idea how Carson came up with what is written in that report.

And incase you guys didn't know this already, Hoerner's numbers are purely taken from his own memory.

The 109's true Cd0 figure is on the document Kurfurst presented above.

Cajun76
03-14-2007, 11:00 AM
Originally posted by Bellator_1:
Carson's assessment is indeed incorrect and very suspect, and if he's serious he couldn't have been the smartest book in the aeronautical class he went to. Countless 109 pilots have absolutely no idea how Carson came up with what is written in that report.

<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">And incase you guys didn't know this already, Hoerner's numbers are purely taken from his own memory.</span>

The 109's true Cd0 figure is on the document Kurfurst presented above.

First of all, you have absolutely no proof whatsoever of that, at all. None.

Second, Kurfurst characterizes the figures as "fictional calculating example" "with ad hoc figures" and "calculated guesswork"

because that's what professinals do when they publish books. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

when in fact, as Blutarski points out:


calculation produced a net speed result that fell within 1 PERCENT of an official Rechlin ME109G performance test chart which is hosted on Kurfurst's own ME109 website.

But I guess since anyone who dosen't agree with Kurfurst must be wrong. Even guys who worked on the a/c in question, firsthand. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

M_Gunz
03-14-2007, 11:36 AM
Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
Well, I've gone overlong on this post, it's time for dinner, and tonight is my meeting with the other co-conspirators....;-)

Same old barn as the WWI Allied Conspiracy used to meet? Don't forget your ID card and Hat. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... We just move from victim to victim.

;-) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It is a tradition as old as WWI itself, started by pilots and propaganda of course.
There really never were any Allied planes at all, it was all just jokes and lies!

Don't forget that alternate weeks at the old barn is Axis Conspiracy meetings which is why
the ID cards and Hats are necessary.

M_Gunz
03-14-2007, 11:47 AM
I am guessing that for such an advanced fighter as the 109 that pilot trimmable rudder was
just too outdated a feature. Well, not really. I just think that Mr. Holmes got carried
away with enthusiasm. The FW's were better warbirds.

Blutarski2004
03-14-2007, 12:18 PM
It is so terribly wearisome pointing out Kurfurst's inventive twists and wriggles. Here's the latest ...

Kurfurst wrote:

c, Well then, what 109 did Mr. Carson is supposed to flew?

... and is now demanding PROOF that Carson actually flew an ME109.

I never averred, stated, claimed, or even implied that Carson ever test flew an ME109. Why? Because I, like Kurfurst, I have no earthly idea whether he did or not. My sin apparently was rasising the point that he had no proof for the claim. But, hey, Kurfurst does not let such insignificant details like that to interfere with his outright claim that the gentleman never flew one. K does not have a reading comprehension problem. He has an intellectual honesty problem.

The ridiculous thing is that Kurfurst COULD have just said "yeah, I really don't have any real proof about that, but I still thank that Carson is a moron". I would have had absolutely no problem with such a reply and this whole thing would have been a non-issue.

I need to check if there's a full moon over Budapest this week.

Bellator_1
03-14-2007, 12:35 PM
Originally posted by Cajun76:
First of all, you have absolutely no proof whatsoever of that, at all. None.

Sure I have, not a single document is presented in his book to back up his figures.

Also we don't know how he calculated his way close to the result of a Rechlin result.

But nomatter this, cause anyone who believes the Cd0 of the Bf-109 is anywhere near 0.036 needs to get in touch with reality quick, as this would resemble having sandpaper as a wing-surface !

The real Cd0 figure as established by actual windtunnel testing is 0.023.


Second, Kurfurst characterizes the figures as "fictional calculating example" "with ad hoc figures" and "calculated guesswork"

because that's what professinals do when they publish books. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

when in fact, as Blutarski points out:

[QUOTE] calculation produced a net speed result that fell within 1 PERCENT of an official Rechlin ME109G performance test chart which is hosted on Kurfurst's own ME109 website.

But I guess since anyone who dosen't agree with Kurfurst must be wrong. Even guys who worked on the a/c in question, firsthand. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

LoL, and you believe this while you have the real result on an original drag polar Messerschmidt AG document right smack in your face ! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Guess we're supposed to take what someone on this forum claims as proof over the actual real thing ?? Strange thing how the 109 managed always to be faster pr. HP than the Spitfire though, huh ? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Blutarski2004
03-14-2007, 01:00 PM
Hoerner stated clearly in his prefatory remarks that he was basing his calcuations on an ME109G series a/c in a condition typical of those found in front-line service.

Holtzauge
03-14-2007, 01:11 PM
I think there are a few points about the Cdo=0.036 figure from Hoerner one should know about:

Hoerner arrives at the number by making the following assumptions:

1) Max speed 610 Km/h at 22000ft
2) Engine 1200 hp at 22000ft
3) Prop efficiency 0.85
4) Exhaust thrust estimated at around 140 lb

From this he calculates thrust: 1000+140=1140 lb. He also calculates the dynamic pressure as 184 lb/sq ft.

Using this he calculates D/q= 1140/184 = 6.2 sq ft.

So then we get Cdo= 6.2/172= 0.036

To put all this in context, Hoerner was using the Me109 as an example in the book to do a drag analysis of a complete plane. I do not think he meant the Cdo=0.036 to be taken as the gospel thruth but more to set the stage for the drag breakdown that follows after this analysis on the next 5 pages in the book. If someone has actual IRL data instead of the by Hoerner estimated points 1 to 4 above it would be possible to see how realistic his assumptions were and if the 0.036 figure should be taken as a true estimate of the actual drag for the plane.

I do think that Messerschmitt factory data that shows lower figures should be taken seriously especially in the context that Hoerner was clear on that the analysis he provided was based on the above assumptions.

Granted: the "Beule" had a few things sticking out but it also only had a wing area of 172 sq ft and 6.2 sq ft drag area seems to be rather on the steep side considering estimates that put the Spitfire 9 at 5.4, P51B at 4.61 and the Fw190D9 at 4.77 sq ft.

Just my 2 cents......

As a sidenote: I have rather fond memories of the book where drag analysis on the Me109G comes from, Fluid Dynamic Drag, by S.F Hoerner. I bought it while on a sabbatical year working in a sailboat shop in Sarasota, Florida 1982 (Spoke to Mrs Hoerner over the phone to order it!). It was my first book on Aerodynamics and I used to drool over it after work. It is still a classic that I recommend to anyone with an interest in the subject since it contains a lot of practical info. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Abbuzze
03-14-2007, 01:50 PM
Originally posted by klower:

Good point, I'm not trying to make a value judgement about the 109 vs the p-51, they are different types for different missions. In some respects the 109 was more efficient, for example 109 was more efficiently designed to facilitate repair and maintenance, and it was more efficiently arranged to pack all of the necessary weapons and other things into a smaller airframe. My point, however was related to aerodynamic efficiency (perhaps I should have been more clear on this).

I think your point about more resources needed to reach something can be refined in relation to aerodynamic efficiency, like how much power it takes to keep a certain volume and weight at a certain speed. Drag coefficient is a quantative expression of this. I understand that the 109 is not outstanding in this department, at least not compared to say a P-51.

I subscribe this! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

A few things about the aerodynamic difference between Spit and 109
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/me109/db109g.pdf

This is the Spitfire V, that was equiped in germany with DB605A engine.

With the changed cowling the spitfire is nearly 20km/h slower than a 109G (3100kg - so we don´t know which subtype excactly). At VDH the difference is just 10km/h in favour for the ME.

But the Spitfire concept with the larger wingarea let the spitfire climb faster at all altitudes.
Nevertheless the larger wing with less AoA in thin air still need an alt of 10.5km to be faster than the BF.

But the aerodynamic is a bit different to a real spit.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Don´t know if the nose improve or made the the drag worse...

Blutarski2004
03-14-2007, 01:54 PM
Originally posted by Holtzauge:
I think there are a few points about the Cdo=0.036 figure from Hoerner one should know about:

Hoerner arrives at the number by making the following assumptions:

1) Max speed 610 Km/h at 22000ft
2) Engine 1200 hp at 22000ft
3) Prop efficiency 0.85
4) Exhaust thrust estimated at around 140 lb

From this he calculates thrust: 1000+140=1140 lb. He also calculates the dynamic pressure as 184 lb/sq ft.

Using this he calculates D/q= 1140/184 = 6.2 sq ft.

So then we get Cdo= 6.2/172= 0.036

To put all this in context, Hoerner was using the Me109 as an example in the book to do a drag analysis of a complete plane. I do not think he meant the Cdo=0.036 to be taken as the gospel thruth but more to set the stage for the drag breakdown that follows after this analysis on the next 5 pages in the book. If someone has actual IRL data instead of the by Hoerner estimated points 1 to 4 above it would be possible to see how realistic his assumptions were and if the 0.036 figure should be taken as a true estimate of the actual drag for the plane.

I do think that Messerschmitt factory data that shows lower figures should be taken seriously especially in the context that Hoerner was clear on that the analysis he provided was based on the above assumptions.

Granted: the "Beule" had a few things sticking out but it also only had a wing area of 172 sq ft and 6.2 sq ft drag area seems to be rather on the steep side considering estimates that put the Spitfire 9 at 5.4, P51B at 4.61 and the Fw190D9 at 4.77 sq ft.

Just my 2 cents......

As a sidenote: I have rather fond memories of the book where drag analysis on the Me109G comes from, Fluid Dynamic Drag, by S.F Hoerner. I bought it while on a sabbatical year working in a sailboat shop in Sarasota, Florida 1982 (Spoke to Mrs Hoerner over the phone to order it!). It was my first book on Aerodynamics and I used to drool over it after work. It is still a classic that I recommend to anyone with an interest in the subject since it contains a lot of practical info. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif



..... You make perfect sense Holtzauge. The question then becomes how far astray Hoerner's result might be. 0.023 on one side versus 0.036 on the other sounds rather far part to me. I cannot imagine that Hoerner, having worked as an aerodynamicist at Messerschmitt, would have been unaware of the technical perticulars of the 109G series, including its various drag values. Could someone of Hoerner's background accidentally make a 50 pct over-estimate? I cannot imagine why he would do so intentionally.

Since Hoerner was representing a "typical" aircraft in frontline service condition, perhaps he was allowing for a considerably rougher surface condition than test a/c would typically possess. It seems that surface roughness can have a considerable influence upon overall drag. Perhaps the differential lies there.

Holtzauge
03-14-2007, 03:01 PM
Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
..... You make perfect sense Holtzauge. The question then becomes how far astray Hoerner's result might be. 0.023 on one side versus 0.036 on the other sounds rather far part to me. I cannot imagine that Hoerner, having worked as an aerodynamicist at Messerschmitt, would have been unaware of the technical perticulars of the 109G series, including its various drag values. Could someone of Hoerner's background accidentally make a 50 pct over-estimate? I cannot imagine why he would do so intentionally.

Since Hoerner was representing a "typical" aircraft in frontline service condition, perhaps he was allowing for a considerably rougher surface condition than test a/c would typically possess. It seems that surface roughness can have a considerable influence upon overall drag. Perhaps the differential lies there.

Yes I agree, it is difficult to know what is included in a chart like the one Kurfurst posted. I have seen the number 0.023 before but it seems to be a bit on the low side and I have only seen it in conjunction with the cleaner F-series. Fw190 figures are sometimes given for waxed and sealed test a/c and not for service conditions. May be the same in the Me109 case. In some cases the tail wheel drag is missing in Me109 figures as well. I have seen other sources that put the Me 109 at around 0.028-0.03. This would give a drag area of around 5 sq ft which IMHO seems more probable. Mind you, 5 sq ft is just a guesstimate no more. May be lower, may be higher.....

Would be nice to see someone post solid data with a/c conditions on this if there is any around....

Kurfurst__
03-14-2007, 03:53 PM
Originally posted by Cajun76:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bellator_1:
Carson's assessment is indeed incorrect and very suspect, and if he's serious he couldn't have been the smartest book in the aeronautical class he went to. Countless 109 pilots have absolutely no idea how Carson came up with what is written in that report.

<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">And incase you guys didn't know this already, Hoerner's numbers are purely taken from his own memory.</span>

The 109's true Cd0 figure is on the document Kurfurst presented above.

First of all, you have absolutely no proof whatsoever of that, at all. None. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e133/Kurfurst/109G_polar.jpg
http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e133/Kurfurst/109-drag.jpg

Not that anyone here would except you or Blutarski would ever accept the very own numbers of Messerschmitt AG, and that you won't deny ever seeing anything again on the next page. That is expected of those with a partisan mindset.

As for Hoerner's numbers, Holtzauge adresses these already. Basically Hoerner is using some very rough approx. numbers, like 610 km/h (much lower than actual topspeed), an assumed, very optimistic 85% propeller effiency, and admittedly generic exhaust thrust figure. The propellor effiency figure and his thrust figures claim as much as 100% powerplant effiency. He does this in an article that deals with generic questions, as HA put : 'To put all this in context, Hoerner was using the Me109 as an example in the book to do a drag analysis of a complete plane. I do not think he meant the Cdo=0.036 to be taken as the gospel thruth but more to set the stage for the drag breakdown that follows after this analysis on the next 5 pages in the book.'

This of course does not detract any from Hoerner's work of life, the problem is rather with some people who struggle to understand the pretty basic meaning of Hoerner's plainly understandable sentences, and the focus of his work.

In any case, Hoerner's figure of Cd = 0.036 can be put to a reality test. Messerschmitt AG from 1942 gives the Cd=0.023, and this is supported by wind tunnel testing at a French wind tunnel on the V24 airframe (0.24-30, but the latter is for poor condition), in fact the only way to come near .036 is when they measured the aircraft with full bombload, as seen in Niklas article. Furthermore 0.023 is stated in other Messerschmitt datasheets as well. I have never seen any higher figure quoted in any Messerschmitt or for the matter, other primary document.

Working out the equivalent flat plate areas (Cd x A) would give (A = 16.05m2 = 172,76 sqft):

Hoerners calc: 0.036 x 172,76 = 6,19 sq. feet.
Mtt AG polars: 0.023 x 172,76 = 3,97 sq. feet.

This can be compared to RAE's figures Spitfire IX Cd (which makes a good comparison, given similiar power output of the IXF/M61), given at Cd = 0.0219 or so.

RAE SpitIXF : 0.0219 x 242 = 5,29 sq. feet.

Note that comparing RAE's drag figures for the Spitfire IX vs. Hoerner's 1975 figures, the Spitfire has less drag, therefore it should be faster at equivalent power levels. When comparing RAE's drag figures for the Spitfire IX vs. Messerschmitt AG's own drag polars/wind tunnel tests/datasheets from the 1940s, the Spitfire has the more drag of the two, therefore it should be slower at equivalent power levels.

Looking at a comparison of the 109G-1, as tested by Rechlin, and the speed results at Sea Levelof the Spitfire IX with Merlin 61, we find:

Spitfire IX Merlin 61, available power at SL 1390 HP, Sea level speed 500 km/h.
Me 109G-1, available power at SL 1290 HP, Sea level speed 525 km/h.

There's simply no way that a lower powered, allegadly draggier plane would be faster; the two variables are power and drag - and we know power already.

The Messerschmitt has ca 100 HP less available at Sea level, but it is 25 km/h faster, this points to considerably less drag present on the Messerschmitt, since it reaches higher speeds, with less thrust availabe. This is further reinforced by the level speeds at altitude, where the two-staged Merlin has MUCH more power avaiable, still the top speeds are are approx . the same at 650 km/h (~400 mph).

The reality check shows that the cd=0.036 proposed by Hoerner based on assumed level speeds, propeller effiencies and exhaust thrust in the 1970s are simply wrong - at least for the Me 109, and not because Hoerner does not know how to calculate this, but simply because the base set of data he start working with is simply wrong, therefore the final numbers are wrong as well.




Second, Kurfurst characterizes the figures as "fictional calculating example" "with ad hoc figures" and "calculated guesswork" because that's what professinals do when they publish books. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif


when in fact, as Blutarski points out:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> calculation produced a net speed result that fell within 1 PERCENT of an official Rechlin ME109G performance test chart which is hosted on Kurfurst's own ME109 website. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The problem is, and there's simply no possibility to put it other way, is that Blutarski is just fabricating stories here.
He claims there's a 'Rechlin ME109G' test on my site and it's only 1% different from Hoerner's figures.

Facts being, there's absolutely no 109G-6 Rechlin figures on my site I know of, the only Rechlin figures are for the G-1.The figures for the Rechlin G-1 is 650 km/h at rated altitude; Hoerner uses 610 km/h at rated altitude in his calculations. That's [i]6 % lower top speed, not 1% - and any aircraft falling 3% below the specified specs would be rejected by BAL.

The story he tells is false on all points.


But I guess since anyone who dosen't agree with Kurfurst must be wrong. Even guys who worked on the a/c in question, firsthand. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

Well the guys who worked the aircraft first hand state a Cd=0.023 in their drag polars, Cd=0.023 in their datasheets, and a Cd = 0.024-30 from wind tunnel tests on the V24 prototype which was aerodynamically inferior to the production 109F/G, depending on surface conditions.

Some fellows dismiss Messerschmitt AG's own drag figures and choose instead a rough calculation based on assumed based data from 30 years later instead, simply that's the story here.

Kurfurst__
03-14-2007, 03:59 PM
Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
Hoerner stated clearly in his prefatory remarks that he was basing his calcuations on an ME109G series a/c in a condition typical of those found in front-line service.

You must be reading a different Hoerner than the rest of us do... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

Kurfurst__
03-14-2007, 04:18 PM
Originally posted by Abbuzze:
I subscribe this! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

A few things about the aerodynamic difference between Spit and 109
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/me109/db109g.pdf

This is the Spitfire V, that was equiped in germany with DB605A engine.

Yup, it's a rather good example if someone wants to make a reality-check with Hoerner's figures.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


With the changed cowling the spitfire is nearly 20km/h slower than a 109G (3100kg - so we don´t know which subtype excactly). At VDH the difference is just 10km/h in favour for the ME.

Given 3100 kg, I'd say it's a G-6. I have no details of the test themselves, or what extra equipment it may or may not carry, what was the radiator position during tests and so on. Overall however, the figures are the lowest amongst all 109G tests I've seen, but even these are higher than Hoerner's base data..


But the Spitfire concept with the larger wingarea let the spitfire climb faster at all altitudes.
Nevertheless the larger wing with less AoA in thin air still need an alt of 10.5km to be faster than the BF.

Take note that the Spitfire had all it's armament, ammunition and armor removed when the DB was installed (compare to merlin Spit weights). This naturally boosts it's climb rate, being much lighter. The 109 flies at full combat weight.

Kurfurst__
03-14-2007, 04:20 PM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
I am guessing that for such an advanced fighter as the 109 that pilot trimmable rudder was
just too outdated a feature. Well, not really. I just think that Mr. Holmes got carried
away with enthusiasm. The FW's were better warbirds.

Now hold onto your chair. FW 190 had no pilot trimmable rudder either.

klower
03-14-2007, 08:54 PM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by klower:
OK, this is a pedantic point, ....Small size is just that, small size.

..... A very good point, sir. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

...As for the range, it appears the Mustang possessed about 50% greater range than the 109:

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
That's a mustang III, with 180 gal of internal fuel capacity. The later models had 270 gal internal, giving a range of over 1100 miles. I suppose more tankage could be added to the p-51 as well.

M_Gunz
03-14-2007, 10:41 PM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
I am guessing that for such an advanced fighter as the 109 that pilot trimmable rudder was
just too outdated a feature. Well, not really. I just think that Mr. Holmes got carried
away with enthusiasm. The FW's were better warbirds.

Now hold onto your chair. FW 190 had no pilot trimmable rudder either. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I know. It had far less need as well. But no one tells me it is 20 years ahead.

I just note that 190 is a better warbird than 109, not that 190 had pilot rudder trim.
That is an overall comparison only and my opinion. If you want to start spouting from
Germans who would disagree then please also include those that would starting with Herr
Galland please. I know that Hartmann and Rall both liked the 109's more already too.

mynameisroland
03-15-2007, 05:42 AM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by luftluuver:
Mustang III range with 2 62.5gal drop tanks > 1710mi.
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/mustang-III-ads-7.jpg

Well, that's another interesting set of data. Curiously while the max cruise ranges agree well, your link shows much higher range at economical cruise. There's nothing strange is that, there are figures 20% higher for the Bf 109 as well stating 1250 miles range on econocruise with a single droptank. Take your pick. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The M.Williams fast cruise chart shows that the Tempest V and Mustang III cruise between 50 to 60mph faster than the good old 109 G either with or without droptanks. Infact the Mustang III's or Tempest V's clean, fast cruise speed of around 382 mph it is probably faster than the 109's best speed at 16,000 ft ?

mynameisroland
03-15-2007, 05:49 AM
Originally posted by TheBandit_76:
As I understand it, the P51 Mustang did what it was designed to do much better than the 109.


Well if a fighters job is to shoot down other aircraft, the Bf 109 fulfilled its role superbly. Infact didnt it get credited with over 10 times the Mustangs total...

PS I know the 109 was in service from beginning to end and the P51 wasnt. Yet it is worth pointing out also that at few if any points during the war did the 109 hold numerical superiority over its single engined enemies either.

Kurfurst__
03-15-2007, 06:18 AM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
I am guessing that for such an advanced fighter as the 109 that pilot trimmable rudder was
just too outdated a feature. Well, not really. I just think that Mr. Holmes got carried
away with enthusiasm. The FW's were better warbirds.

Now hold onto your chair. FW 190 had no pilot trimmable rudder either. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I know. It had far less need as well. But no one tells me it is 20 years ahead.

I just note that 190 is a better warbird than 109, not that 190 had pilot rudder trim.
That is an overall comparison only and my opinion. If you want to start spouting from
Germans who would disagree then please also include those that would starting with Herr
Galland please. I know that Hartmann and Rall both liked the 109's more already too. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry for misunderstanding you, it's a perfectly respectable and founded opinion then - though I don't quite get why it needed far less (or more). I myself used to consider the 190 a better aircraft, largely because most Western publications say so. Then I learned more from pilots who flew it and see the primary documents concerning it, and my opinion changed that both aircraft was excellent with stenght and weaknesses, and made a great team. And of course individual German pilots opinion would be similiarly divided, there's nothing wrong with that.

Kurfurst__
03-15-2007, 06:29 AM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:
The M.Williams fast cruise chart shows that the Tempest V and Mustang III cruise between 50 to 60mph faster than the good old 109 G either with or without droptanks. Infact the Mustang III's or Tempest V's clean, fast cruise speed of around 382 mph it is probably faster than the 109's best speed at 16,000 ft ?

It depends on the variant, and of couse comparing a mid-1943 G-6 variant to a mid-1944 Tempest or Mustang will show the advantge of the later types. max. Cruise speeds :

G-1 through G-6, G-14 : 595-600 kph/372 mph
G-6/AS, G-14/AS, G-10 : 620-628 km/h / 389 mph
K-4 : 645 kph / 400 mph
Mustang III : 405 mph
Tempest V : 382 mph

I needs to be taken into account that available engine powers were not identical. I don't see that much a difference between the types cruising speed, these are amongst the fighters w the highest cruising speeds of the war, far above the avarage.

mynameisroland
03-15-2007, 09:52 AM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
The M.Williams fast cruise chart shows that the Tempest V and Mustang III cruise between 50 to 60mph faster than the good old 109 G either with or without droptanks. Infact the Mustang III's or Tempest V's clean, fast cruise speed of around 382 mph it is probably faster than the 109's best speed at 16,000 ft ?

It depends on the variant, and of couse comparing a mid-1943 G-6 variant to a mid-1944 Tempest or Mustang will show the advantge of the later types. max. Cruise speeds :

G-1 through G-6, G-14 : 595-600 kph/372 mph
G-6/AS, G-14/AS, G-10 : 620-628 km/h / 389 mph
K-4 : 645 kph / 400 mph
Mustang III : 405 mph
Tempest V : 382 mph

I needs to be taken into account that available engine powers were not identical. I don't see that much a difference between the types cruising speed, these are amongst the fighters w the highest cruising speeds of the war, far above the avarage. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y294/mynameisroland/me109g6-tactical-appb.jpg

Looking at this chart you posted, it illustrates the "fast" cruise speeds of the different types.

How can the Bf 109 G, any model, have a cruise speed approaching 400mph? The G6 presumably had similar HP settings at cruise as the G10 or K4 ? The only major difference being the AS higher alt supercharger for the later aircraft. Assuming that the Bf 109 doesnt rely on MW 50 to achieve cruise speed how can the G series performance increase so drastically on practically the same HP ?

If you calculate from the data in the chart the 109s fast cruise speed appears to be 321 mph. The Tempest's 382 and the Mustang's 383 mph. As I said a 60 mph advantage for the newer Allied types. However you are wrong when you look to compare the Tempest's performance against later 109s the model here is a mid 1943 Tempest V Sabre IIa 7/9lb boost iirc. An exact contemporary to the G6 in terms of performance is it not? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Kurfurst__
03-15-2007, 11:11 AM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:
How can the Bf 109 G, any model, have a cruise speed approaching 400mph? The G6 presumably had similar HP settings at cruise as the G10 or K4 ? The only major difference being the AS higher alt supercharger for the later aircraft. Assuming that the Bf 109 doesnt rely on MW 50 to achieve cruise speed how can the G series performance increase so drastically on practically the same HP ?

Yes, that's being the case. The powers for cruising speeds are very similiar, ie. 1080 PS at 5.5km for the DB 605A (ie. G-2, G-6), and 1030 PS at 7.7 km for the DB 605D (G-10/K-4, the AS versions are similiar). First of all note that's a very similiar output of continous power compared to that maximum output of the 109Es (max speed 570km/h), and at a higher altitude. It was one of the good traits of the 109 that it had very high cruising speeds. As the AS and D engines develop this power at even higher altitudes, they can achieve even greater cruising speeds because the air is thinner up there. And no, they don't use MW-50 for cruising speeds, it is only used to boost the max. output.

BTW, the V-1650-7's max cruise output is very similiar, 1080 BHP at 22.000 feet, at 2700rpm/+46".




If you calculate from the data in the chart the 109s fast cruise speed appears to be 321 mph. The Tempest's 382 and the Mustang's 383 mph. As I said a 60 mph advantage for the newer Allied types.

Oh, I see now where the confusion originates, you seem to arrive at cruise speeds by dividing 'fast cruise' by endurance, but I don't think that would give accurate cruise speeds (ie. time to climb, land, warmup etc).

I, otoh, were quoting the official datasheets for the Bf 109s for maximum cruise speeds (Höchzulässige Daeurleistung - Max. permissable continous power), which are similiar to the Mustand datasheet you posted.
Ie. check maximum contious speed - 600 km/h for G-1 : http://kurfurst.allaboutwarfare.com/Performance_tests/1..._May42dblatt_EN.html (http://kurfurst.allaboutwarfare.com/Performance_tests/109G_MttDblatt42may/109_May42dblatt_EN.html)



However you are wrong when you look to compare the Tempest's performance against later 109s the model here is a mid 1943 Tempest V Sabre IIa 7/9lb boost iirc. An exact contemporary to the G6 in terms of performance is it not?

A mid 1943 Tempest...? Isn't that a bit too early for service introduction? The first Tempest Squadrons were not combat-ready until March 1944, ie. contemporaries to the G-6/AS G-14 et co, preceeding the G-10/K-4/D-9 by a few months. OTOH, Tempests were a bit rarer in service.

luftluuver
03-15-2007, 01:55 PM
http://kurfurst.allaboutwarfare.com/Performance_tests/1..._May42dblatt_EN.html Anyone else notice it says <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">calculated values</span> on the data sheet?

600kph is still some 30mph slower than the Mustang III's cruise speed.

Endurance at 6 km with economy continous - 1.1hr That is .3, or 18 minutes, shorter than the British data sheet posted.

mynameisroland
03-15-2007, 03:17 PM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:

Yes, that's being the case. The powers for cruising speeds are very similiar, ie. 1080 PS at 5.5km for the DB 605A (ie. G-2, G-6), and 1030 PS at 7.7 km for the DB 605D (G-10/K-4, the AS versions are similiar). First of all note that's a very similiar output of continous power compared to that maximum output of the 109Es (max speed 570km/h), and at a higher altitude. It was one of the good traits of the 109 that it had very high cruising speeds. As the AS and D engines develop this power at even higher altitudes, they can achieve even greater cruising speeds because the air is thinner up there. And no, they don't use MW-50 for cruising speeds, it is only used to boost the max. output.

BTW, the V-1650-7's max cruise output is very similiar, 1080 BHP at 22.000 feet, at 2700rpm/+46".[QUOTE]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Kurfurst__:A mid 1943 Tempest...? Isn't that a bit too early for service introduction? The first Tempest Squadrons were not combat-ready until March 1944, ie. contemporaries to the G-6/AS G-14 et co, preceeding the G-10/K-4/D-9 by a few months. OTOH, Tempests were a bit rarer in service.
Why then, assuming all things are equal, in the document which you posted does the Bf 109 G seem 60 mph slower in cruise when you divide the Endurance hrs and the Distance miles? Were the Bf 109 AND Spitfire measured using different criteria? If you do simple arithmatic you get figures frighteningly close to the true high speed cruise for the Mustang and Tempest yet somehow the same caluculation shows the 109 to be 60 mph inferior? Why?

"at 3,000 feet, at economical cruising on one third power (950 h.p.) with two 45-gallon auxiliary tanks, 310 m.p.h. on the clock, i.e. a true air speed of 320 m.p.h.; at fast cruising speed, at half power (1,425 h.p.) without auxiliary tanks, 350 m.p.h. on the clock, i.e. a true air speed of nearly 400 m.p.h."

Pierre Clostermann, The Big Show, (Ballantine, New York, 1951)



If the same test criteria applies why is it not fair or relevant to compare this way? If it is incorrect to do so the ratio of disparity should be the same for all the caluculations ... it is not.



Where did I say service introduction ? I said clearly, PERFORMANCE WISE this is a mid 43 Tempest. Production of the 1st models occurred during mid 43. That the RAF spent so long getting it right was that they could afford to, the Tempests introduction to service was meant to coincide with DDay. So a fair comparison PERFORMANCE WISE is the Bf 109 G6 - which funnily enough was the Luftwaffe type the Tempest 1st encountered and shot down.

The D9 did not enter production or see service until August/September 44 ?

Kurfurst__
03-15-2007, 04:41 PM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:
Why then, assuming all things are equal, in the document which you posted does the Bf 109 G seem 60 mph slower in cruise when you divide the Endurance hrs and the Distance miles? Were the Bf 109 AND Spitfire measured using different criteria? If you do simple arithmatic you get figures frighteningly close to the true high speed cruise for the Mustang and Tempest yet somehow the same caluculation shows the 109 to be 60 mph inferior? Why? If the same test criteria applies why is it not fair or relevant to compare this way? If it is incorrect to do so the ratio of disparity should be the same for all the caluculations ... it is not.

Possibly they took the German 'Dauersparleistung' as for 'fast cruise'. DSL is difficult to find an equivalent in English, it's something like 'high-speed economic continous' rating, ie. somewhere between maximum cruise and maximum range powers. Comparing the range the British paper gives for 'fast cruise' - 724km - to the German datasheet figures given for MAXCRUISE (circa 600km), I tend to believe the Britsh papers quote 'fast cruise' range for Dauersparleistung, ie. somewhere between max. range (most economic) and max. cruise speed (least economic) conditions.

Though the better why would be why not simply accept the officially given maximum cruise speed of the 109G, Tempest etc from their wartime datasheets. So, why?


Where did I say service introduction ? I said clearly, PERFORMANCE WISE this is a mid 43 Tempest.

This simply doesn't make any sense - what is an '1943 performance tempest'...?
Cruise speed doesn't really depend on what max. boost was cleared for the plane anyway, ie. in 1943, 1944, 1945 the Tempest's cruise speed was pretty much the same.


Production of the 1st models occurred during mid 43.

Prototypes you mean, otherwise I fail to see why it took them some 9 entire months from 'mid-1944' to fully equip a single fighter Sqn with a handful of planes - if it was already in production.. There were 109K prototypes, P-51B prototypes, Me 262 prototypes in 1943 as well. Those are not serial production machines either.


That the RAF spent so long getting it right was that they could afford to, the Tempests introduction to service was meant to coincide with DDay.

... and instead of mass producing the Tempest they voluntarily continued to fly sorties mostly on Typhoons and Spit Vs during the whole 1943... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif I don't buy it. The plane simply wasn't ready. In any case, the Tempest only measured only a tiny bit of fraction of the RAF fighters, on apprx. the same scale as Me 262s in the LW.


So a fair comparison PERFORMANCE WISE is the Bf 109 G6 - which funnily enough was the Luftwaffe type the Tempest 1st encountered and shot down.

You're comparing a plane introduced in February 1943 to a plane introduced in March 1944, while completely ignoring the later variants of the earliest plane (ie. G-6/AS was introduced in the same time as the Tempest).
And you say it's fair. I say it's bizarre.


The D9 did not enter production or see service until August/September 44 ?

Indeed - it saw action a few months after the operational inroduction of the Tempest in March 1944 (for 1-2 Squadron).

mynameisroland
03-15-2007, 05:06 PM
Possibly they took the German 'Dauersparleistung' as for 'fast cruise'. DSL is difficult to find an equivalent in English, it's something like 'high-speed economic continous' rating, ie. somewhere between maximum cruise and maximum range powers. Comparing the range the British paper gives for 'fast cruise' - 724km - to the German datasheet figures given for MAXCRUISE (circa 600km), I tend to believe the Britsh papers quote 'fast cruise' range for Dauersparleistung, ie. somewhere between max. range (most economic) and max. cruise speed (least economic) conditions.

Though the better why would be why not simply accept the officially given maximum cruise speed of the 109G, Tempest etc from their wartime datasheets. So, why?


Why would an Allied test sheet have access to official German documentation? Presumably the BF 109's range was tested to its maximum according to normal testing procedures. As were the other types.


This simply doesn't make any sense - what is an '1943 performance tempest'...?
Cruise speed doesn't really depend on what max. boost was cleared for the plane anyway, ie. in 1943, 1944, 1945 the Tempest's cruise speed was pretty much the same.

A 1943 model Tempest is what we have, in all but the Hispanno Mk Vs. I agree with you that the Tempest Vs max cruise speed did not change as later variants were introduced ... however I fail to see how the DB 605 engine 109 benefited from greater range and cruise speed from similar MAX HP improvements.


Prototypes you mean, otherwise I fail to see why it took them some 9 entire months from 'mid-1944' to fully equip a single fighter Sqn with a handful of planes - if it was already in production.. There were 109K prototypes, P-51B prototypes, Me 262 prototypes in 1943 as well. Those are not serial production machines either.

No, not prototypes. Series 1 production aircraft :
The first rolled off the production line on 21 June 1943. The first 100 Tempest Vs delivered had the long-barrelled Mark II 20 mm Hispano cannon, and such aircraft were referred to as "Tempest V Series I"



You're comparing a plane introduced in February 1943 to a plane introduced in March 1944, while completely ignoring the later variants of the earliest plane (ie. G-6/AS was introduced in the same time as the Tempest).
And you say it's fair. I say it's bizarre.

No, im comparing the performance of a 43 production Tempest V with that of a 43 model G6.



Indeed - it saw action a few months after the operational inroduction of the Tempest in March 1944 (for 1-2 Squadron).

Few months meaning 6 or more ? ie half a year.

luftluuver
03-15-2007, 05:25 PM
Indeed - it saw action a few months after the operational inroduction of the Tempest in March 1944 (for 1-2 Squadron). Lol, a few months is 5-6 months later for the D-9 (Aug -Sept 44)? Is that like a few ships is 2?

Some 109 data sheets:

http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-12/1114844/109G6R2_8R5_10R2-1.jpg

http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-12/1114844/109G_10-1.jpg

http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-12/1114844/109G5_6_14-1.jpg

Me109G-6/AS were constructed (226) and converted (460) between May and Aug 1944.

mynameisroland
03-15-2007, 05:28 PM
So in less numbers than the Me 262 then http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Kurfurst__
03-15-2007, 05:38 PM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:
Why would an Allied test sheet have access to official German documentation? Presumably the BF 109's range was tested to its maximum according to normal testing procedures. As were the other types.

"Presumably", but it is conflicted by every single source showing range and cruise speeds. Again, if you wish to ignore the LW's own datasheets for it's own fighters, and rely on your own assumptions, please feel to do so.. Otherwise the information was readily available, ie. Table I from early 1943 : http://kurfurst.allaboutwarfare.com/Tactical_trials/109...9Gtrop_WdimPerf.html (http://kurfurst.allaboutwarfare.com/Tactical_trials/109G2_britg2trop/MET-109Gtrop_WdimPerf.html)

The 109G by 1944 was not new by any means for the RAF.
With Rating 7 'Economical' they refer to what the Germans calld 'Dauersparleistung' - literally it means 'Cont. Economic Power', but it's difficult to put it into English. It was NOT max. economy rating (Sparleistung).


This simply doesn't make any sense - what is an '1943 performance tempest'...?
Cruise speed doesn't really depend on what max. boost was cleared for the plane anyway, ie. in 1943, 1944, 1945 the Tempest's cruise speed was pretty much the same.

A 1943 model Tempest is what we have, in all but the Hispanno Mk Vs. I agree with you that the Tempest Vs max cruise speed did not change as later variants were introduced ... [/QUOTE]

Explain me what is '1943 performance' or 'an 1943 model'. It's a game term, not real life term.


however I fail to see how the DB 605 engine 109 benefited from greater range and cruise speed from similar MAX HP improvements.

Who said it had greater range? The 109's range was pretty much the same between the 109F-K, small changes were resulted by the increase of the engine's fuel economy, changes in drag etc, that's all.

As for increase in max cruise speed, it's fairly easy to see that if you can maintain 1000 HP output to about 8 km (as the high alt DB 605s did) instead of about 6 km, you will be able to reach higher speeds at the same power, since the air is thinner at 8km than at 6km. Hence greater cruising speeds. That maximum powers also improved but has nothing to do with this.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Prototypes you mean, otherwise I fail to see why it took them some 9 entire months from 'mid-1944' to fully equip a single fighter Sqn with a handful of planes - if it was already in production.. There were 109K prototypes, P-51B prototypes, Me 262 prototypes in 1943 as well. Those are not serial production machines either.

No, not prototypes. Series 1 production aircraft : The first rolled off the production line on 21 June 1943. The first 100 Tempest Vs delivered had the long-barrelled Mark II 20 mm Hispano cannon, and such aircraft were referred to as "Tempest V Series I" </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

OK, simply question : How many Tempest were produced in the year 1943 - June, July, August, September, October, November, December, in 7 months..?


You're comparing a plane introduced in February 1943 to a plane introduced in March 1944, while completely ignoring the later variants of the earliest plane (ie. G-6/AS was introduced in the same time as the Tempest).
And you say it's fair. I say it's bizarre.


No, im comparing the performance of a 43 production Tempest V with that of a 43 model G6.

You're comparing a plane introduced in February 1943 to a plane introduced in March 1944.

It's quite simple. There was no operational Tempest in 1943, simply because there was no large series production either.
Pre-series, prototypes are not series production.


Indeed - it saw action a few months after the operational inroduction of the Tempest in March 1944 (for 1-2 Squadron).

Few months meaning 6 or more ? ie half a year.[/QUOTE]

Well you have no problems comparing a 12 months older 109G-6 to a Tempest LOL!
In any case, the Tempest was not introduced in any meaningful number until late-summer of 1944 either, Squadrons were raised slowly due to slow production rates, and even by the end of the war there were no more than a handful of Tempest Sqns. In contrast, D-9s were introduced a few months later, but then very quickly and quickly become a definitive type of the FW 190 units. It's the same with the 109K. At the start of October, there were none with the units. By the end of October, there were around 200.

It would be odd to regard the same when there's a dozen of Plane A in service, and when there are hundreds of Plane B in service.

mynameisroland
03-15-2007, 05:44 PM
Wonder how many sorties the fuel starved, D9 laden Luftwaffe Geschwaders were able to put up next to the paltry number of Tempests of the RAF's 2nd TAF during the same period?

I seem to remember a similar argument being levelled at the Spitfire XIV vs the Bf 109 K4.
Wasnt it shown that despite smaller production numbers the fact that they were well maintained, well flown and plentifully fuelled the Spitfire XIVs put in more sorties than the K4, same goes for the Tempest D9 comparison?
Oh and remind me again what aircraft the Tempest first encountered in air to air combat ? Was it a K4 or a D9 ? No it was a G6, the most ubiqutous Luftwaffe fighter of 1944 - just like the Spitfire Vb was the most common RAF type in 43 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Kurfurst__
03-15-2007, 05:48 PM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:
So in less numbers than the Me 262 then http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

The first AS engined aircraft were produced from December 1943. Altogether 686 G-6/AS aircraft were built or converted from existing airfames, along with 76 G-5/AS, 16 G-5/R2/AS, 68 G-5/R6/AS, the only difference being G-5s having pressurized cocpits for the pilot`s comfort at high altitudes. Production/conversion discontinued when they were replaced by the practically identical - apart from designation - G-14/AS (which had MW-50 as standard factory fitting).

There were less Tempest than either Me 262, Me 109G-14/AS (which replaced the G-6/AS, but was practically identical), K-4s, G-10 or D-9s produced. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Plus, there were less Tempest produced up to mid-1944 than G-6/AS. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

mynameisroland
03-15-2007, 05:59 PM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
So in less numbers than the Me 262 then http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

The first AS engined aircraft were produced from December 1943. Altogether 686 G-6/AS aircraft were built or converted from existing airfames, along with 76 G-5/AS, 16 G-5/R2/AS, 68 G-5/R6/AS, the only difference being G-5s having pressurized cocpits for the pilot`s comfort at high altitudes. Production/conversion discontinued when they were replaced by the practically identical - apart from designation - G-14/AS (which had MW-50 as standard factory fitting).

There were less Tempest than either Me 262, Me 109G-14/AS (which replaced the G-6/AS, but was practically identical), K-4s, G-10 or D-9s produced. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Plus, there were less Tempest produced up to mid-1944 than G-6/AS. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Correct me if I am wrong but werent the 605 AS engined aircraft only faster at altitude? Therefore the increase in supercharger alt not really helping them a great deal in this comparison. The Tempest's performance envelope, where it really outclassed the Luftwaffe piston fighters, was from Sea level to around 16,000 ft. Traditionally an arena the RAF had a slight air to air performance disadvantage.

None of the aircraft you have mentioned came close to the Tempest V in all round performance at low to medium heights, the nearest being the Fw 190 D9. Ofcourse by the time the D9 entered service in Aug/sep 44 the newer Tempest V Sabre IIb was capable of 11lb's boost and therefore greater speed than the Sabre IIa variant.

Kurfurst__
03-15-2007, 05:59 PM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:
Wonder how many sorties the fuel starved, D9 laden Luftwaffe Geschwaders were able to put up next to the paltry number of Tempests of the RAF's 2nd TAF during the same period?

Well, that was a factor too, but it doesn't quite seem the LW was cutting much back on the number of fighter sorties (bombers - yes) in 1944. For example the number of sorties flown by LW fighters on the West was something like 10-12 000 in December 1944. That's quite a few.


I seem to remember a similar argument being levelled at the Spitfire XIV.

Indeed the Tempest saw service in only similiarly low numbers as the Spit XIV. Speaking of XIV, a friend posted this on a board. Interesting, I'd say Tempest production rates were probably showing similiar trends (about the same number was produced). Makes an interesting production compared to G-6/AS production rates, as noted being only 686 in a few months production period. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Spitfire XIV production :
Total Delivered by end of month - Number delivered that month

1943 : 18 18
01-44 : 30 12
02-44 : 45 15
03-44 : 50 05
04-44 : 56 06
05-44 : 68 12
06-44 : 101 33
07-44 : 129 28
08-44 : 151 22
09-44 : 185 34
10-44 : 245 60
11-44 : 300 55
12-44 : 341 41
01-45 : 399 58
02-45 : 511 112
03-45 : 648 137
04-45 : 743 95
05-45 : 815 72

06-45 : 844 29
07-45 : 873 29
08-45 : 891 18
09-45 : 898 7
10-45 : 904 6
11-45 : 911 7



Oh and remind me again what aircraft the Tempest first encountered in air to air combat ? Was it a K4 or a D9 ? No it was a G6, the most ubiqutous Luftwaffe fighter of 1944 - just like the Spitfire Vb was the most common RAF type in 43 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Well, tough for that G-6 pilot, but then, it doesn't prove much, except that maybe it was much more likely to bump into a G-6 than into a Tempest. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

luftluuver
03-15-2007, 06:00 PM
Why does Kurfurst not include these docs on his site? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-12/1114844/109grange4-1.jpg

http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-12/1114844/109grange3-1.jpg


Btw Kurfurst that blue text is hard to read.

mynameisroland
03-15-2007, 06:08 PM
Is there anyone who agrees with Kufurst that the Bf 109 had a higher maximum cruise speed than the Tempest and one close to the P51s? Oh that and the fact it was actually a fairly long ranged fighter, pretty close to the Mustang B.

When looking at RAF production Kufurst it is worth noting that effort was expended on manufacturing heavy bombers. Something that was much more resource intensive than the mass production of simple relatively obsolete fighter types ie the Bf 109 and Bf 110.

IIRC the Hawker factory actually underwent a series of worker strikes which contributed to the delay in Tempest production. That added to the fact that the Hawker Hurricane and Typhoon were still being manufactured at the same time.

Another way to look at the figures would be to compare servicability rates of the K4 and XIV and the D9 and Tempest V then look at the forces distribution.

Kurfurst__
03-15-2007, 06:08 PM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:
Correct me if I am wrong but werent the 605 AS engined aircraft only faster at altitude? The Tempest's performance envelope, where it really outclassed the Luftwaffe piston fighters, was from Sea level to around 16,000 ft. Traditionally an arena the RAF had a slight performance disadvantage.

If you mean 'compared to the 605A' G-6s, then the answer is yes and no. The G-6/AS could either come with MW-50 or without, as it was retrofit, plus of course the 605AS engine. If it got only the AS engine but no MW boost, then it was only faster at altitude (and marginally slower at low alts). If it got both the AS engine and the MW boost (in this case designated 605 ASM), it was faster both high up and down low compared to the '1943' G-6. At high it was faster because of the new big supercharger, at low because of the MW-50 boost. You may find a speed curve for an MW-50 109G/AS on my site (GJ+FX).

The G-14/AS in each and every case had MW-50 boost, from July 1944.


None of the aircraft you have mentioned came close to the Tempest V in all round performance at low to medium heights, the nearest being the Fw 190 D9. Ofcourse by the time the D9 entered service the Tempest V Sabre IIb was capable of 11lb's boost and therefore greater speed than the Sabre IIa variant we have.

Indeed. The Tempest was of course very very fast at low/medium heights, there's no denial of that. For the Germans, the relatively good low-alt performance of the K4/D9 was really just a nice bonus compared to the improved altitude performance they aimed at (quite easy to tell from the very broad, high-alt prop blades these aircraft had).

Kurfurst__
03-15-2007, 06:10 PM
Originally posted by luftluuver:
Why does Kurfurst not include these docs on his site?

If you transcribe the full report, it will be.


Btw Kurfurst that blue text is hard to read.

What blue text? Default text is white, default links are yellow/gold.

Kettenhunde
03-15-2007, 06:11 PM
It then emerges ...


... that this .036 drag value for the ME109G series was computed by Dr Ing Sighard Hoerner, a world renowned GERMAN aerodynamicist, author of the principal textbook on the subject of fluid dynamics, and CHIEF AERODYNAMICIST FOR MESERSCHMITT AG during ww2. "Preposterous and ridiculous" is again the response. Hoerner is a senile old jerk who can't even get his figures straight and doesn't know what he is talking about.

I did not sift through this whole thread. I don't know if this has been pointed out already....

http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1174003392_109g_polar.036.jpg

All the Best,

Crumpp

mynameisroland
03-15-2007, 06:18 PM
Re directing this back to the range comparison I remember asking a while back what the maximum cruise speed for the G6 (AS, Mw 50 or otherwise) was at around 16,000ft. This was the altitude of comparison I was refering to when I brought up the topic of the Tempest's range vs that of the 109. As the Tempest was designed for low/medium altitude combat I believe that it possessed a significant cruise speed/range advantage at its operating altitudes.

The AS engined 109 would have a higher ceiling than the non AS engine G6 of the chart so high alt HP FTH would be increased and inturn more HP at increased height equals more speed thanks to thinner air, however at altitudes below 18,000ft this supercharging advantage should make no difference to max range or max cruise speed would it?

To travel fast at altitudes where the air is denser you need more HP or better streamling ie the Tempest V ( around 1800 hp or so at maximum cruise settings ) or the Mustang. What speed/radius do you reckon the Bf 109 could achieve at this altitude when it was tasked with fighting the RAF or the USAAF medium bombers or fighter bombers?

luftluuver
03-15-2007, 06:19 PM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by luftluuver:
Why does Kurfurst not include these docs on his site?

If you transcribe the full report, it will be.


Btw Kurfurst that blue text is hard to read.

What blue text? Default text is white, default links are yellow/gold. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>The docs are from Mike's site.

You have blue text and magenta text here, http://kurfurst.allaboutwarfare.com/Tactical_trials/109...T109Gtrop_tests.html (http://kurfurst.allaboutwarfare.com/Tactical_trials/109G2_britg2trop/MET109Gtrop_tests.html)

Your e-mail is blue text as well.

Kurfurst__
03-15-2007, 06:21 PM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:
Is there anyone who agrees with Kufurst that the Bf 109 had a higher maximum cruise speed than the Tempest and one close to the P51s? Oh that and the fact it was actually a fairly long ranged fighter, pretty close to the Mustang B.

Well, the wartime datasheets quoted before, though no-one made such exaggrevated claims as you do here - it's called a strawman arguement. The 109 had about 370-400mph cruise speed and a range of up to 1600-1800 km with a droptank, an endurance of up 5 hours. That was fairly sufficient for the tasks set for it, ie. interception of enemy bombers/fighters and escort of own bombers on the EF.


When looking at RAF production Kufurst it is worth noting that effort was expended on manufacturing heavy bombers. Something that was much more resource intensive than the mass production of simple relatively obsolete fighter types ie the Bf 109 and Bf 110. IIRC the Hawker factory actually underwent a series of worker strikes which contributed to the delay in Tempest production. That added to the fact that the Hawker Hurricane and Typhoon were still being manufactured at the same time.

Then why were they not short of Spit Vs, Hurricanes and Typhoons at the same time..? Why produce the Typhoon (not to say the Hurricane) if the Tempest, it's much superior replacement, is availbe and there are no bottlenecks like airframe and engine production?


Another way to look at the figures would be to compare servicability rates of the K4 and XIV and the D9 and Tempest V then look at the forces distribution.

Typically servicibilty rates were about 65-70% for the LW fighters, through the whole war. I doubt XIVs or Tempest had much higher. I've seen half a dozen Typhoon Sqns having only 1-2-3 servicable planes available out of 20, and other with as much as 19.

I'd really like to hear on the number of XIV or Tempest sorties ! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

Kurfurst__
03-15-2007, 06:23 PM
Originally posted by luftluuver:
The docs are from Mike's site.

Snippet's from Mike. On the 109 and 190. Hmm. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif


You have blue text and magenta text here, http://kurfurst.allaboutwarfare.com/Tactical_trials/109...T109Gtrop_tests.html (http://kurfurst.allaboutwarfare.com/Tactical_trials/109G2_britg2trop/MET109Gtrop_tests.html)

Your e-mail is blue text as well.

Oh, s*t happens, I'll check when I have time. Could be a couple of others, the template is not always correct.

luftluuver
03-15-2007, 06:35 PM
The data sheet on your site is the ammended sheet for the one dated Feb 8 43.

The last sheet is as the first but with 3 drop tanks.

So you have left out some info. Why?

The text is now yellow.

mynameisroland
03-15-2007, 06:47 PM
Well, the wartime datasheets quoted before, though no-one made such exaggrevated claims as you do here - it's called a strawman arguement. The 109 had about <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">370-400mph cruise speed and a range of up to 1600-1800 km with a droptank, an endurance of up 5 hours.</span> That was fairly sufficient for the tasks set for it, ie. interception of enemy bombers/fighters and escort of own bombers on the EF.

pot kettle black on the exagerated claims part btw

When you say sufficient for the Bf 109s tasks do those include escorting bombers from London to Berlin ? You know like the only other WW2 single engined fighter capable of 5 hr flights.

Sorry mate but the only strawman arguments I see here are your claims on:

A the Bf 109s max cruise speed of circa 400mph (maybe you misread max speed with max CRUISE speed?)
and
B the 1600-1800 km / 5 hour flight capability lol

Can I ask why you posted the Mike Williams range comparison chart at all if the Bf 109 was actually capable of more than twice the stated range? How could the Allies have underestimated the Bf 109s range by over 100% ?

Kurfurst__
03-15-2007, 06:48 PM
Originally posted by luftluuver:
The data sheet on your site is the ammended sheet for the one dated Feb 8 43.
The last sheet is as the first but with 3 drop tanks.

The first one is from February. This one is from May. They show completely different things.. ammandement? Follow-u report on the same general subject perhaps.


So you have left out some info. Why?

Documents you posted are not part of the G-2/trop report package I received from Neil, besides it will be covered separately and there are more interesting documents about actual performance which have priority.

I have about 4000+ pages of 109 documentation scanned already. A lot of is missing from the site.


The text is now yellow.

I know. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

luftluuver
03-15-2007, 07:10 PM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
The first one is from February. This one is from May. They show completely different things.. ammandement? Follow-u report on the same general subject perhaps.

Documents you posted are not part of the G-2/trop report package I received from Neil, besides it will be covered separately and there are more interesting documents about actual performance which have priority.

I have about 4000+ pages of 109 documentation scanned already. A lot of is missing from the site.

Is that not what I said? corrected performance figures = ammended performance figures

Notice the date (May 11 1943) on the docs I posted. Would say they go hand in hand with the part of the doc you posted. Notice the text which refers to your posted doc. But then with such lousy range, can't expect them to be on your site.

Kurfurst__
03-15-2007, 07:12 PM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">

Well, the wartime datasheets quoted before, though no-one made such exaggrevated claims as you do here - it's called a strawman arguement. The 109 had about <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">370-400mph cruise speed and a range of up to 1600-1800 km with a droptank, an endurance of up 5 hours.</span> That was fairly sufficient for the tasks set for it, ie. interception of enemy bombers/fighters and escort of own bombers on the EF.

pot kettle black on the exagerated claims part btw

When you say sufficient for the Bf 109s tasks do those include escorting bombers from London to Berlin ? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

And since when was that a task of the Bf 109s...? It had a range of 800 miles on 'fast' cruise with it's droptank, more on economic cruise. That was a very typical configuration.

That's was fairly sufficient to escort a bomber and back from say, the German border to London, from Kharkov into Moscow or Stalingrad, or from Crete to Alexanderia, or from Calais to Glasgow, or from Helsinki to Vilnius, or to take off from Berlin and chase bombers over the Ruhr and return.

In an Allied config, it would have an escort range from England up to apprx. Hamburg. It COULD just fly from England to Berlin and back, but it would have to do it on a slow economic speed and would probably not possess enough fuel to do much fighting. It never needed to do that either.


You know like the only other WW2 single engined fighter capable of 5 hr flights.

Quite a few fighters were capable of 5 hr flights. The Mustang had as much as 7hour.


Sorry mate but the only strawman arguments I see here are your claims on:

A the Bf 109s max cruise speed of circa 400mph (maybe you misread max speed with max CRUISE speed?)
and
B the 1600-1800 km / 5 hour flight capability lol

Range and max cruise speed documents are posted already. They are easy to understand.



Can I ask why you posted the Mike Williams range comparison chart at all if the Bf 109 was actually capable of more than twice the stated range? How could the Allies have underestimated the Bf 109s range by over 100% ?

Makes no sense. The tables are easy to read for all, but perhaps some.

Kurfurst__
03-15-2007, 07:18 PM
Originally posted by luftluuver:
Is that not what I said? corrected performance figures = ammended performance figures

Notice the date (May 11 1943) on the docs I posted. Would say they go hand in hand with the part of the doc you posted. Notice the text which refers to your posted doc. But then with such lousy range, can't expect them to be on your site.

Well, since that it is so important to you, transcribe it then.

luftluuver
03-15-2007, 07:24 PM
Typical you only include what does not show the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth about the 109. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

mynameisroland
03-16-2007, 04:26 AM
<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">Note: Performance data based on tests made by Finnish Air Force test pilot in 5.4.1943 (Bf 109G-2 MT-215, pilot Pekka Kokko). Full fuel and ammo load.</span>


Max speed: 630 kph TAS at 6000 meters. 520 kph TAS at sea level.
Service ceiling: 12000 meters. Climb to 6000 meters 5 minutes, 8000 meters 8 minutes.
Range: 750 km with 470-490 TAS kph cruise speed at 2500 meters, flight time 1.5 hours, internal fuel. Typical combat flight (long climb and air combat) time 1 hour with internal fuel. Max flight time over 2 hours with drop tank.

This Finnish data, I know Finnish data is regarded as some of the best for Bf 109s because it is quite favourable, it seems to show that its typical cruise speed is around 485km/h or 293 mph and at such slow speeds its radius on internal fuel is 750 km. Heck it even shows its maximum speed is only 30 km/h greater than its max cruise speed that you posted.

I have some data for the late war Bf 109 K4 R2, so we are talking final production Reconnaisance model its maximum cruise at was 645 km/h/ 390 mph at 8.4 km/27558 ft altitude. Its range at this speed and altitude was 585 kilometres or 382 miles. Was this model of K4 carrying ammo? Or was it, like Allied recon types, cleaned up, guns deleted, waxed and primed for high altitude range and cruise speed? If it is a select example then it doesnt compare very well with recon Spit IX and XIV variants, which cover twice the range at comparable cruise speeds.

Source: Messerschmitt Bf 109 F-K,-Development - Testing -Production, Willy Radinger & Wolfgang Otto p38

Kurfurst__
03-16-2007, 07:17 AM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:
<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">Note: Performance data based on tests made by Finnish Air Force test pilot in 5.4.1943 (Bf 109G-2 MT-215, pilot Pekka Kokko). Full fuel and ammo load.</span>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Max speed: 630 kph TAS at 6000 meters. 520 kph TAS at sea level.
Service ceiling: 12000 meters. Climb to 6000 meters 5 minutes, 8000 meters 8 minutes.
Range: 750 km with 470-490 TAS kph cruise speed at 2500 meters, flight time 1.5 hours, internal fuel. Typical combat flight (long climb and air combat) time 1 hour with internal fuel. Max flight time over 2 hours with drop tank.

This Finnish data, I know Finnish data is regarded as some of the best for Bf 109s because it is quite favourable, </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually the Finnish data is far from the best for speed, they reached 637 km/h at 6,3km, a bit slower than the rest, probably because of an faulty superchger causing the plane to reach less than avarage rated altitude. The Finnish test is readable on my site. That aircraft had non-retractable tailwheel so it was a tad bit more draggy.

Scatter measurements of actual Bf 109G speeds at Erla factory shows how much the performance varied from plane to plane. The avarage was 652 km/h. Here's a snippet of these trials : http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/me109/erla109g.pdf

Soviet trials showed close results to the official specs (660 km/h at 7km) at 666km/h at 7km.


.. it seems to show that its typical cruise speed is around 485km/h or 293 mph and at such slow speeds its radius on internal fuel is 750 km. Heck it even shows its maximum speed is only 30 km/h greater than its max cruise speed that you posted.

Where does it state 'typical'..? It states a range, at a given speed. It also states at 2500m altitude, 470-490 TAS kph. This agrees closely with the German figures, ie. 468 km/h at 0km altitude, 590-595 km/h at 6km altitude. Range 560 km on this condition at altitude, internal fuel, details unknown. That's for the draggier G-6.
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-12/1114844/109G6R2_8R5_10R2-1.jpg


I have some data for the late war Bf 109 K4 R2, so we are talking final production Reconnaisance model its maximum cruise at was 645 km/h/ 390 mph at 8.4 km/27558 ft altitude. Its range at this speed and altitude was 585 kilometres or 382 miles. Was this model of K4 carrying ammo? Or was it, like Allied recon types, cleaned up, guns deleted, waxed and primed for high altitude range and cruise speed? If it is a select example then it doesnt compare very well with recon Spit IX and XIV variants, which cover twice the range at comparable cruise speeds.

Source: Messerschmitt Bf 109 F-K,-Development - Testing -Production, Willy Radinger & Wolfgang Otto p38

It's a fully armed version converted from a standard fighter with the addition of cameras behind the cocpit, a fighter-recce, not a pure PR plane. If anything, it had slightly more drag from the underfuselage camera port. Cruise speeds for the fighter K-4 is given as the same, 645 km/h.

WOLFMondo
03-16-2007, 08:41 AM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Then why were they not short of Spit Vs, Hurricanes and Typhoons at the same time..? Why produce the Typhoon (not to say the Hurricane) if the Tempest, it's much superior replacement, is availbe and there are no bottlenecks like airframe and engine production?

I think you need to look at Britian at the closing of the European conflict and post war plans and there budget or lack thereof. Late on in 1944 it was pretty clear where things were going so switching production to another type, all that retooling and retraining, supply chains wasn't worth the money when the RAF had plenty of Spitfire IX's sitting about and jets just around the corner.

There was no real need to replace with those newer types, just to supliment them as Britain was going to be broke when the fighting stopped and what it did want was more jets.

The Tempest was fantastic as a tactical fighter but the cost of retooling all those factories to make them when planes like the meteor and vampire appearing can't have looked appealing to the Treasury which was in a poor state already after fighting two wars with Germany within a quarter of a century.


Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Typically servicibilty rates were about 65-70% for the LW fighters, through the whole war. I doubt XIVs or Tempest had much higher. I've seen half a dozen Typhoon Sqns having only 1-2-3 servicable planes available out of 20, and other with as much as 19.


Flak. An aweful lot of Typhoons and Tempests were hit by flak and many Spit XIV's were used as mud movers so got the same reception.