PDA

View Full Version : Me 109 & Fabric Ailerons



Blutarski2004
04-20-2005, 12:02 PM
Just finished reading "Messerschmitts over Sicily", by Macky Steinhoff. The book describes his several months of JG77 duty over Sicily and Southern Italy in mid 1943 opposing Operation Husky (allied invasion of Sicily).

Steinhoff mentioned that he was still flying a 109F4 during this period. This was a year after the official introduction of the G variant. He also mentioned that his 109F4 had fabric covered ailerons and described how they would "balloon" out at higher speeds and badly affect aileron efficiency.

Questions -

Can anyone advise any details on the transition from fabric covered ailerons to metal covered ailerons?

Did metal covered ailerons appear with the introduction of the G series? Later?

... another interesting mystery.

lrrp22
04-20-2005, 10:34 PM
Blutarski,

The 109 retained fabric-covered ailerons through its entire production run.

Bf 109G-10/U4 W. Nr. 610937's aileron: http://109lair.hobbyvista.com/walkaround/610937/610937.24.jpg

Kurfurst__
04-21-2005, 12:43 AM
Indeed the Bf 109, like most fighters of ww2, used fabric covered ailerons. Flaps were metal covered. An improvement was made in 1940, when the 109F(/G/K) started using Frise type ailerons. Aileron Flettner tabs appeared in 1943 on the airplanes produced by WNF and only there; some later production 109Ks were also fitted with it. Interestingly, British trial reports note they were afraid to use full deflection of the ailerons at high speeds, as they were so effective that they could cause undue stresses, similiar what German trials say.

Also, according to the Strenght and Movement reports of JG 77 to the German high command, the unit did not possess ANY Bf 109F in 1943. Steinhoff`s unit, I/JG77, possessed one Bf 109F-4 on 1st December 1942, and received another from another unit during the month. However, both were passed to other units during the month, the 1st Jan 1943 compliment of Bf 109F being zero with I/JG 77. This is in agreement with other units reports, which show only a marginal number of Bf 109Fs lost in June 1943, indicating that the type was only used for training purposes by then. So Steinhoff appears to be wrong.

The qoute would be interesting though.

Ratsack
04-21-2005, 05:02 AM
Right.

€¦let me read that again€¦

O.K.

€¦no, it still reads the same.

Kurfuerst,

I am staggered by the arrogance of your last post. To summarise your position:

Johannes €˜Macky€ Steinhoff, veteran of hundreds of sorties, victor of more than 150 combats, Gustav expert, Gruppe or Geschwader commander at the time (Blutarski could tell us which), actual eye witness of and key character in the events in question: he€s wrong. (€œYeah, sorry mate, you€re wrong, you don€t know what you€re talking about. You should consult J. Prien et al before making remarks like that€¦€)

Kurfuerst, on the other hand, armchair warrior, computer gamer and Bf109 enthusiast: he€s right.

The guy who was there €" Steinhoff - was so lacking in skills of observation and basic technical knowledge that he doesn€t know which kind of 109 he was actually sitting in at the time. Kurfuerst, in contrast, can confidently claim he€s wrong, from a temporal distance of more than 60 years.

Go and get a grip, Kluster-phark. You€re making a spectacle of yourself.

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
Ratsack

HayateAce
04-21-2005, 07:45 AM
Koofurst will never allow himself to accept the fact that the 109 was NOT the best aircraft in the world of 1940-1945. He wants to believe it so badly, but it can never be made true.

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

Koof, it's time to choke down a dose of reality. The 109 and its fliers were beaten on both the Western and Eastern fronts. Time to solemnly accept it m8.

Kurfurst__
04-21-2005, 08:45 AM
Intelligent persons can read the info here on JG 77. No 109Fs by 1943, the last were dropped in January. Besides it would be nice to see what Steinhoff said, not what he allegadly said. Mr. Blutarski has a reputation about qouting people in a special manner...

http://www.ww2.dk/oob/bestand/jagd/bstjg77.html
http://www.ww2.dk/oob/bestand/jagd/bijg77.html
http://www.ww2.dk/oob/bestand/jagd/biijg77.html
http://www.ww2.dk/oob/bestand/jagd/biiijg77.html

If thy spit upwards into the sky, it just falls back to thy face.

TAGERT.
04-21-2005, 08:50 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Besides it would be nice to see what Steinhoff said, not what he _allegadly_ said. Mr. Blutarski has a reputation about qouting people in a special manner... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Pfffffffffffffffft HEHEHAHEHAHEHAEHAHHEHAHAHeha... Oh man.. now if that isnt a perfect example of the coffie calling the kettel black.

Blutarski2004
04-21-2005, 09:09 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Intelligent persons can read the info here on JG 77. No 109Fs by 1943, the last were dropped in January. Besides it would be nice to see what Steinhoff said, not what he _allegadly_ said. Mr. Blutarski has a reputation about qouting people in a special manner...

http://www.ww2.dk/oob/bestand/jagd/bstjg77.html
http://www.ww2.dk/oob/bestand/jagd/bijg77.html
http://www.ww2.dk/oob/bestand/jagd/biijg77.html
http://www.ww2.dk/oob/bestand/jagd/biiijg77.html

OTOH, @ssholes can keep barking. If thy spit upwards into the sky, it just falls back to thy face. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... Why do your gratuitous slurs and insults now fail to surprise me any longer? I do in fact take great pride in the "special manner" in which I quote sources. I take pains to do so as accurately, fairly, and completely as possible. If, as you claim, author Steinhoff is mistaken in his recollections, then I was led astray by his book. I will check it when I return home.

Frankly, I'm surprised that you do not own a copy of this book, as it was originally published in German. I have only the English language translation. You can read Mr Steinhoff's words in his native language.

It's just unbelievable to me how you conduct yourself, Kurfurst. What an embarrassment you are.

Ratsack
04-21-2005, 10:32 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Intelligent persons can read the info here on JG 77. No 109Fs by 1943, the last were dropped in January. Besides it would be nice to see what Steinhoff said, not what he _allegadly_ said. Mr. Blutarski has a reputation about qouting people in a special manner...

http://www.ww2.dk/oob/bestand/jagd/bstjg77.html
http://www.ww2.dk/oob/bestand/jagd/bijg77.html
http://www.ww2.dk/oob/bestand/jagd/biijg77.html
http://www.ww2.dk/oob/bestand/jagd/biiijg77.html

OTOH, @ssholes can keep barking. If thy spit upwards into the sky, it just falls back to thy face. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Whatever your training, it wasn't history. What you've trotted out as proof is a set of secondary or tertiary sources. The primary source in this instance would be the hard copy books from which this data originated. As it stands, we have no idea of the provenance of the data before Michael Holm's presentation. In what you've presented, there could be typos, missing pages, misinterpretation of some German airman's scrawl...the possibilities are nearly endless.

Steinhoff, on the other hand, is a primary source...but you discounted him right away, didn't you? This is what is so arrogant about your initital reply to Blutarski. There were several possible explanations for the discrepancy: Blutarski may have made a mistake; your data could be wrong; Blutarski may have misinterpreted something to mean Macky was in an F; Steinhoff's memory could be faulty. You just jump straight to the last, ignoring the facts about Steinhoff and his obvious competence to comment on the matter in hand. You just inferred he was wrong, and your data was right. The shallowness of your thinking is reavealed in that moribund little inference, as is your arrogance in the way you present such poorly reasoned conclusions as fact.

You need to take a break from this game.


http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
Ratsack

lrrp22
04-21-2005, 11:26 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Indeed the Bf 109, like most fighters of ww2, used fabric covered ailerons. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not British or American fighters. Fabric ailerons with external mass balances were not current technology.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Aileron Flettner tabs appeared in 1943 on the airplanes produced by WNF and only there; some later production 109Ks were also fitted with it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

There is no evidence that any K-4 ever recieved aileron Flettner tabs or, if installed, whether they even had a positive effect on aileron behavior.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Interestingly, British trial reports note they were afraid to use full deflection of the ailerons at high speeds, as they were so effective that they could cause undue stresses, similiar what German trials say. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

More than likely because of stick force reversal, not because they were "so effective". As you know, virtually all sources indicate that the 109's ailerons were very heavy at high speed.

Daiichidoku
04-21-2005, 11:38 AM
I have seen a pic of a K4 with a flettner tab...it was posted in GD or ORR last year some time ago.....

lrrp22
04-21-2005, 12:43 PM
That was a G-10. No one has ever come up with photo evidence of Flettners on a K-4. Kurfurst has posted a couple of pic's that he claimed showed a Flettner, but one was a aileron/flap control lock and the other just a squiggle of some kind that he claimed was an actuator arm.

Vincent Kermogant, the self-proclaimed 'Doc 109', says that Flettners did in fact reach some WNF-built G-10's, but no K-4's.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Daiichidoku:
I have seen a pic of a K4 with a flettner tab...it was posted in GD or ORR last year some time ago..... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Kurfurst__
04-21-2005, 02:02 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lrrp22:
Not British or American fighters. Fabric ailerons with external mass balances were _not_ current technology. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You do not appear to know eithe British or American fighters then, as quite a few had fabric ailerons, or other fabric covered control surfaces external mass balances. P-38, P-40, P-51, Spitfire, Hurricane for example. Oh and BTW, the fighter with the best roll rate in WW2, the FW 190, also had fabric covered ailerons.. Boo-hoo, that puts your theories six feet under I guess.

Quite clearly, you have no f. idea of the technology you are bubbling about, and why are fabric control surfaces or mass balances were used, you just keep pouring it out of yourself, like another forum clown who`s aerodynamic theories make the true experts giggle.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>There is no evidence that any K-4 ever recieved aileron Flettner tabs or, if installed, whether they even had a positive effect on aileron behavior. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, ROFLOL, that`s the denial of a few clowns (just two, actually. Both posted in this thread) in this single board.

This picture was already shows to Larpy, and shows a K-4 with Flettner aileron tabs. Now he pretends that he never seen it, which is his typically cheap excuse of a partisan.

http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/715_1109860306_109_aileronflett.jpg

As for the denial of Flettners having positive effect... this is so silly it doesn`t even worth arguing about.

Butch2k stated quite clearly that the Flettners were mounted on some later production 109Ks (he has pictures, too), I can find the qoute if you want, but regardless there always be some partisans around to deny the fact to their last breath, even if they are too stupid themselves to tell themselves why it is an all important life-at-stake question. Germanophobia?

But Doc-Who-is-that-guy-109 says otherwise. Gee, I am impressed with that, especially if the info comes through (and quite likely, directly and exclusively from) someone like larpy22.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>As you know, virtually all sources indicate that the 109's ailerons were very heavy at high speed <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well I only know that 109 fighter veterans said the exact opposite when I asked them, claiming the ailerons were light, and it`s only you who parrots this nonsense like a madman in every thread that there 'virtually all sources', of which you utterly and repeatadly failed to show but one.

Kurfurst__
04-21-2005, 02:11 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ratsack:


OTOH, @ssholes can keep barking. If thy spit upwards into the sky, it just falls back to thy face. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Whatever your training, it wasn't history. What you've trotted out as proof is a set of secondary or tertiary sources. The primary source in this instance would be the hard copy books from which this data originated. As it stands, we have no idea of the provenance of the data before Michael Holm's presentation. In what you've presented, there could be typos, missing pages, misinterpretation of some German airman's scrawl...the possibilities are nearly endless.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I give another possibility : the data I gave proven you wrong, it`s coming from reliable primiary sources and not the shaking memory of an old fighter pilot, or it`s interpreter, and you desperetely deny the facts despite ovewhelming evidence that would convince any reasonable man.

JG 77. No 109Fs by 1943, the last were dropped in January.

http://www.ww2.dk/oob/bestand/jagd/bstjg77.html
http://www.ww2.dk/oob/bestand/jagd/bijg77.html
http://www.ww2.dk/oob/bestand/jagd/biijg77.html
http://www.ww2.dk/oob/bestand/jagd/biiijg77.html

Documents:


RL 2 III/874 - 875 covering 3.42 - 12.42
RL 2 III/876 - 879 covering 1.43 - 12.43
RL 2 III/880 - 882 covering 1.44 - 12.44
Bundesarchiv-Milit¤rarchiv, Freiburg.
Feldpostübersicht, RH 3/18 - 129. Has also been published by N. Kannapin in 3 volumes.
Schematische Kriegsgliederung, RH 2. Has also been published in Kurt Mehner's Geheime Tagesberichte der OKW, 12 vols. Exists in full, for the period 8.6.40 - 31.12.43, and partly for 15.4.44 - 7.5.45
Flugzeugunf¤lle und Verluste bei den fliegenden Verb¤nden , RL 2 III/184, 752 - 767, 1170 - 1198. The year 1944 is missing, but can be extracted from RL 2 III/852 (summarischen Verlustmeldungen).
Flugzeugunf¤lle und Verluste bei Schulen und Sonstige Verb¤nden, RL 2 III/769 - 784
Flugzeugbestand und bewegungsmeldungen, RL 2 III/874 - 882. Only covers the months 3.42 to 12.44. The rest is missing.
St¤rkemeldungen der fliegenden Verb¤nde, RL 2 III/1732 - 1765
œbersicht über Soll, Istbestand, Einsatzbereitschaft, Verluste und Reserven der fliegenden Verb¤nde, RL 2 III/707 - 730
Flakübersicht 11.43 - 12.44, RL 2 III/1119 - 1122
Kriegstagebücher
USAF Historical Research Agency, Maxwell AFB, Alabama
K1028F - Eastern front 1942, incl. KTB Fliegerführer Süd (2.42 - 8.42), extracts from Richthofen and Fiebig's diaries, monthly strength returns for entire eastern front, 60 page summary of 1. Luftwaffen-Flotilla (Siebel ferries) operations on Ladoga Sea
K1028G - Eastern front 1943, mainly VIII. Fliegerkorps operations
K1028Y & K1028X - KTB I. Jagdkorps (9.43 - 5.44) and KTB 5. Jagddivision (6.44).
A1128 - German Order of Battle - Statistics as of Quarter Years, 1938-45 (parts of the USAF Strategic Bombing Survey)

lrrp22
04-21-2005, 03:10 PM
Sigh€¦nice to see you've worked yourself into a lather yet again Isegrim.

That is not a Flettner tab in your photo, period. And yes, a Flettner tab could hurt more than it helped.

None of the primary late-war USAAF or RAF fighters used fabric ailerons, or external aileron mass balances- not the Spitfire, the Mustang, the Thunderbolt, the Tempest, or the Lightining. I believe that the Hellcat used fabric ailerons, but it also rolled very poorly. As for the 190, obviously there was some aspect of its (small) wing design that offset any disadvantages incurred by the fabric ailerons. Then again, we don't have loads of testimony from both Axis and Allied pilots regarding its stiff roll performance at high speeds.

Nobody is saying the 109's ailerons weren't light- at low speed. Your personal crusade to portray the 109 as a wizard kite at high speed is becoming laughable: you simply cannot accept that the 109 had faults as well as virtues. Oh well. Also, you're going to have to forgive me if I don't take you at your word as to what any ex-109 pilot may or may not have told you.

Blutarski2004
04-21-2005, 03:40 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lrrp22:
As for the 190, obviously there was some aspect of its (small) wing design that offset any disadvantages incurred by the fabric ailerons. Then again, we don't have loads of testimony from both Axis and Allied pilots regarding its stiff roll performance at high speeds. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... Taking a look at the graphed roll rate versus speed comparisons for the FW190A4 versus P51B/C (IIRC), FW190 roll performance was terrific at modest speeds < 300 mph, but fell steadily as speed increased. Over 350 mph the P51, which itself was greatly inferior to the FW in roll rate at the lower speeds, enjoyed superiority in roll rate.

Aaron_GT
04-21-2005, 04:10 PM
lrrp wrote:
"Not British or American fighters. Fabric ailerons with external mass balances were not current technology."

AFAIK the first Spitfires and Hurricanes both had fabric covered ailerons. From memory the Spitfire V was the first one to receive metal ailerons.

PlaneEater
04-21-2005, 04:11 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>You do not appear to know eithe British or American fighters then as quite a few had fabric ailerons, or other fabric covered control surfaces external mass balances. P-38, P-40, P-51, Spitfire, Hurricane for example <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, you indeed don't, Kurfurst.

The P-38, P-47, P-51 and late war Spitfires all used metal control surfaces.

The Hurricane was a flying sheet, true, and the P-40 had doped fabric surfaces, but NEITHER had external mass balancers like the 109.

Kurfurst__
04-21-2005, 04:24 PM
Blutarski2004,

afaik you claim yourself to be trained in aerodynamics.
Do you have an opinion about the utilization of fabric covered control surfaces in so many WW2 aircraft?


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>..... Taking a look at the graphed roll rate versus speed comparisons for the FW190A4 versus P51B/C (IIRC), FW190 roll performance was terrific at modest speeds < 300 mph, but fell steadily as speed increased. Over 350 mph the P51, which itself was greatly inferior to the FW in roll rate at the lower speeds, enjoyed superiority in roll rate. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Appearantly, the case is that the P-51 w. metal ailerons is *somewhat* better at high speed rolls than the fabric covered FW 190. But then, the P-51 is also better at high speed rolls than almost all the _metal covered_ allied fighters. The Spitfire with _metal covered ailerons_ has terrible roll rate at high speeds.

It appears the difference is not between fabric covered or metal covered ailerons, but specific aileron design itself. It also appears that German designers had no problem getting world-class high speed roll performance from _fabric covered_ aileron designs.

Abbuzze
04-21-2005, 04:24 PM
External mass balancers are something terrible it seems, if I reading the posts here...
Whats the problem with them?

Kurfurst__
04-21-2005, 04:31 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PlaneEater:
The P-38, P-47, P-51 and late war Spitfires all used metal control surfaces. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

P-51 used fabric covered elevator, Spitfire used fabric covered elevator and rudder.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The Hurricane was a flying sheet, true, and the P-40 had doped fabric surfaces, but NEITHER had external mass balancers like the 109. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Funny you mention the P-40 with fabric ailerons, ANOTHER plane noted for it`s EXCELLENT roll performance.

http://p-38online.com/images/mainlogo.gif

But MAN!, these look like to me as _external mass balances on the elevator of an ameregan pee-38_....
Ooops, just stepped on a bug. It has a 'larpy the clown' written on it`s grave.

Kurfurst__
04-21-2005, 04:33 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Abbuzze:
External mass balancers are something terrible it seems, if I reading the posts here...
Whats the problem with them? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Maybe Larpy can tell.
I guess they are >absolutely useless pieces, and a huge source of drag during operation< or something along these lines.

Like leading edge slats! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

lrrp22
04-21-2005, 04:57 PM
Pathetic, Isegrim. Name-calling and urine references?

I'm fully aware that the P-38 had external mass balances on its (metal) elevator. What exactly does that have to do with the 109's fabric ailerons and high speed roll rate?

Just because Focke-Wulf and Curtiss could get decent high speed roll rates out of their fabric covered ailerons doesn't mean Messerschmitt could. Grumman, Hawker, Supermarine, Mitsubishi and Nakajima couldn't either.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>

Maybe Larpy can tell.
I guess they are >absolutely useless pieces, and a huge source of drag during operation< or something along these lines.

Like leading edge slats! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ratsack
04-21-2005, 05:08 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ratsack:


OTOH, @ssholes can keep barking. If thy spit upwards into the sky, it just falls back to thy face. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Whatever your training, it wasn't history. What you've trotted out as proof is a set of secondary or tertiary sources. The primary source in this instance would be the hard copy books from which this data originated. As it stands, we have no idea of the provenance of the data before Michael Holm's presentation. In what you've presented, there could be typos, missing pages, misinterpretation of some German airman's scrawl...the possibilities are nearly endless.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I give another possibility : the data I gave proven you wrong, it`s coming from reliable primiary sources and not the shaking memory of an old fighter pilot,
)_ <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You make my point for me again. You clearly have no idea what constitutes a primary source. Once again, you post those links to pages showing electroncially entered data. Sorry sunshine, they didn't have PCs and HTML in 1943, so whatever else it might be, it's not primary. Regarding its reliability, we have only your word for it.

There is nothing reasonable at all in summarily disregarding the memory of the participant, you arrogant streak of p1ss.


http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
Ratsack

PS - point of fact: metal ailerons were introduced on the Spitfire for the first time in 1940, on some MkIIs. They became standard by mid 1942 and were retrofitted to many early types. Some aircraft produced in between had neither fabric nor metal, but plywood.

Only the early Spits had fabric.

p1ngu666
04-21-2005, 07:50 PM
pilot dude might have lied to keep his f4, if he liked it more than g http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

external balance causes drag, but u use them because its better than without balance, u could also internaly balence which i guess later fighters did.

also i guess the wing and aliron shape, covering etc would effect alirons effectivness, and the ballooning of them.
low lift wings seem ok with fabric, thinkin of p40, 190, vs hurri, zero etc.

metal alirons give better response at high speed, all things being equal.

109's controls got heavier at speed.

WWMaxGunz
04-21-2005, 08:50 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
lrrp wrote:
"Not British or American fighters. Fabric ailerons with external mass balances were not current technology."

AFAIK the first Spitfires and Hurricanes both had fabric covered ailerons. From memory the Spitfire V was the first one to receive metal ailerons. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It changed from none to no late war Allieds.

Munch, munch, munch... I got popcorn, whadda you got? Any marshmallows? Sticks?

lrrp22
04-21-2005, 10:34 PM
Max,

My point was that none of the primary RAF or USAAF fighters that Isegrim's K-4 faced featured fabric covered ailerons. No matter how you slice it, the 109's aileron design was dated by 1944/45. Do you disagree?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
lrrp wrote:
"Not British or American fighters. Fabric ailerons with external mass balances were not current technology."

AFAIK the first Spitfires and Hurricanes both had fabric covered ailerons. From memory the Spitfire V was the first one to receive metal ailerons. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It changed from none to no late war Allieds.

Munch, munch, munch... I got popcorn, whadda you got? Any marshmallows? Sticks? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Aaron_GT
04-22-2005, 01:09 AM
Neal, are you saying that no Allied fighters had fabric covered ailerons during WW2, or saying the reverse? I am not sure!

Aaron_GT
04-22-2005, 01:10 AM
"My point was that none of the primary RAF or USAAF fighters that Isegrim's K-4 faced featured fabric covered ailerons."

Yes, they'd certainly all changed by late 1944. There may have been the odd fabric covered control surface left (F4U tail?) but I can't think of any.

p1ngu666
04-22-2005, 09:54 AM
rudders where often fabric. and yeah corsair had fabric stuff, to save weight i think. dunno about the -4 tho

Blutarski2004
04-22-2005, 11:24 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Blutarski2004,

afaik you claim yourself to be trained in aerodynamics.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

..... Not true, Kurfurst. In fact quite the opposite. I'm just another amateur combat aviation enthusiast. Anything I think I know about this stuff comes from a layperson's reading of technical and historical literature.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Do you have an opinion about the utilization of fabric covered control surfaces in so many WW2 aircraft?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

..... My opinion, for what it is worth, is that the fabric-covered ailerons of pre-war fighter designs were considered suitable at anticipated combat speeds. But practically all fighters of pre-war design had max design speeds of only +/- 350 mph or so. All the pre-war designs (P40, Spit. Hurricane, Me 109, Zero, Hayabusa, Fiats & Macchis) had fabric-covered ailerons.

I'm guessing that the limitations of fabric-covered ailerons were discovered when high speed fighter designs, with designed max speeds in the 400 mph+ speed range, were initiated.
The later US fighter designs (P38, P47, P51), designed from the start to operate in the 400+ mph range all had metal-covered ailerons.

When the pre-war design Spit and Me 109 were re-engined and started moving their top speeds into the 400+ mph range as well, their fabric-covered ailerons became an issue. Supermarine went aggressively to metal-covered ailerons and obtained tremendous improvement in high speed roll rate. Messerschmitt did not opt for metal-covered ailerons; I'm not sure why. Perhaps the roll rate improvement obtained as a result of the new post E series wing design was considered to be sufficient

The fabric-covered ailerons of the later model 109's were still considered by some an issue, here is Steinhoff's comment from his book, Messerschmitts over Sicily:

quote -
...I broke out of the circle, half-rolled and went into a vertical dive. <snip> It spiralled steeply earthwards as though into a vortex. With almost complete detachment my eyes took note of the wildly oscillating instruments, of the failing engine which these gyrations conveyed. The controls were ominously heavy while the fabric-covered ailerons began to balloon, inducing a virtually uncontrollable spin.
- unquote

To put this in proper perspective, Steinhoff had just had his a/c shot up, went into a steep evasive dive with a faltering engine, shut the engine down at 6,000 feet altitude when temps got too high, and did recover from the dive to make a successful dead-stick landing. The point I draw from this is his correlation of heavy controls with ballooning fabric covering of the ailerons at high speed.

The FW190 is an anomaly with respect to this theory, but from my reading on the subject, the achievement of high speed roll performance is an exceedingly complicated. complex, and delicate matter. The slightest design factor may have an exceedingly large positive or negative influence.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Appearantly, the case is that the P-51 w. metal ailerons is *somewhat* better at high speed rolls than the fabric covered FW 190.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

..... That is a fair appraisal, so far as I understand the data.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
But then, the P-51 is also better at high speed rolls than almost all the _metal covered_ allied fighters.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

..... Probably also fair comment, although I'm not altogether certain on this point.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
The Spitfire with _metal covered ailerons_ has terrible roll rate at high speeds.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

..... Disagree. The later Spitfires with upgraded metal covered and tabbed ailerons had quite good high speed roll rates. Based upon the Supermarine test data I have seen: 90 deg/sec @ 350 mph; 70 deg/sec @ 400 mph.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
It appears the difference is not between fabric covered or metal covered ailerons, but specific aileron design itself. It also appears that German designers had no problem getting world-class high speed roll performance from _fabric covered_ aileron designs.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

..... It is pretty clear, to me at least, that overall there was a clear difference in roll rate performance between fabric-covered and metal-covered ailerons above 350 mph. This is not to say that many other design factors were not also extremely important, but the general trend toward metal ailerons in high speed a/c designs is clear.

Did German designers get "world class high speed roll performance" from fabric-covered ailerons? It depends upon what one means by the term "world class". The P51 and P47 held the honors above 350 mph. The FW190 was not far behind. We do not have firm high speed roll rate data on the late model Me 109; my estimate is that it was inferior to the FW190 in this speed regime and therefore also inferior to the P51 and P47.

Blutarski2004
04-22-2005, 11:52 AM
On the topic of what model 109 JG77 was flying in the Summer of 1943, I went through Steinhoff's book last night and I think I have found the nub of the issue.

Nowhere in Steinhoff's actual text does he ever mention exactly which model of 109 he was flying at the time. However, the first photo on page 14 of the book is clearly captioned - "Front view of a Me 109 F-4/Trop of the 77th Fighter Group". That led me to assume that JG77 was still flying at least some F's in June/July of 1943.

HOWEVER .....

I went back and scrutinized all the photos in the book and discovered that none of the photo captions actually stipulate that they were taken in Italy; nor do they give an exact month. Furthermore, included among the photos are:

Me 109 E-9/Trop
Me 109 E-4/Trop
Me 109 G-6/Trop
Me 109 F-2/Trop
Me 109 F-4/Trop

with many of them actually in JG27 markings.

My guess is that the person who selected the photos for this book was not terribly scrupulous about selecting photos correctly related to time, unit, and place.

Therefore, the data the Kurfurst posted is probably correct.

Aaron_GT
04-22-2005, 03:33 PM
"The Spitfire with _metal covered ailerons_ has terrible roll rate at high speeds."

Maybe not the best in the world, Kurfurst, but much better than Spitfires with fabric covered ailerons.

WWMaxGunz
04-22-2005, 04:36 PM
No Aaron, I'm positive that some Allied planes of WWII had fabric covered control surfaces.
Just not sure which planes, models, surfaces. Hurricane I was all that.

I don't know if the P-39N-1 had fabric covered elevators or other surfaces but on the NACA
page I grabbed here about stick force per G there is a good bit of difference between
calculated force coming into compression and actual force with the difference attributed
to bulging of surfaces, which begins at 300 mph.

Considering the Bernoulli principle, there should be a lot of difference between inside
pressure and outside when the airstream outside is moving so fast. Large unbolstered
sections of metal or very thin metal (.005-.010 alum perhaps) would bulge. Fabric?
How stiff and stiffened, how much square area and the widest dimension of the surface
would all make a difference. Example: They could make phenolic back then with fabric,
it would be stiffer than thin unhardened (or not much hardened, perhaps H-32) but at that
point your weight savings would be shot! The phenolic would probably crack, too, but
that is an example only that fabric can be other than what is usually envisioned.

Charos
04-22-2005, 05:16 PM
Rudy Opitz:

ME163 Test Pilot

{Quote}

Its wing was swept back, but it was made of wood and had fabric-covered control surfaces. It flew at near-sonic speeds.

{End Quote}.


The Mosquito was made out of wood yet outperformed most of its contemporaries.

Perhaps its more of a case of good design and makeing do with what you have rather than haveing the luxury to splurge on all the bells and whistles.


There is hardly ever ONE RIGHT way of doing ANYTHING.


Now start playing nice - and stop drawing lines in the Sand pit.

Buzzsaw-
04-22-2005, 08:02 PM
Salute

Once again, Kurfurst is providing false information.

His claim that the Spitfire rolled poorly at high speeds even though it had metal covered ailerons completely misses the point.

First of all, here is table showing various aircraft rollrates:

http://naca.larc.nasa.gov/reports/1947/naca-report-868/42.gif

You can see that the standard wing Spitfire rolls quite well at low speeds, but not so well at high speeds.

But that is not because of the metal ailerons, it is because of the wide wingspan of the aircraft, and the fact that it had pointed wingtips with the ailerons located inboard of the tips.

If you look at the rollrate of the Spitfire with clipped wings, (square wingtips and narrower wingspan) you can see that it nearly matches the 190 in rollrate at high speeds, despite having much larger wing area.

The study which includes this diagram was done by NACA to determine the variables in wing design which helped or hindered rollrate.

Among other issues they found:

1) Metal ailerons were more effective at higher speeds

2) Aircraft with wide wingspans tended to roll worse.

3) Aircraft with pointed wingtips, with the aileron located inboard, as opposed to squared wingtips with the ailerons located right on the tip, tended to roll more slowly.

4) Aircraft with larger wing areas tended to roll slower.

The 109 had poor rollrate at high speeds for two reasons:

1) The fabric covered ailerons balloon at high speeds, and inhibit their operation.

2) The openings on the wing's leading edge required by the aircraft's slats cause turbulence in the air travelling over the wing surface, which leads to the formation of a shock wave at high speeds, which in turn tends to freeze the operation of the ailerons.

The 109 also had the problem that use of the ailerons at speeds near the maximum recommended, tended to cause loss of the aircraft's wingtips.

NACA Study is here:

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

The reason the 190 rolled so well are as follows:

1) Small wing area

2) Small wingspan

3) Squared Wingtips with the ailerons located right at the tips

The only flaw in the 190 was the fact that its fabric covered ailerons tended to balloon at high speeds, which reduced its overall huge advantage in rollrate. But still the other factors meant it was very competitive.

The advantage of fabric covered ailerons was simple: They were lighter, thus required less stick force to move. This is why we see excellent rollrates from the 109 and 190 at low speeds. However, as mentioned, at high speeds, the disadvantages outweigh the positives.

Metal ailerons as mentioned, work better at high speeds, but at low speeds, are less effective.

Aaron_GT
04-23-2005, 01:25 AM
"The Mosquito was made out of wood yet outperformed most of its contemporaries."

Metal ailerons from the outset, though.

Vipez-
04-23-2005, 03:33 AM
well MAYBE Isegrim was referring to non-clipped wing Spitfires.. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

Besides, what is the point of this thread anyway? Another thread, where anti-german planes people keep insulting german ww2-aircraft design .. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

p1ngu666
04-23-2005, 03:57 AM
i think the topic starter was curious, and, ppl probably like to wind up kurfy...

LeadSpitter_
04-23-2005, 05:12 AM
kurfurst needs to post in GD more often then living in orr http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif


I would never exceed 750kmph messerschmitt or the elevator fabric would balloon. -

Erich Hartman, Germany's leading Ace with 352 victories

The messerschmitt was outdated by 1943, she had a great low speed sustained turn rate but elevator like riding a unicycle.

On the western front high altutude, high speed combat really showed the weakness of the 109. Range, highspeed handling characteristics, roll, and survivability. It was a great advantage to be flying over your own country. The messerschmitt was one of the most difficult aircraft to master.-

Erich Hartman, Germany's leading Ace with 352 victories

JtD
04-23-2005, 08:20 AM
Thanks for clearing up your info from the book, Blutarski. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Much apprechiated on a board where people tend to defend things they once wrote just to defend what they once wrote.

HayateAce
04-24-2005, 03:33 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LeadSpitter_:


I would never exceed 750kmph messerschmitt or the elevator fabric would balloon. -

Erich Hartman, Germany's leading Ace with 352 victories

The messerschmitt was outdated by 1943, she had a great low speed sustained turn rate but elevator like riding a unicycle.

On the western front high altutude, high speed combat really showed the weakness of the 109. Range, highspeed handling characteristics, roll, and survivability. It was a great advantage to be flying over your own country. The messerschmitt was one of the most difficult aircraft to master.-

Erich Hartman, Germany's leading Ace with 352 victories <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wow if the Germans only had the Fb~109.....they win WW2.

FantasyBogus~109, just put 25 cents in:

http://www.sz-erlebniswelt.de/Bilder/Kiddie%20Rides/aeroplane_g.jpg

Abbuzze
04-24-2005, 05:35 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by HayateAce:

Wow if the Germans only had the Fb~109.....they win WW2.

FantasyBogus~109, just put 25 cents in:
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hehe, so with a G6 early/late you eat all P51, P47 and Spit for breakfast?? At least it sounds in that way http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Keep in mind that most of the 33000 produced 109´s were pure G6 without MW50... real überplanes in the game... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Skalgrim
04-24-2005, 05:44 AM
abbuzze

that understand they not, keep in the mind, american was at the pisa studie very weak, weaker as as germans and we was too bad,

had not think that give a country that are inferior pisa studie to germany, too luck it give americans

not suprice they had chosen bush too

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Abbuzze:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by HayateAce:

Wow if the Germans only had the Fb~109.....they win WW2.

FantasyBogus~109, just put 25 cents in:
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hehe, so with a G6 early/late you eat all P51, P47 and Spit for breakfast?? At least it sounds in that way http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Keep in mind that most of the 33000 produced 109´s were pure G6 without MW50... real überplanes in the game... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

WWMaxGunz
04-24-2005, 06:15 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Skalgrim:

not suprice they had chosen bush too

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Watch it there. Twice he sqeaked through by very slim margin.
I think that before some other country had worse that not everyone was happy with?
Okay, more than one other country. A few more.
Tell the surprise of AH choice please, you like to point fingers?

Skalgrim
04-24-2005, 06:20 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Skalgrim:
abbuzze

that understand they not, keep in the mind, american had new pisa studie weaker make as the germans,

to luck it give american, so are we not the stupidest county of the world,



not surprise they had chosen bush too

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Abbuzze:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by HayateAce:

Wow if the Germans only had the Fb~109.....they win WW2.

FantasyBogus~109, just put 25 cents in:
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hehe, so with a G6 early/late you eat all P51, P47 and Spit for breakfast?? At least it sounds in that way http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Keep in mind that most of the 33000 produced 109´s were pure G6 without MW50... real überplanes in the game... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

p1ngu666
04-24-2005, 08:34 AM
actung politics http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

G6 isnt a bad plane, average to good
like on spit vs 109, its IX vs G6 and ive gotten shot down in spit a fair bit, i had bomb shakles on, but 109s didnt seem tobe vastly worse than me

Abbuzze
04-24-2005, 08:53 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by p1ngu666:

G6 isnt a bad plane, average to good
like on spit vs 109, its IX vs G6 and ive gotten shot down in spit a fair bit, i had bomb shakles on, but 109s didnt seem tobe vastly worse than me <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Indeed, G2 vs any IX except HF are equal, no real advantage for both sides.

G6(at least late) 1vs1 you have a good chance to survive if you know what you do. But comparing both planes the IX have the edge. It´s superior in many fightsituations. Using the 30mm (I don´t use it in G6) giving you at least the possibility to get an early hit/kill.

With the 20mm it is just a slower, worse turner, worse climber than a G2. Making you inferior to both Spit and G2. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
But it is not a hopeless plane!

DIRTY-MAC
04-24-2005, 12:03 PM
Lots of donkeys at the<span class="ev_code_RED">UBIZOO</span>

p1ngu666
04-24-2005, 03:00 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Abbuzze:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by p1ngu666:

G6 isnt a bad plane, average to good
like on spit vs 109, its IX vs G6 and ive gotten shot down in spit a fair bit, i had bomb shakles on, but 109s didnt seem tobe vastly worse than me <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Indeed, G2 vs any IX except HF are equal, no real advantage for both sides.

G6(at least late) 1vs1 you have a good chance to survive if you know what you do. But comparing both planes the IX have the edge. It´s superior in many fightsituations. Using the 30mm (I don´t use it in G6) giving you at least the possibility to get an early hit/kill.

With the 20mm it is just a slower, worse turner, worse climber than a G2. Making you inferior to both Spit and G2. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
But it is not a hopeless plane! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

has those 13mm's tho http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
i dont often fly either spit or 109, im actully a bad spit IX pilot, better in VIII but not that good at all
and u can woft around in g6 pretending tobe your favourite ace http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif (not directed at anyone, btw)
g6 early is probably worse all round, but im not sure

LeadSpitter_
04-25-2005, 04:45 AM
Abbuzze, your correct the 109g6 is excellent. All the 109g6 myths it cant compete with any other plane in game are just from poorly skilled pilots.

Checkout the stats on www.warbirdsofprey.org (http://www.warbirdsofprey.org) http://www.warbirdsofprey.org

the 109g6s and g6late have almost a 50 kill to 1 loss ratio over the spit5s, 51bs 47s. The 109g2 even higher.

Kurfurst__
04-25-2005, 04:45 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LeadSpitter_:
kurfurst needs to post in GD more often then living in orr http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I would never exceed 750kmph messerschmitt or the elevator fabric would balloon. -

Erich Hartman, Germany's leading Ace with 352 victories

The messerschmitt was outdated by 1943, she had a great low speed sustained turn rate but elevator like riding a unicycle. On the western front high altutude, high speed combat really showed the weakness of the 109. Range, highspeed handling characteristics, roll, and survivability. It was a great advantage to be flying over your own country. The messerschmitt was one of the most difficult aircraft to master.-

Erich Hartman, Germany's leading Ace with 352 victories <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Uhum, who wrote that, you? No source given, and allegadly Hartmann repeats the same BS as Yankwhiners do... while speaking of his 'western front experiences', yet he never left the eastern front.

One has to be careful with these qoutes coming from certain people, appearantly lot of the stuff is 'hand-made' while the persons ride themselves too much into their preconceptions... Cool, let`s make a false qoute, and let`s put Hartmann`s name under it for credibilty!

Abbuzze
04-25-2005, 05:27 AM
misunderstood a post http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif sorry!

Blutarski2004
04-25-2005, 08:08 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JtD:
Thanks for clearing up your info from the book, Blutarski. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Much apprechiated on a board where people tend to defend things they once wrote just to defend what they once wrote. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... Thank you, sir. I consider your kind post a compliment.

Buzzsaw-
04-25-2005, 08:14 AM
Salute Leadspitter

Shhhh... At all costs we mustn't do anything to break the persecution complex of the 109 whiners... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Don't burst the self-righteous bubble they surround themselves with and actually present the facts... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Heaven forbid they might realize they are flying overmodelled aircraft which a complete idiot would have a problem losing in.

Blutarski2004
04-25-2005, 08:26 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LeadSpitter_:
kurfurst needs to post in GD more often then living in orr http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I would never exceed 750kmph messerschmitt or the elevator fabric would balloon. -

Erich Hartman, Germany's leading Ace with 352 victories

The messerschmitt was outdated by 1943, she had a great low speed sustained turn rate but elevator like riding a unicycle. On the western front high altutude, high speed combat really showed the weakness of the 109. Range, highspeed handling characteristics, roll, and survivability. It was a great advantage to be flying over your own country. The messerschmitt was one of the most difficult aircraft to master.-

Erich Hartman, Germany's leading Ace with 352 victories <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Uhum, who wrote that, you? No source given, and allegadly Hartmann repeats the same BS as Yankwhiners do... while speaking of his 'western front experiences', yet he never left the eastern front.

One has to be careful with these qoutes coming from certain people, appearantly lot of the stuff is 'hand-made' while the persons ride themselves too much into their preconceptions... Cool, let`s make a false qoute, and let`s put Hartmann`s name under it for credibilty! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... Kurfurst, you know perfectly well that Hartmann fought Mustangs over Romania. To assume that Hartmann was somehow not qualified to make observations about conditions in the west front is rather an unrealistically partisan assumption in my opinion. You are saying that Leadspitter is not to be trusted to post correct quotations. What about your signature quotation from Major Kozhemyako, Soviet fighter pilot of the VVS? Should we distrust that as well?

What about these comments? -

QUOTE -
I had encountered the long-range P-38 Lightning fighter during the last days of the North African campaign Our opinion of this twin-boomed, twin-engined aircraft was divided. Our old Messerschmitts were still, perhaps, a little faster. But pilots who had fought them said that the Lightnings were capable of appreciably tighter turns and that they would be on your tail before you knew what was happening.
- UNQUOTE

or this one -

QUOTE -
"The Malta Spitfires are back again," said Freiberg, "only this time they're the latest version with pointed wing tips. They're fitted with a high-altitude supercharger and at anything over twenty-five thousand feet they just play cat and mouse with us."
- UNQUOTE

or this -

QUOTE -
At 28,000 feet the Spitfire could turn in an astonishingly narrow radius. We, on the other hand, in the thin air of these altitudes had to carry out every maneuver with caution and at full power so as not to lose control."
- UNQUOTE

..... all taken from Steinhoff's book, Messerschmitts over Sicily.

p1ngu666
04-25-2005, 10:09 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LeadSpitter_:
Abbuzze, your correct the 109g6 is excellent. All the 109g6 myths it cant compete with any other plane in game are just from poorly skilled pilots.

Checkout the stats on http://www.warbirdsofprey.org http://www.warbirdsofprey.org

the 109g6s and g6late have almost a 50 kill to 1 loss ratio over the spit5s, 51bs 47s. The 109g2 even higher. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

well, i flew a g6 vs a ki84c, and i think the ki84 was better in everyway

but vs non uber planes, g6 is ok atleast http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

DIRTY-MAC
04-25-2005, 10:11 AM
UBIZOO UBIZOO UBIZOO UBIZOO UBIZOO UBIZOO UBIZOO UBIZOO UBIZOO UBIZOO UBIZOO UBIZOO UBIZOO UBIZOO UBIZOO UBIZOO UBIZOO UBIZOO http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/1241.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/354.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

faustnik
04-25-2005, 11:13 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kurfurst__:


http://www.ww2.dk/oob/bestand/jagd/bstjg77.html
http://www.ww2.dk/oob/bestand/jagd/bijg77.html
http://www.ww2.dk/oob/bestand/jagd/biijg77.html
http://www.ww2.dk/oob/bestand/jagd/biiijg77.html

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Dr. K,

Thanks for posting this. This will be very useful for campaigns. Do you have any other Jg77 links?

Kurfurst__
04-25-2005, 11:27 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
..... Kurfurst, you know perfectly well that Hartmann fought Mustangs over Romania. To assume that Hartmann was somehow not qualified to make observations about conditions in the west front is rather an unrealistically partisan assumption in my opinion. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

OTOH, I hold your desperate attempt to picture EF pilots with only a handful of engagements agaisnt Western types and pilots as 'experts' in Western Front matters a partisan position. I also strongly suspect that you are making up such qoutes yourself to back your biased preconceptions up, and give them some credibilty, as you yourself have already played away your own credibility here.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>You are saying that Leadspitter is not to be trusted to post correct quotations. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Absolutely, Leadspitter`s posting record, much like yours, is full of falsifyings, and had ruined his credibilty to about ZERO. Trusting him would be stupid.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> What about your signature quotation from Major Kozhemyako, Soviet fighter pilot of the VVS? Should we distrust that as well? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don`t care if you distrust it, trust it, or just stuck it up. I doubt any of the board members what some partisans like trust, or mubbling about. Major Kozhemyako`s opinion is in full agreement what Bf 109s vets, including Hartmann said on the plane (see Spick`s LW aces on Hartmann`s qoute). It`s greatly suspicious that a known Yankwhiner comes with a "Hartmann"-qoute, which is absolutely controversial to what Hartmann said in a respected avhistorians book...



What about these comments? -
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
QUOTE -
I had encountered the long-range P-38 Lightning fighter during the last days of the North African campaign Our opinion of this twin-boomed, twin-engined aircraft was divided. Our old Messerschmitts were still, perhaps, a little faster. But pilots who had fought them said that the Lightnings were capable of appreciably tighter turns and that they would be on your tail before you knew what was happening.
- UNQUOTE
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


As the origal qoute says, the opinions were _DIVIDED_. This means some thought the P-38 was bad, some it was good. But you only showed the opinions that say it was good.

This is called _selective qouteing_, and is used by you here and in your first post to give a biased, half-true version that suits your agenda. No wonder you have a reputation here, Blutarski.Another LW ace with 68 victories, Herbert Kaiser, said it was nothing special, but approached to performance of the 109G.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
QUOTE -
"The Malta Spitfires are back again," said Freiberg, "only this time they're the latest version with pointed wing tips. They're fitted with a high-altitude supercharger and at anything over twenty-five thousand feet they just play cat and mouse with us."
- UNQUOTE

or this -

QUOTE -
At 28,000 feet the Spitfire could turn in an astonishingly narrow radius. We, on the other hand, in the thin air of these altitudes had to carry out every maneuver with caution and at full power so as not to lose control."
- UNQUOTE

..... all taken from Steinhoff's book, Messerschmitts over Sicily. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Very interesting. They say high altitude supercharger and pointed wingtips. This is undoubtfully a Mk IX HF Spitfire with Merlin 70 engine, specially designed for high alttiude work, and had excellent performance, better than the standard 109G at such high altitude. Only a handful, ca 400 were made equiping a couple of Squadrons; appearantly they impressed a few pilots who met them, but not much more. their German counterpart would be the 109G with GM-1, which had equal, or better performance at altitude. These were rare as well.

These selected qoutes however, prove nothing but your strong agenda to picture every LW plane as a useless ****, and it`s allied counterparts as supreme killing machines; the qoutes did not prove anything but that you are not interested in a balanced view and should not be trusted.

Blutarski2004
04-25-2005, 11:56 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
..... Kurfurst, you know perfectly well that Hartmann fought Mustangs over Romania. To assume that Hartmann was somehow not qualified to make observations about conditions in the west front is rather an unrealistically partisan assumption in my opinion. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

OTOH, I hold your desperate attempt to picture EF pilots with only a handful of engagements agaisnt Western types and pilots as 'experts' in Western Front matters a partisan position. I also strongly suspect that you are making up such qoutes yourself to back your biased preconceptions up, and give them some credibilty, as you yourself have already played away your own credibility here.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>You are saying that Leadspitter is not to be trusted to post correct quotations. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Absolutely, Leadspitter`s posting record, much like yours, is full of falsifyings, and had ruined his credibilty to about ZERO. Trusting him would be stupid.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> What about your signature quotation from Major Kozhemyako, Soviet fighter pilot of the VVS? Should we distrust that as well? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don`t care if you distrust it, trust it, or just stuck it up. I doubt any of the board members what some partisans like trust, or mubbling about. Major Kozhemyako`s opinion is in full agreement what Bf 109s vets, including Hartmann said on the plane (see Spick`s LW aces on Hartmann`s qoute). It`s greatly suspicious that a known Yankwhiner comes with a "Hartmann"-qoute, which is absolutely controversial to what Hartmann said in a respected avhistorians book...



What about these comments? -
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
QUOTE -
I had encountered the long-range P-38 Lightning fighter during the last days of the North African campaign Our opinion of this twin-boomed, twin-engined aircraft was divided. Our old Messerschmitts were still, perhaps, a little faster. But pilots who had fought them said that the Lightnings were capable of appreciably tighter turns and that they would be on your tail before you knew what was happening.
- UNQUOTE
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


As the origal qoute says, the opinions were _DIVIDED_. This means some thought the P-38 was bad, some it was good. But you only showed the opinions that say it was good.

This is called _selective qouteing_, and is used by you here and in your first post to give a biased, half-true version that suits your agenda. No wonder you have a reputation here, Blutarski.Another LW ace with 68 victories, Herbert Kaiser, said it was nothing special, but approached to performance of the 109G.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
QUOTE -
"The Malta Spitfires are back again," said Freiberg, "only this time they're the latest version with pointed wing tips. They're fitted with a high-altitude supercharger and at anything over twenty-five thousand feet they just play cat and mouse with us."
- UNQUOTE

or this -

QUOTE -
At 28,000 feet the Spitfire could turn in an astonishingly narrow radius. We, on the other hand, in the thin air of these altitudes had to carry out every maneuver with caution and at full power so as not to lose control."
- UNQUOTE

..... all taken from Steinhoff's book, Messerschmitts over Sicily. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Very interesting. They say high altitude supercharger and pointed wingtips. This is undoubtfully a Mk IX HF Spitfire with Merlin 70 engine, specially designed for high alttiude work, and had excellent performance, better than the standard 109G at such high altitude. Only a handful, ca 400 were made equiping a couple of Squadrons; appearantly they impressed a few pilots who met them, but not much more. their German counterpart would be the 109G with GM-1, which had equal, or better performance at altitude. These were rare as well.

These selected qoutes however, prove nothing but your strong agenda to picture every LW plane as a useless ****, and it`s allied counterparts as supreme killing machines; the qoutes did not prove anything but that you are not interested in a balanced view and should not be trusted. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... Congratulations, Kurfurst. You have convincingly made your case - unfortunately it is just not one you think you are making.

p1ngu666
04-25-2005, 12:25 PM
indeed http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

HF

p1ngu666
04-25-2005, 12:25 PM
indeed http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

HF spits,

p1ngu666
04-25-2005, 12:25 PM
indeed http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

HF spits, where fairely rare, as there wasnt a need for them. similer for 109 i guess

Ratsack
04-26-2005, 10:02 PM
Kurfist needs a bex and lie down...


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

Ratsack

LeadSpitter_
04-26-2005, 10:06 PM
Blutarski2004 excellent post and so true, I guess some people dont realize how bias they are being.



You are saying that Leadspitter is not to be trusted to post correct quotations.

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

Kurfurst: Absolutely, Leadspitter`s posting record, much like yours, is full of falsifyings, and had ruined his credibilty to about ZERO. Trusting him would be stupid.

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

Care to point out the posts since you mr know it all is never wrong like you are in about every whine thread i seen you post about the 20mm, just like you saying p47s take 40 hits then i show a online ntrk of me shooting down 8 p47s ripping thier tails off in 4 20mm shots from the 109g2, that one shut your face up, I had some take 10-20 hits online in some overseas servers where people ping 200-500ms but its called LAGG!!!

look at the netracks with arcademode=1 and hits on your screen when playing are misses in the ntrk without a doubt id take one 20mm or 108 over 8 .50s being they are so accurate at ranges up to .50 with one pass killing ability on almost all ac with the acception of the hurricane and beaufighter at .50 range.

A matter a fact I dont think you have ever posted ntrks of your oleg undermodels all german ac complaints.

Theres just something wrong when the anti tank anti bomber 30mm cannons are the top dogfighting weapons in game.

look at all your posts the 109 high speed elevator cries which still have no proof that you claim they should be so good highspeed, why not mention its overmodeled high speed roll same with the p40s and other issues above normal like its 50kmph stall speed, look at the flugzwerks data for it 98-120mph with full landing flaps and wingslats open!!!

Your such a **** joke kurfurst, use flugzwerk data charts not some make believe pictorial book with unaccurate unsourced 1980s charts from some 2 dollar pro luft propaganda book.

Now point out all my posts which you say are inaccurate and back them up that im wrong with your sourced data you friggen joke whiner. Your crediability is absolute 0 here you just fail to realize it and everyone knows it here! especially when you say famous german aces lack knowledge over yours is a friggen joke saying aces like hartman, gunther rall, Hans Hahn and others are wrong and you know more then them your such a joke man and you should realize you have 0 crediability.

All you do is whine on your OPINIONS of how good german ac should be and want oleg to change them to your satisfaction. Get a **** clue kurfurst.

You know why the 109k4s pilot manual recommends not to exceed 750kmph BECAUSE THATS WHEN PANELS WOULD RIPPLE AND AIRFRAMEs WOULD OVERSTRESS IN HIGH G manuevers, And you know the 109k4 was the structurally enforced 109 so shouldnt the others 109s G2 6 10 14 have much lower breakup speeds then the 109k4s? sure it could exceed 750 slightly in a life or death situations but with heavy panel ripples and airframe bending.

This happened to all aluminum airframes all countries when over the recommended airspeed thats what its there for so wise the hell up son.

Take a look at blueprints and research about structural strenght, compair that to allied ac airframes like the 51 and 47,

the ki43 was an all aluminum ac which had extremely similiar structural design to 109s and very thin and narrow rear fuselage but they breakup at 660kmph, same goes for the cw-21.

The compair that to airframe strenght of ac like the grumman, focke wulf, junkers, dornier, republic, north american, bell p39 p63 and curtis acs blueprints and max stress limits compaired to the messerSHmITt. Have you ever wondered why it needed to be structurally reinforced which made it heavier and still was not very strong compaired to other ac.

Its funny you call me an allied whiner but I always fly 190s or 109s, why not call me a japanese brit ameri german russian whiner becuase i try to point out things wrong in game but if its about a german ac even the people who flew them are wrong in your eyes.

Also the yaks 650kmph breakup speed was more correct but changed to be inaccurate for some reason when almost all ac got an extra 200-300+kmph added to thier breakup speeds, its funny i dont see any other ac popping wings off at 590kmph like the mustang, all above 800-1000kmph like the 109k doras me262 etc.

The yak9u also was made to have higher dive speeds and structural strenght and ability to take more punishment but sacrificed some manueverability low speed.

im sorry kurfurst you out of all people have absolutely no say in telling other people I have zero credibility in my post with posts like yours saying many famous german aces are wrong and you know more then them about aircraft they flown for 3-6 years.

faustnik
04-26-2005, 11:57 PM
Don't type angry. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

LeadSpitter_
04-27-2005, 12:23 AM
Bf109K



The Bf-109K-4 was the last completely-new version of Messerschmitt€s famous fighter to achieve operational status before the end of the war. While the Bf-109G-10 came to the units of the Jagdwaffe after the Kurfurst, one should remember that the G-10 was largely the result of remanufacturing Bf-109G airframes in order to achieve a production standard that had become hopelessly diverse with all the sub-types in production.

From the introduction of the Gustav series onward, the Bf-109 design was really played out. Major increases in power were almost canceled out by major increases in weight for increased armament, and the G€series 109 had to be flown at full throttle in the landing circuit to avoid falling out of the sky. Of the major fighters of the war € the Bf€109, the Spitfire, the Fw€190, the P€47 and the P€51 - the Messerschmitt product was the most backward aerodynamically from the outset, as revealed by its use of external mass balances on the ailerons. As Edgar Schmued, designer of the P€51, who had received his practical experience in aircraft design as an employee of the Messerschmitt company once told me, "After the 109E was put into production, it was clear that if one wished to participate in the development of a truly world€class aeroplane, one would have to do it elsewhere than at Messerschmitt." (We should all be thankful that Schmued was so dismissive of the airplane, since he came to the United States and designed the ultimate Messerschmitt€killer, the P€51 Mustang.)

In truth, the Bf€109 owes its reputation more to force majeure and the ability of some outstanding pilots than to any intrinsic quality of the airplane itself. The Fw€190 was an airplane that was better than the Messerschmitt on all flight qualities other than altitude performance; for combat above 24,000 feet € which is where the Battle of Germany took place between 1943€45 € the Luftwaffe didn't have anything else it could use.

That said, in fact more pilots were killed in the 109 from landing and takeoff accidents than were lost in combat, and nearly as many 109s were lost due to its vicious takeoff characteristics and difficult landing technique as were shot down in combat. Gunter Rall, the number€three ranking Luftwaffe experte once told me at an AFAA convention in the 1980s that there were only two kinds of Messerschmitt 109 pilots: those who had survived a ground loop and those who hadn't; contemporary pilots who have flown the few surviving Bf-109s of any series agree with this assessment. The landing gear was weak and the design of the wing left it with an unfortunate tendency to come off in high€g combat maneuvering, while the design of the cockpit canopy forced the pilot to close it on startup, which severely restricted his view during the two most dangerous parts of a flight in the fighter € takeoff and landing. The truth is, the Bf€109 became famous in spite of itself.

The Kurfurst came about as a result of the changes in air combat that followed the introduction of the USAAF and the daylight bombing offensive to the ETO. Combat took place at higher and higher altitudes, which meant that the Bf-109 would have to remain in production due to the fact the Fw-190 was at the limits of its performance at 24,000 feet - well below the altitude the Boeing B-17 could operate at. Additionally, the introduction of American escort fighters like the P-47, whose engine could maintain sea level performance to 30,000 feet by use of turbocharging, meant that the speed of the Bf-109 at altitude had to be improved to keep it competitive with the opposition. Design began in late 1943, and the first pre-production Bf-109K-0 fighters appeared in September 1944. The K-0 appeared with the DB605DB engine with GM-1 power boost. This engine required use of higher-octane C-4 fuel, which was constantly in short supply and would become even more so as a result of the Allied air campaign against German fuel production in the summer of 1944. The DB605ASCM engine could operate with 87 octane fuel, and it became the engine of choice for the Bf-109K-4, which was the major production version, providing it with a maximum speed of 452 m.p.h. at altitude. The Bf-109K series also increased the main armament from the 20mm MG151 of the Gustavs to the 30mm Mk.103 (or Mk.108 in late production aircraft).

In late November, 1944, III/JG26 became one of the first units of the Jagdwaffe to receive the Bf-109K-4, which were operated alongside the Bf-109G-14s the unit had received in October. Uffz. Georg Genth - one of the ill-trained new pilots sent to the Gruppe during the Normandy disaster - found that above 28,000 feet the Bf-109K-4 had a tendency to float, being unnaturally sensitive and giving him the same signals he had learned to associate with a stall. At high altitude, formation speed had to conform to that of the lead aircraft; a small change in its speed caused the pilots following to start €œswimming€ in space due to the thin air.

On November 27, 1944, Genth nearly lost his life when the canopy of his Kurfurst, €œWhite 8" iced over, leaving him only able to see directly ahead through the armored glass panel. As number four in his formation, this was not good. He managed to clear a small area of the left rear of the canopy by breathing on it, in time to see two P-47s closing! €œBeing totally unable to defrost my canopy, I reported my condition, and dove in a split-S into the clouds a few hundred meters below.€ Once in the clouds he realized he hadn€t switched on the artificial horizon, which he immediately did though he knew he had no chance of aligning the gyro. When he saw he was at 650 km/hr, he tried pulling back on the stick but his speed increased to over 700 km/hr, and he realized he was inverted. Pushing the stick forward, his speed dropped off and he left the cloud in a 60 degree inverted bank, 1,500 feet above forested hills below. The control forces were so great he could only move the stick by slapping it as hard as he could. €œThe amazing happened and the brave old 109 flipped over into a normal steep descent, which I could then pull out of with the help of the trim wheel.€ The engine panels had pulled off, and the oil lines had split from too much pressure; the canopy had unfrozen, however, and he was able to land at Rheine airfield a few kilometers away. Genth wasn€t the only member of the flight with a canopy problem. €œAs I stood on the landing ground at Rheine, I heard three aircraft crash with overstraining engines all right around us! To this day I have not been able to strike these ghastly noises from my memory.€

JG26's first major combat operation with the Bf-109K-4 came on New Year€s day, 1945, in Unternehmen Bodenplatte, the Luftwaffe€s planned strike against Allied airfields supporting opposition to the Battle of the Ardennes. The mission had been originally scheduled to take place on the opening day of the offensive the previous December, but bad weather forced cancellation. By the time it was flown, the German offensive in the forests below had been stopped. The Luftwaffe managed to shoot up a few Allied aircraft that were easily replaced in a matter of days, while losing experienced flight leaders to Allied flak and fighters who were irreplaceable. After Bodenplatte, the Luftwaffe was a spent force unable to defend itself against the Allied air forces between then and the end of the war.

By this time, III/JG26 - which was detailed to Brussels-Evere airfield - was operating 40 Bf-109K-4s along with 20 Bf-109G-14s. The German flak belt west of the Zuider Zee took out one fighter. Once across the Scheldt, they overflew a Canadian Army encampment and came under fire, losing a second aircraft and damaging the engine of Gruppe Kommandeur Walter Krupinski, whose first instinct was to turn back; discovering the engine still worked he remained at the lead of the formation, though his guns were now inoperable. Moments later, his engine began running rougher and he ordered his wingman Genth to accompany him back to Plantleunne airfield. The survivors of the Gruppe arrived over Brussels-Evere on schedule at 0920, where the unit spent 15 unopposed minutes strafing the Spitfires of 416 Squadron and everything else they saw on the field. Returning through the German flak belt, two 109s exploded from direct hits while two others were hit and managed to make successful crash landings behind German lines. Their total confirmed kills at Evere amounted to three Allied aircraft.

Most of January 1945 was spent on the ground due to the atrocious weather of the worst European winter in 50 years. Morale in III Gruppe became low, due to the poor leadership demonstrated by Krupinski since he had assumed command of the unit the previous October following the death in combat of Major Klaus Mietush, the previous Kommandeur (Krupinski, who had been in continuous combat on the eastern front since 1941, was undoubtedly suffering from combat fatigue by the time he came to JG26). The unit had never really recovered from the losses of experienced flight leaders and other veterans over Normandy following the invasion. Pilots of the Gruppe would use excuses to visit the fields where I and II Gruppen were based, inasmuch as their supply officer - the brother of one of the Geschwader€s €œnames€ - was selling their rations on the black market. By this time, none the Gruppe€s Staffelkapitaene were professional officers, all having been promoted from enlisted status with no formal officer€s or formation leader€s training. Many flew as little as possible and returned early from those missions they could not avoid; only the enlisted pilots, who had no choice, flew when ordered without question. As Genth put it, €œOne must keep in mind that after the Normandy invasion it was clear to any level-headed German serviceman that the Germans would lose the war. I freely admit that often after a combat sortie I considered flying off in the wrong direction - that is, to the west - and surrendering myself.€

In mid-February, II Gruppe was to transfer to the Fw-190D-9. Training was grossly inadequate, with Genth receiving three touch-and-goes at Plantluenne and a 30 minute formation flight. On February 22, while flying in formation over their field, four III Gruppe pilots were hit by Tempests of 274 Squadron led by Squadron Leader Donald €œFoob€ Fairbanks, losing two of their number before the Tempests flew off. On February 28, the Gruppe flew their first mission in Dora-9s. Shortly after takeoff they were hit by 274's Tempests, again led by Fairbanks; one Dora-9 was shot down, but Fairbanks and his wingman also went down; Georg Genth may have been the pilot who shot down the top-scoring Tempest ace of the war. The mission could have gone far in starting the Gruppe off on a good note, but two Doras collided in the landing pattern on return.

Uffz. Georg Genth was shot down March 7, 1945, by Flt. Lt. B.M. Vassiliades of 3 Squadron, after a 10 minute chase in and out of clouds. Hit in the rear by the Tempest€s 4 20mm cannon, Genth bailed out at minimum altitude, and was taken prisoner by British ground troops. Pieces of his airplane were found in the crash site 40 years later.

III Gruppe was disbanded on March 24, 1945, with its place taken within the Geschwader by IV Gruppe, which had originally been III/JG54.

Author Tom Cleaver

Kurfurst__
04-27-2005, 03:22 AM
Originally posted by LeadSpitter_:
Care to point out the posts since you mr know it all is never wrong like you are in about every whine thread i seen you post about the 20mm, just like you saying p47s take 40 hits then i show a online ntrk of me shooting down 8 p47s ripping thier tails off in 4 20mm shots from the 109g2, that one shut your face up, I had some take 10-20 hits online in some overseas servers where people ping 200-500ms but its called LAGG!!!


Sir, I think you are either under the effect of drugs, medicine, alcohol or some special smoke, or a combination of these factors, as anybody who searches the 20mm threads knows very well that I posted maybe 2-3 post in them total. You only made it obvious that you are not 100% in possession of your mental capacity, and suffer from paranoid symptoms which you`d like to compensate here.




A matter a fact I dont think you have ever posted ntrks of your oleg undermodels all german ac complaints.

Can you tell me what the f you are talking about? Alcohol started to work on you?



Theres just something wrong when the anti tank anti bomber 30mm cannons are the top dogfighting weapons in game.

Maybe it`s just you.




look at all your posts the 109 high speed elevator cries which still have no proof that you claim they should be so good highspeed, why not mention its overmodeled high speed roll same with the p40s and other issues above normal like its 50kmph stall speed, look at the flugzwerks data for it 98-120mph with full landing flaps and wingslats open!!!


Sir, I think you don`t have the slightest f clue about the things you are mumbling about.




Your such a **** joke kurfurst, use flugzwerk data charts not some make believe pictorial book with unaccurate unsourced 1980s charts from some 2 dollar pro luft propaganda book.

Still busy with your demons, Mr. LS?




Now point out all my posts which you say are inaccurate and back them up that im wrong with your sourced data you friggen joke whiner. Your crediability is absolute 0 here you just fail to realize it and everyone knows it here! especially when you say famous german aces lack knowledge over yours is a friggen joke saying aces like hartman, gunther rall, Hans Hahn and others are wrong and you know more then them your such a joke man and you should realize you have 0 crediability.

You sound like a drunkard, who repeats himself `cos repeating is one f convincing way to prove your point, ROFLOL. Thank you for spending your time making yourself ridiculus.



All you do is whine on your OPINIONS of how good german ac should be and want oleg to change them to your satisfaction. Get a **** clue kurfurst.

As this above comes from a balanced and intelligent person like LR, it`s definietely to be taken into account when forming an opinion. Oh, or maybe one should just have a good laugh.





You know why the 109k4s pilot manual recommends not to exceed 750kmph BECAUSE THATS WHEN PANELS WOULD RIPPLE AND AIRFRAMEs WOULD OVERSTRESS IN HIGH G manuevers, And you know the 109k4 was the structurally enforced 109 so shouldnt the others 109s G2 6 10 14 have much lower breakup speeds then the 109k4s? sure it could exceed 750 slightly in a life or death situations but with heavy panel ripples and airframe bending.

Whatever you say Mr LS, I am sure every single statement of yours is throughly researched.

Just for the historical accuracy, the K-4 pilot manual, and which, at least according to Mr. LS 'recommends not to exceed 750kmph BECAUSE THATS WHEN PANELS WOULD RIPPLE AND AIRFRAMEs WOULD OVERSTRESS IN HIGH G manuevers', actually specifies 850 km/h max dive speed.

What like about LS is that he`s able to post things he had just made up on the spot as it was an unquestionable truth from God.




This happened to all aluminum airframes all countries when over the recommended airspeed thats what its there for so wise the hell up son.

Take a look at blueprints and research about structural strenght, compair that to allied ac airframes like the 51 and 47, the ki43 was an all aluminum ac which had extremely similiar structural design to 109s and very thin and narrow rear fuselage but they breakup at 660kmph, same goes for the cw-21.

The compair that to airframe strenght of ac like the grumman, focke wulf, junkers, dornier, republic, north american, bell p39 p63 and curtis acs blueprints and max stress limits compaired to the messerSHmITt. Have you ever wondered why it needed to be structurally reinforced which made it heavier and still was not very strong compaired to other ac.


You sound like a real expert in the field of sturctural strenght of WW2 fighters.

Oh, just kidding, actually you sound like a pathetic whiner, desperately hating the 109 and can`t even spell the object if his hatred - it`s Messerschmitt you poor thing. Now crawl back to the sewers.

Kurfurst__
04-27-2005, 03:39 AM
Mr. Lead$hitter copy paste article comes from the reputable source of "letletlet-warplanes.com". A modelling site.


The site itself has very interesting findings :

"Design began in late 1943, and the first pre-production Bf-109K-0 fighters appeared in September 1944. The K-0 appeared with the DB605DB engine with GM-1 power boost. This engine required use of higher-octane C-4 fuel, which was constantly in short supply and would become even more so as a result of the Allied air campaign against German fuel production in the summer of 1944. The DB605ASCM engine could operate with 87 octane fuel, and it became the engine of choice for the Bf-109K-4, which was the major production version, providing it with a maximum speed of 452 m.p.h. at altitude. The Bf-109K series also increased the main armament from the 20mm MG151 of the Gustavs to the 30mm Mk.103 (or Mk.108 in late production aircraft)."


Rarely I have seen so many errors in such a few lines... ie. the K-0 wasn`t produced, GM-1 was never used on the 109K, 'C-4' fuel never existed (mixed up with C-3), the DB 605 ASCM operated on 96 octance C-3, as indicated by the designation, not 87 octane fuel (that`s the 605ASB), moreover the MK 103 was most likely never fitted to the 109, and the MK 108 was not a 'later' version of the MK 103 as the author seems to believe, who, btw, has trouble identifying a Bf 109K as evidenced by the picture of the G-10 in the 109K article.. http://www.letletlet-warplanes.com/Bf109K.htm

ImpStarDuece
04-27-2005, 03:58 AM
Its so sad when lovers fight

Blutarski2004
04-27-2005, 08:10 AM
Kurfurst,

If only you had some manners. Try just once to contribute to a thread without insulting people. You sound like a fourteen year old.

HayateAce
04-27-2005, 10:40 AM
So all the pros have been over-exaggerated and all the cons have been minimized.

Fb~109 is overmodeled for G A M E P L A Y.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

LLv34_Stafroty
04-27-2005, 11:30 AM
ally pilots just whines cos they dont know how to fly. learn to fly and shoot allies and stop whining.

faustnik
04-27-2005, 11:45 AM
He look it's Trollathon 2005.

You guys really know how to ruin a thread.

LeadSpitter_
04-27-2005, 12:28 PM
First off I did not get it from anywebsite, Thomas McKelvey Cleaver is a reknown author and the book is called

Donald J.M. Blakeslee and Battle of Germany, 1944.
Written by Thomas McKelvey Cleaver.

I actually typed that out from the book so once again your clearly wrong kurfurst saying I cut and pasted it from that site which I have never visited or seen in my life. Once again you are wrong.

But we all know the site you get your information from 109 lair.

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

Kurfurst:

Rarely I have seen so many errors in such a few lines... ie. the K-0 wasn`t produced, GM-1 was never used on the 109K, 'C-4' fuel never existed (mixed up with C-3), the DB 605 ASCM operated on 96 octance C-3, as indicated by the designation, not 87 octane fuel (that`s the 605ASB),

Lead: There was many preproduction varients of the Bf 109K-0 Developed from the G-10, with DB605D and GM-1 Boost. Again your wrong

Kurfusrt: the DB 605 ASCM operated on 96 octance C-3, as indicated by the designation, not 87 octane fuel (that`s the 605ASB)

Lead: Yes designed for 96 octane but with fuel shortage they had to on 87 octane and in fact did in 1945 so again your not taking that into consideration. In why the author states could run on 87 octane.

Kurfurst: moreover the MK 103 was most likely never fitted to the 109, and the MK 108 was not a 'later' version of the MK 103 as the author seems to believe, who, btw, has trouble identifying a Bf 109K as evidenced by the picture of the G-10 in the 109K article.

Lead: The MK103 was developed together with the MK 108, The MK103M version for firing through the propeller hub. The MK103M was less reliable than the standard version. The mk108 was the later prefered solution of the two weapons with its stamped parts lighter weight and lower rate of fire. So once again your clearly wrong.

NVP1
04-27-2005, 12:44 PM
Gentlemen,
Just a couple of words which might sound a little bit off-topic.
Imho, this thread is a great example of how the OMRR has become unreadable within certain period of time.It used to be ,more or less,a place of WW2 warbirds enthusiasts to share and exchange their knowledge,however,lately has degraded to the level of kindergarten kids fighting one another and claiming that "my dad's stronger,he'll beat up your dad-ha!
my uncle served in the military,he'll eat your dead for breakfast..." etc
Kurfurst is indeed biased,as he always tends to look at the bright side of the creation of W.Messerschmitt,however ,he has good knowledge of the subject and does present his point in an intelligent way,unless provoked.
LS: an attitude of "Oleg, omfg,i'm so good in german ac,can you tune'em down",made several claims on this board which were never supported by facts and did lose all of his credibility in doing so.All his experience is based on flying on dogfight servers,and that explains a lot.The above "copy-paste" action just shows howpathetic his knowledge on Bf 109 is.Also,a sidenote: "one of the ill-trained new pilots" is the key-phrase in that "masterpiece"...
Buzzsaw:He raised some interesting valid topics and his posts are a pleasure to read,indeed.However, "...Heaven forbid they might realize they are flying overmodelled aircraft which a complete idiot would have a problem losing in..."negates all this and leaves no hope for an objective view,alas.
The Pingu guy,my apologies, i am being too personal, but could you kindly stop spamming
every thread in ORR with your smilies-there's a GD section of the forum,much more appropriate for that...
HayateAce...Does anyone know if there's an "ignore" feature on this board?
Blutarski, you've raised a thread,ok,any suggestions to implement this into FB
within the current game engine,what would would be the effect of balooning surfaces,how many AC would be affected?What should be the percentage of it taking place -5%? 10%? 100%?Do you have any idea about the quantity of planes involved?Don't you think the game developers have their hands full working on the BOB and wouldn't like to implement a feature which sounds like a joke within the current limitations of a 5-year-old game engine?
Shame,shame,shame...
Degradation...
PS sorry,English is not my first language
PSS please do not take the above said words personally, it does hurt to watch this board turn into ..ehh,yes-Ubizoo http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

p1ngu666
04-27-2005, 01:33 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by NVP1:
my uncle served in the military,he'll eat your dead for breakfast..." etc
QUOTE]

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

my 3 posts of the same thing was when board went abit skitz http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

leadspitter is more or less right on most things, but he should break up his posts so is easier to read.

ballooning of control surfaces makes them ineffective and hard to move, classic example is the zero, ok roll at low speed, but at high was nearly impossible to move. spitfire also but not so much. 109 should be similer to spitfire

Blutarski2004
04-27-2005, 01:42 PM
Originally posted by NVP1:
Blutarski, you've raised a thread,ok,any suggestions to implement this into FB
within the current game engine,what would would be the effect of balooning surfaces,how many AC would be affected?What should be the percentage of it taking place -5%? 10%? 100%?Do you have any idea about the quantity of planes involved?Don't you think the game developers have their hands full working on the BOB and wouldn't like to implement a feature which sounds like a joke within the current limitations of a 5-year-old game engine?


..... I don't see my job as advising Oleg on how to fix his sim or adjust an particular part of any a/c's FM. I just try to post good data when I find it - 50cal dispersion and velocity ******ation, Spitfire roll rate performance verus different types of aileron, etc. The high speed roll rate for late model 109's has been an open question for a long time, as no one has come up with any firm data on the subject. When I came across Steinhoff's comment about the relationship between high speed, ballooning aileron fabric, and heavy handling, it got me to thinking about whether the 109 ever got metal-covered ailerons. So I posted an innocent question. The rest is, as they say, history.

Frankly I'm pretty well fed up with Kurfurst, who has managed to send yet another well-intentioned thread off into childish insanity. You're right. Kurfurst does have a lot of interesting info on 109's. The problem is separating the true and valid material from all the foolishness he spouts. Not easy.

Provoked? He provokes himself, for his own mysterious reasons. It's impossible to have a normal discussion with him, because he cannot permit himself to be wrong or mistaken or admit that he has learned something which he did not know already - problems which I thankfully do not suffer.

faustnik
04-27-2005, 01:42 PM
Originally posted by p1ngu666:

leadspitter is more or less right on most things,

Maybe "some" things. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Buzzsaw-
04-27-2005, 02:08 PM
Salute

Much as I hate to agree with Kurfurst factually, he is correct that the Cleaver article is full of errors. I think Cleaver must have gotten much of his information from Heinz J Nowarra's MESSERSCHMIDT BF 109 book, which although it does contain valuable information, also contains a huge amount of misinformation.

Errors include those in favour of 109 performance and against, including the claim that the K4 could reach 452 mph, something which was only documented with a few test examples, and not with the regular production aircraft. Oleg shows his knowledge of actual aircraft production by giving the K4's the more accurate high alt speed.

Cleaver is correct in suggesting the 109 had reached the end of its useful design life and was overextended in production with the K models. However, it was the F, not the E which was the high point for this aircraft. The F4 was a beautiful plane, very well balanced in speed, climb and maneuver and arguably the best Fighter aircraft in the world at the time of its introduction. It was the introduction of the DB605 and the G models which tipped the balance towards mediocrity for the 109 series.

The fact is, it cannot be denied that Isegrim/Kurfurst has a vast knowledge of the 109 series, and aircraft in general. If only he could be convinced to bring forward ALL the information he has at hand on the 109 we could see a really accurate modelling of this aircraft. Unfortunately, he seems incapable of presenting anything which does not show his chosen aircraft in the best possible light, thus we never see anything but documents which show it positively. This is also the reason he presents his homemade charts instead of originals, and the reason we often see edited extracts of documents, taken out of context.

It's a shame he will not present everything he has at hand, unedited and in its entirety.

----

And yes Mr. NVP1, I also am guilty of adding emotionalism to my posts, something which I will endeavor to curtail... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Aaron_GT
04-27-2005, 03:36 PM
The mk108 was the later prefered solution of the two weapons with its stamped parts lighter weight and lower rate of fire.

Leadspitter, the MK103 had an ROF of 420rpm and the MK108 650rpm, so the ROFs are the other way round to what you suggested.

faustnik
04-27-2005, 03:52 PM
Was a Bf109K ever flown operationally with a engine mounted Mk103? I didn't think those tests were successful???

p1ngu666
04-27-2005, 03:57 PM
mk103M is a iccle version of mk103.
strangely some recon 109s where fitted with mk103 aprently http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif
imo, f series was peak of plane vs its contemporaries, but the E is the famous version, cos of BOB, least here in teh england.
for best part of combat career, theres spain, battle of france, BOB, invasion of russia, the start. also theres its effectiveness with the finns.

G6 was the lowpoint, k4 is the "best" in terms of speed climb firepower, but the pilots loved the F series

faustnik
04-27-2005, 04:14 PM
Originally posted by p1ngu666:
mk103M is a iccle version of mk103.
strangely some recon 109s where fitted with mk103 aprently http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

That's interesting. I thought the big gun caused damage to the engine due to recoil forces? Why would they put a heavier gun in a recon plane? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

Abbuzze
04-27-2005, 05:17 PM
Originally posted by faustnik:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by p1ngu666:
mk103M is a iccle version of mk103.
strangely some recon 109s where fitted with mk103 aprently http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

That's interesting. I thought the big gun caused damage to the engine due to recoil forces? Why would they put a heavier gun in a recon plane? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Every source that say that the MK103 would fit into a 109 is more than doubtfull.

A MK103 was a 2.30m long weapon, weight was 146 kg. So this cannon was 0.5m longer than a MG151...

MK108 was designed as a supersize MG/FF 20mm Oerlikon cannon. Sharing same disadvantages and advanteges.

MK103 was a smaller version of this:

http://web135.germaninfo53.erfurt16.de/pics/original/munster/37mm_pak/Munster0335.jpg

German Pak37.

The MK103 simply don´t fit in a 109 its the same fairy tale like the MG151 in the cowling...

LeadSpitter_
04-27-2005, 05:48 PM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The mk108 was the later prefered solution of the two weapons with its stamped parts lighter weight and lower rate of fire.

Leadspitter, the MK103 had an ROF of 420rpm and the MK108 650rpm, so the ROFs are the other way round to what you suggested. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


yes sorry about that aron I ment to type muzzle velocity not ROF.

mk103m had a much higher muzzle velocity 860 compaired to the mk108 with a muzzle velocity of 505 which is why it unaccurate, especially in a dogfight aiming at a fighter taking evasive action. The weight of the mk103m was nearly double that of the mk108 and was not worth the longer range accuracy.

This is why the mk108 was considered the later and better choice over the nose mounted mk103m.

JG53Frankyboy
04-27-2005, 05:56 PM
butch2k often said , the MK103M (that was shorter and had another recail system) was never ready to be put in a Bf109.

http://www.simhq.com/simhq3/sims/boards/bbs/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=127;t=002193#000011

its most propably a myth repeated in a lot of books like the engine canon of the 109E-3 ore the fuselage MG151/15 of the Bf109K-4

LeadSpitter_
04-27-2005, 06:09 PM
Well in was installed on a limited number of k-0s in testing frankboy, also some he-100s had the mk103m in the nose.

JG53Frankyboy
04-27-2005, 06:20 PM
thats a He-100 , i would say a Mk103 recoil would let fly it backwards

http://www.luftwaffepics.com/LCBW2/He100-D1-1.jpg

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

and MK103M
http://p069.ezboard.com/fluftwaffeexperten71774frm4.showMessage?topicID=43 .topic

LeadSpitter_
04-27-2005, 06:34 PM
lol, yeah but they did. Testing of mk103 was also done with me262 in limited numbers as well.

Do some none web related research and you will find the information out. Im sure butch2k will find it if he really looks. Theres a couple websites that say the mk103m was never used which are false.

German Scientific Association for Aeronautics for example which is equivelent the the americans NACA .

JG53Frankyboy
04-27-2005, 06:41 PM
well, as Butch said, the Mk103 and MK103M has huge differences - and that topic here is Bf109 related, as your postet "copy and paste" article was.
now listing every plane that ever uses the MK103 , what ever version, as only a prototype ore real in combat is useless - as arguing with you.

btw, i sure you know, butch is very often looking for original documents, because he is planing to write a book about the Bf109 . but sure , your books ore what ever are better.

im out , thx

LeadSpitter_
04-27-2005, 06:55 PM
SECRET AIRCRAFT DESIGNS OF THE THIRD REICH,
By David Myhra

Over 400 aircraft prototype projects.

I admit alot of books out are shady and authors representation of things, theres also so many different datacharts that differ, and just think of the thousands of projects and data lost in bombings that no one will ever know of.

Saying they didnt exist is ignorant becuase that data is extremely rare and difficult to find, m but interviews with designers and employees is the only thing left.

Buzzsaw-
04-27-2005, 07:32 PM
Salute

Some sources suggest the 109K6 would be equipped with Mk 103's in gunpods, but again, this is doubtful.

By the way, to look at the recoil forces, here is a listing of the amount of kinetic energy generated by various weapons:

20x110 Hispano: 47-50,000 joules

20x82 MG 151/20 29,000 joules

MK 108 42,000 jouless

MK 103 140,000 joules

You can see that the Mk 103 would impose tremendous forces on the aircraft carrying it.

WWMaxGunz
04-27-2005, 08:47 PM
If you want recoil, compare the momentum of the shells times the rate of fire,
not the kinetic energy.

109F was probably the best all around flying 109 but the K had the speed and climb
no other did, which overall in war I think is better. The G and K models had more
firepower than the F's didn't they? Especially from the G-6's on. And to figure
which model was best, firepower and speed are more useful than flat turn circle,
what percent of downed fliers never saw their attacker? Majority? Really I think
that is why the FW's are the better plane for war, especially offensive action.
And speed, especially high cruise I'd rather sacrifice flat turn for that since I
can convert speed to angle in the vertical pretty efficiently. So 109K even with
less maneuver than 109F, I think was the deadlier fighter and the peak of the series.

p1ngu666
04-27-2005, 09:13 PM
well, alot of sources say mk103 when they mean mk108. perhaps because orignal docs they used had a scratch and u couldnt tell, or simple mixup.
but ive seen it alot..

p1ngu666
04-27-2005, 09:25 PM
think the germans wanted to replace 109 with this baby

http://premium1.uploadit.org/pingu666//re2005.jpg
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/heart.gif

found out about that a few days ago, seems it got 420-440mph depending on test and maybe propeller.
armament was 2 12.7mm over the nose, a cannon in the nose, and 1 in each wing (mg151/20 i think)
probably has good climb and turn, also didnt have mw50, atleast for the 420mph test.

there was re2006 with db603 (engine from ta152) and re2007 with jumo in mockup/protype stages when everything collapsed.

shame club med didnt have time to make it, think it was there best fighter...
getting macchi 205, same engine and guns, but slower and not so cool looking.

iirec germans didnt change to the italian planes because of 109s lifelong advatage thats not shown in FB http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif. it was cheap to make http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

p1ngu666
04-27-2005, 09:32 PM
ultimate flyable italian aircraft we are getting

http://www.netwings.org/dcforum/DCForumID43/1359.html
is nice, but its abit messy compaired to re2005 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Buzzsaw-
04-27-2005, 10:10 PM
Salute

You don't compare the 109F with the 109K, you compare it with its contemporary opponents. And when you do that, the 109F comes out looking much better than the K.

The K model might have been faster, but the problem, and what is being argued in this thread and others is that couldn't take advantage of its speed, because it maneuvered poorly at high speeds, due as mentioned, to:

1) Compressibility effects due to poor aerodynamics.

2) Fabric covered ailerons ballooning at high speeds.

3) Tendency to shed wingtips when using ailerons at high speed.

The 109F4 topped out at approx. 300 mph sea level, 390 kph best alt, which meant most times, except at max speeds, it was not maneuvering at V beyond which the aircraft's aerodynamics started to impose penalties. The K4 on the other hand, is topping out at 370 mph approx. at sea level, (depending on engine model) or 440 best alt, plus it is heavier, more power, accelerates faster in a dive, which takes it up into the speed ranges where it runs into real problems. Meanwhile its opponents like the P-51 are in their element.

Abbuzze
04-28-2005, 03:16 AM
Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
Salute

You don't compare the 109F with the 109K, you compare it with its contemporary opponents. And when you do that, the 109F comes out looking much better than the K.

The K model might have been faster, but the problem, and what is being argued in this thread and others is that couldn't take advantage of its speed, because it maneuvered poorly at high speeds, due as mentioned, to:

1) Compressibility effects due to poor aerodynamics.

2) Fabric covered ailerons ballooning at high speeds.

3) Tendency to shed wingtips when using ailerons at high speed.

The 109F4 topped out at approx. 300 mph sea level, 390 kph best alt, which meant most times, except at max speeds, it was not maneuvering at V beyond which the aircraft's aerodynamics started to impose penalties. The K4 on the other hand, is topping out at 370 mph approx. at sea level, (depending on engine model) or 440 best alt, plus it is heavier, more power, accelerates faster in a dive, which takes it up into the speed ranges where it runs into real problems. Meanwhile its opponents like the P-51 are in their element.

But we should also keep in mind that even late war planes are not flying all the time with Vmax! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif The ability to reach such high velocities also means high rate of climb at lower speeds, high accerlation in levelflight and after loosing energy in tight turns.

The 109 didn´t suffer compressibility effects the stiffening of the controlls was not related to this aerodynamical effect, and not cause by any "poor" aerodynamic. The ability to get out of a dive with the use of trim clearly show this. And beside with the correct trimset recovering a dive with 0.8Mach just using the stick was not a problem!! Diving with wrong trimsets made the stick like concrete.

For the ailerons, maybe they ballooning, but I don´t think that was the cause for the bad highspeedbehavior.
It simply make no sense to say bad aileronperformance cause of ballooning and also avoiding excessive use of the ailerons cause this may rip of the wings! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif If they were ineffective in which way they can cause any damadge to the wing?

Beside, I have the advantage to read the original test where they suggest not to use the ailerons in highspeed dive under special circumstances.
And thats the problem, the circumstances!!!
You will find no word of prohibiding of excessive use of the ailerons in highspeed dives.
A small compenduim of this often wrong quoted test:

First this test was not made to estimate any Vmax or something.
max. reached Machnumber was 0.81 without any compressibility.
The goal of this test (is goal correct in this combination? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif) was to test the new tall tail like we know it from G6late.
Early 109 show a instability in highspeed dives, so this new tail should solve this and it worked good!
The "problem" with the ailerons was not related to them. 109 show sometimes a oszillation at the yaw axis in a highspeed dive. Like all oszillation you have to be carefull with them.

Maybe you know the famous movie from the Tacoma-Narrows-bridge. The wind made it swing till it was destroyed.
http://www.cornelsen.de/physikextra/htdocs/Resonanz.html

Same happend to some 109, if the oscillation started it was prohibided to use the ailerons to cause it was not possible to damp this oscillation with them. Use of the ailerons just increase the oszillation till the BF will break!
Beside the 109 will not immediatelly break, the oscillation let the stick move from one to the other side with maximum amplitude, and no steering force in 0? position. Working AGAINST this let the plane break.

Conclusion of the test: The tall tail let this oscillation disapear. Without of oszillation, no overcompensation of the ailerons, and that is what I assume, no danger to use them at high speed! Rollrate is another story!

Ratsack
04-28-2005, 05:31 AM
Originally posted by Abbuzze:


...The ability to reach such high velocities also means high rate of climb at lower speeds, high accerlation in levelflight and after loosing energy in tight turns.


Hi Abuzze,

I€m not sure I understand you here. If you€re making a general observation, it€s not right. High top speed doesn€t assure good climb rate or acceleration. A high top speed means a high top speed. Acceleration depends on the mass and the thrust. Like Sir Isaac said, F = ma.

If it€s a specific observation about the K4, I don€t know. I assume its rate of climb was excellent, like most of the 109s, but I confess I€ve never seen a figure or chart.

As for acceleration, the Fw190 was meant to be better. I€m not sure sticking a DB605D in the thing would change that. Does anyone have a figure for this?

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
Ratsack

Abbuzze
04-28-2005, 06:00 AM
Originally posted by Ratsack:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Abbuzze:


...The ability to reach such high velocities also means high rate of climb at lower speeds, high accerlation in levelflight and after loosing energy in tight turns.


Hi Abuzze,

I€m not sure I understand you here. If you€re making a general observation, it€s not right. High top speed doesn€t assure good climb rate or acceleration. A high top speed means a high top speed. Acceleration depends on the mass and the thrust. Like Sir Isaac said, F = ma.

If it€s a specific observation about the K4, I don€t know. I assume its rate of climb was excellent, like most of the 109s, but I confess I€ve never seen a figure or chart.

As for acceleration, the Fw190 was meant to be better. I€m not sure sticking a DB605D in the thing would change that. Does anyone have a figure for this?

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
Ratsack </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes my fault, I should say that this was related to the 109 series.

Have no figures too, but I would say from the pure numbers 109 should accelerate better in level flight. In a dive the 190 should be better.

Aaron_GT
04-28-2005, 07:05 AM
Buzzsaw wrote:
" The K4 on the other hand, is topping out at 370 mph approx. at sea level, (depending on engine model) or 440 best alt,"

What was the mach rating and IAS at this altitude as it might give more idea about the aerodynamic conditions than TAS?

p1ngu666
04-28-2005, 07:26 AM
370 @ SL is same as tas... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

think he means 109 was pushed into going faster in most places, and that gave difficulties.
like putting a f1 engine in your normal car, u are faster for sure, but it would be abit scary http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Abbuzze
04-28-2005, 07:44 AM
Originally posted by p1ngu666:
370 @ SL is same as tas... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

think he means 109 was pushed into going faster in most places, and that gave difficulties.
like putting a f1 engine in your normal car, u are faster for sure, but it would be abit scary http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

But FUN! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif The way to create myths... Suzuki GSX-R 750....

p1ngu666
04-28-2005, 07:56 AM
yes http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Blutarski2004
04-28-2005, 08:02 AM
Originally posted by Abbuzze:
But we should also keep in mind that even late war planes are not flying all the time with Vmax! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif The ability to reach such high velocities also means high rate of climb at lower speeds, high accerlation in levelflight and after loosing energy in tight turns.

The 109 didn´t suffer compressibility effects the stiffening of the controlls was not related to this aerodynamical effect, and not cause by any "poor" aerodynamic. The ability to get out of a dive with the use of trim clearly show this. And beside with the correct trimset recovering a dive with 0.8Mach just using the stick was not a problem!! Diving with wrong trimsets made the stick like concrete.

For the ailerons, maybe they ballooning, but I don´t think that was the cause for the bad highspeedbehavior.
It simply make no sense to say bad aileronperformance cause of ballooning and also avoiding excessive use of the ailerons cause this may rip of the wings! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif If they were ineffective in which way they can cause any damadge to the wing?

Beside, I have the advantage to read the original test where they suggest not to use the ailerons in highspeed dive under special circumstances.
And thats the problem, the circumstances!!!
You will find no word of prohibiding of excessive use of the ailerons in highspeed dives.
A small compenduim of this often wrong quoted test:

First this test was not made to estimate any Vmax or something.
max. reached Machnumber was 0.81 without any compressibility.
The goal of this test (is goal correct in this combination? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif) was to test the new tall tail like we know it from G6late.
Early 109 show a instability in highspeed dives, so this new tail should solve this and it worked good!
The "problem" with the ailerons was not related to them. 109 show sometimes a oszillation at the yaw axis in a highspeed dive. Like all oszillation you have to be carefull with them.

Maybe you know the famous movie from the Tacoma-Narrows-bridge. The wind made it swing till it was destroyed.
http://www.cornelsen.de/physikextra/htdocs/Resonanz.html

Same happend to some 109, if the oscillation started it was prohibided to use the ailerons to cause it was not possible to damp this oscillation with them. Use of the ailerons just increase the oszillation till the BF will break!
Beside the 109 will not immediatelly break, the oscillation let the stick move from one to the other side with maximum amplitude, and no steering force in 0? position. Working AGAINST this let the plane break.

Conclusion of the test: The tall tail let this oscillation disapear. Without of oszillation, no overcompensation of the ailerons, and that is what I assume, no danger to use them at high speed! Rollrate is another story!


..... Good post. I agree that trim setting was probably the biggest cause of problems in dive recovery. Unforeseen events in combat would often force a pilot into maneuvers for which he had not necessarily prepared.

As to high-speed ballooning of fabric aileron surfaces, Steinhoff's comment seem to indicate that it caused problems in general handling behavior, not simply in terms of roll rate. If correct, then this would show up in high speed turns and dive recoveries as well. Perhaps the need for proper trim in dive recovery was the result of insufficient aileron effect at high dive speeds.

The 109 is a fascinating a/c to me - particularly in terms of the relationship and conflicts between its pre-war design and its successive later developments.

Aaron_GT
04-28-2005, 10:26 AM
370 @ SL is same as tas...

I was wondering what IAS/mach 440 at best alt was, and how that compares to 370@SL. Was 370@SL problematic for the 109? And how does 440 at whatever altitude that was achieved at compare in terms of mach (i.e. is 440 at altitude more of an aerodynamic issue than 370@SL?)

WWMaxGunz
04-28-2005, 10:39 AM
.81 mach without any compression??? ANY plane?
Riiiiiiight.

Abbuzze
04-28-2005, 10:57 AM
Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
.81 mach without any compression??? ANY plane?
Riiiiiiight.

nooo compressioooonnn mennnnntioned in this teeeeest, jussst theeeeeee usuuual problemmmmms wiiiiithhhhh theeeee stifffffening connnnntrols.

As it was an official test, I assume they would mentioned compressionproblem as the mentions all other problems:
-Freezing windows in dive.
-trim was freezing to, was moveable but not smooth
-the mentioned oscillations
-the swinging stick

Buuut noooo compresssion! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

I just repeat what is written in this test!
But maybe this guys simply didn´t know what compression was.... or didn´t describe it.

At the end, if it is not mentioned in the test I will not start to invent it!

I have to admit a failure: it was 0.805 Mach@ 7.0km altitude.

If you have better sources, that state where exactly compression for 109´s start, I will be eager to see it.

Seriously, would like to see at which machnumber most planes run into compression, cause I don´t know.

Kurfurst__
04-29-2005, 12:01 PM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">370 @ SL is same as tas...

I was wondering what IAS/mach 440 at best alt was, and how that compares to 370@SL. Was 370@SL problematic for the 109? And how does 440 at whatever altitude that was achieved at compare in terms of mach (i.e. is 440 at altitude more of an aerodynamic issue than 370@SL?) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The K-4`s critical altitude was between 6000 and 7500m, at which range it developed 715 kph speed (TAS, 444mph).

Using the rule of thumb, ie. 10% decrease for IAS at every 1500m, that would mean ca 222-266mph IAS at Vmax at critical altitude of 20-24.6k feet for the K-4 - quite the optimum speed range for the 109`s controls.


But now, as Blutarski keeps doing the same foul thing he usually does, I have to respond. Every one of us has seen Blutarski`s record. For every week he has a thread opened with something bad about the 109. Of course it was a complete ****. Now this thread... the claim about the ballooning was fluffed up, and soon discredited. Practially NOTHING Blutarski claimed from Steinhoff matched what Steinhoff really said...

This is what Blutarski claimed, HIS words :

"Steinhoff mentioned that he was still flying a 109F4 during this period.
This was a year after the official introduction of the G variant.
He also mentioned that his 109F4 had fabric covered ailerons and described how they would "balloon" out at higher speeds and badly affect aileron efficiency."

STEINHOFF said :

"...I broke out of the circle, half-rolled and went into a vertical dive. <snip> It spiralled steeply earthwards as though into a vortex. With almost complete detachment my eyes took note of the wildly oscillating instruments, of the failing engine which these gyrations conveyed. The controls were ominously heavy while the fabric-covered ailerons began to balloon, inducing a virtually uncontrollable spin."

Steinhoff said the ailerons ballooned during the dive - nothing more, nothing less, period. Look what Blutarski made out of it.



And he was even worked up himself when I slapped the truth in his face, saying : "Mr. Blutarski has a reputation about qouting people in a special manner..." Does he not?
Yet he is proud about it : "I do in fact take great pride in the "special manner" in which I quote sources. I take pains to do so as accurately, fairly, and completely as possible."

See for yourself. I was very mild about it. Truth is, I have never met any people who would take pride in being fabricators until I met Blutarski.

'Mistake', oh yes. Blutarski is full of such mistakes, he has a repeated record of it. Mistakes always in the same direction, the 109 was bad... threads ALWAYS in the same direction, the 109 was bad. Qoutes searched, selected out of many, and if needed, falsified, ALWAYS in the same direction, but posted ONLY if they say the 109 was bad. No agenda in it, 'riiiiiiight'.

Just name me one thread Blutarski opened or posted, where he says the 109 was good at ANYTHING. You can`t. The agenda is obvious, and it`s tipped with a showface behaviour from Blutarski, who drops crocodile tears for intelligent discussion.. the same Blutarski who calls any other opinion 'partisan', who tells his discussion partners 'You sound like a fourteen year old.' instead of discussion he misses so much... the same Blutarski who, as I found out is so much obsessed with his inferiority complex towards me that he mentions my name in even remote threads which I don`t even participate in, and spreads lies about me, he keeps connecting to sites I have already cleared up MANY I have no relation to.. the guy that can do no other than post BS information, and when corrected he starts to point fingers about 'ruiners of his informative well-intended' thread; which happen to be his minions btw.

So this fu*king guy wants to tell me about honesty, intelligent disussion, and how to present information 'accurately, fairly, and completely'? THIS guy? I laugh myself to death.

Oh, and let`s just wait until next week`s 'why the 109 sucked so badly' thread from Blutarski. Guaranteedly 'accurate, fair, and complete' representation, from the guy who has a record which speaks for itself. Riiiiiiiight.

I am saddened that we have to go around and around of this, but Blutarski`s behaviour simply don`t change over the time, he repeats the same false and foul accusations again and again, hoping the repeating them has some convincing power. I will not let his personal attacks on me get away uncorrected. It remains so until Blutarski discovers that this foul behaviour of his is contra-productive, and tries what he has not tried until now : respect his opponents, STOP lying about them and instead attacking their person attacking their position... but looking at this thread, looking at how he parrots to same accusations.. I don`t he will ever change.

lrrp22
04-29-2005, 12:56 PM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
I am saddened that we have to go around and around of this, but Blutarski`s behaviour simply don`t change over the time, he repeats the same false and foul accusations again and again, hoping the repeating them has some convincing power. I will not let his personal attacks on me get away uncorrected. It remains so until Blutarski discovers that this foul behaviour of his is contra-productive, and tries what he has not tried until now : respect his opponents, STOP lying about them and instead attacking their person attacking their position... but looking at this thread, looking at how he parrots to same accusations.. I don`t he will ever change.



http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

.

Cajun76
05-01-2005, 04:23 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 Aaron_GT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">370 @ SL is same as tas...

I was wondering what IAS/mach 440 at best alt was, and how that compares to 370@SL. Was 370@SL problematic for the 109? And how does 440 at whatever altitude that was achieved at compare in terms of mach (i.e. is 440 at altitude more of an aerodynamic issue than 370@SL?) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The K-4`s critical altitude was between 6000 and 7500m, at which range it developed 715 kph speed (TAS, 444mph).

Using the rule of thumb, ie. 10% decrease for IAS at every 1500m, that would mean ca 222-266mph IAS at Vmax at critical altitude of 20-24.6k feet for the K-4 - quite the optimum speed range for the 109`s controls.


But now, as Blutarski keeps doing the same foul thing he usually does, I have to respond. Every one of us has seen Blutarski`s record. For every week he has a thread opened with something bad about the 109. Of course it was a complete ****. Now this thread... the claim about the ballooning was fluffed up, and soon discredited. Practially NOTHING Blutarski claimed from Steinhoff matched what Steinhoff really said...

This is what Blutarski claimed, HIS words :

"Steinhoff mentioned that he was still flying a 109F4 during this period.
This was a year after the official introduction of the G variant.
He also mentioned that his 109F4 had fabric covered ailerons and described how they would "balloon" out at higher speeds and badly affect aileron efficiency."

STEINHOFF said :

"...I broke out of the circle, half-rolled and went into a vertical dive. <snip> It spiralled steeply earthwards as though into a vortex. With almost complete detachment my eyes took note of the wildly oscillating instruments, of the failing engine which these gyrations conveyed. The controls were ominously heavy while the fabric-covered ailerons began to balloon, inducing a virtually uncontrollable spin."

Steinhoff said the ailerons ballooned during the dive - nothing more, nothing less, period. Look what Blutarski made out of it.



And he was even worked up himself when I slapped the truth in his face, saying : "Mr. Blutarski has a reputation about qouting people in a special manner..." Does he not?
Yet he is proud about it : "I do in fact take great pride in the "special manner" in which I quote sources. I take pains to do so as accurately, fairly, and completely as possible."

See for yourself. I was very mild about it. Truth is, I have never met any people who would take pride in being fabricators until I met Blutarski.

'Mistake', oh yes. Blutarski is full of such mistakes, he has a repeated record of it. Mistakes always in the same direction, the 109 was bad... threads ALWAYS in the same direction, the 109 was bad. Qoutes searched, selected out of many, and if needed, falsified, ALWAYS in the same direction, but posted ONLY if they say the 109 was bad. No agenda in it, 'riiiiiiight'.

Just name me one thread Blutarski opened or posted, where he says the 109 was good at ANYTHING. You can`t. The agenda is obvious, and it`s tipped with a showface behaviour from Blutarski, who drops crocodile tears for intelligent discussion.. the same Blutarski who calls any other opinion 'partisan', who tells his discussion partners 'You sound like a fourteen year old.' instead of discussion he misses so much... the same Blutarski who, as I found out is so much obsessed with his inferiority complex towards me that he mentions my name in even remote threads which I don`t even participate in, and spreads lies about me, he keeps connecting to sites I have already cleared up MANY I have no relation to.. the guy that can do no other than post BS information, and when corrected he starts to point fingers about 'ruiners of his informative well-intended' thread; which happen to be his minions btw.

So this fu*king guy wants to tell me about honesty, intelligent disussion, and how to present information 'accurately, fairly, and completely'? THIS guy? I laugh myself to death.

Oh, and let`s just wait until next week`s 'why the 109 sucked so badly' thread from Blutarski. Guaranteedly 'accurate, fair, and complete' representation, from the guy who has a record which speaks for itself. Riiiiiiiight.

I am saddened that we have to go around and around of this, but Blutarski`s behaviour simply don`t change over the time, he repeats the same false and foul accusations again and again, hoping the repeating them has some convincing power. I will not let his personal attacks on me get away uncorrected. It remains so until Blutarski discovers that this foul behaviour of his is contra-productive, and tries what he has not tried until now : respect his opponents, STOP lying about them and instead attacking their person attacking their position... but looking at this thread, looking at how he parrots to same accusations.. I don`t he will ever change. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

To hear more of the same style of ranting "unfairly persecuted but pure and correct nonetheless" type of post/speech, try

http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/goebmain.htm

Another classic, Isegrim.

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