Author Topic: 109's kill ratio (all variants from B to K)  (Read 28151 times)

Offline Charon

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3705
109's kill ratio (all variants from B to K)
« Reply #315 on: November 15, 2003, 12:17:05 AM »
Quote
Why bother even entering this thread if you are just going to be an arse?

It's f4udoa with noodle envy, just read his replies. It's folks like him and yourself that post inaccurate info and when corrected you decide to insult.

Niklas posted facts. They have nothing to do how you "feel".

The real question is why do you think it is necessary to throw insults when wrong? Trying to portray the p51 as some miracle plane is wrong.
Batz


LOL, something in my post must have hit a bit too close to home. I don’t really recall providing inaccurate information in this thread (or being corrected for it). If I have, open season on me, please post it for my embarrassment instead of yours.

As for insulting someone in a post, we all can’t be as evenhanded and impersonal as Wotan is in contentious threads, now can we.  I sincerely apologize to any Germanic person who was actually offended by my post. If anybody took it seriously, and not as the obvious jest it was, well, I’m truly sorry.  I don’t think Germanic people actually have smaller (or larger) noodlees than the rest of Europe, red-blooded apple pie fed Americans or even Corsair aficionados. And as we all know, size really doesn't matter anyway.

As far as the general quantity and quality of the "information" offered throughout this post, with all the meandering points (from formulas for winning the war for the Luftwaffe, to murmansk convoys to drag coefficient and Meridith effect debates) being raised, just what was the question again? The NIKI thread has more focus and continuity, and that says a lot :) I just see the same conjecture and scattered, disconnected factoids from the last four or five times this type of thread has run. I personally have less emotional attachment to the P-51 than I do the Bf-109 series or the P-47, P-38, F4U… a pretty long list. If it came down to it, CO-E I would probably choose the 109K-4 in a “dogfight to the death.” Just as long as I didn’t have to win a war with the airplane. I generally agree with Gscholz’s assessment:

Quote
Ah yes the 109G6 is definitively more maneuverable than the P51, except at very high speed, however the G10 and K4 are heavier than the G6. I feel (from what I've read and AH) that the P-51 would have the edge in high speed maneuvering, the 109 would be better in a medium speed fight, and in a slow turn fight the 109 would have superior maneuverability unless the P-51 uses its flaps which would give it an edge. In every speed range the 109 hold the edge in vertical fighting though, especially in a slow fight, due to its superior power.


What touched off my toung-in-cheek response was the religious belief by a few that if the P-51 had something like the Meredith effect, then the 109 must have it in spades (just prove it didn’t!) and that commonly stated flight characteristic deficiencies noted by allied, German and modern day pilots are overstated or non existent. I mean, really, did the 109 have any faults at all from a flight characteristics standpoint? Was it light on the control at all speeds, tighter turning better in a dive in addition to the clear advantages in acceleration, climb and speed in various configurations at various altitudes. Why did they bother with the 190 at all?

German engineering was/is great. But the US and UK had some quality engineering as well, which seems to be hard for some to reconcile with the mythology of the grand Nazi war machine. Forget about the extensive prewar work conducted by NACA, or the engineering genius of a Mitchell or an Edgar Schmued -- if Willie or Kurt or Ernst didn’t have a hand in it, it just can’t be first rate. With greater weight and less power, the multi-role long range P-51 performs comparably to the 109K-4 tactical battlefield fighter/ interceptor. Could that possibly be due to superior aerodynamics in an airframe developed 6 years after the Me-109. Six years that saw rapid increases in aerodynamic knowledge and fighter development throughout the world? Isn’t it enough that the 109 was ahead of its time technologically compared to contemporaries like the P-35/36/40 or the Hurricane? Does it have to still be ahead of its time 10 years and two generations of fighter aircraft later to be a great airplane?

The G6 I observed at the NASM was noticeably more bumpy than the 51 or Spit or 205 in the same room.
For a long time I had as a screen saver a close up shot of the nose section of that Duxford G-2 that crashed a few years back (Black 6?, the N. Africa machine). The bumps, exposed cowling latches, antenna, balky cockpit framing and generally loose fit of panels and cowling even in the “clean” G-2 series suggest that the Bf-109 was a plane that carried on past its prime by stuffing progressively bigger engines into a small airframe until aerodynamics finally became too important to ignore any longer. The K-4 obviously was much improved, but it would have to come a long way to match the smooth package presented by a P-51.

Charon
« Last Edit: November 15, 2003, 01:03:12 AM by Charon »

Offline niklas

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 418
109's kill ratio (all variants from B to K)
« Reply #316 on: November 15, 2003, 04:27:19 AM »
How much wingarea equals slim formed antennas and bumbs in a region where the airflow is turbulent by the propeller anyway?

A wing or wingarea is also a kind of "bumb"

You can´t compare the shape of  109A-E to the F-K.

P-51 lovers make it too easy, they just read numbers in books and believe it. I still want to see a full test report including temperature, mach and static position error, or a multi aircraft test of the P-51. I already said that official performance claim was just 425mph for the B for example. The british test gives 355mph at sealevel with +18lb which is fast but not extraordinary fast for 1600. Actually this speed can be explained by the smoother surface of the P-51 alone imo, which is mentioned in the german report. The surface cover sheet was thicker, this way it didn´t had so many micro-bumps where the bolts were placed, for example. The P-51 was a bit heavy on the other side...

niklas

Offline HoHun

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2182
Re: Re: Re: Re: Bf 109 radiator
« Reply #317 on: November 15, 2003, 05:14:05 AM »
Hi Widewing,

>In March of 1976 Lee Attwood spoke at a symposium where he produced data accumulated from both Britain and Langley comparing the total thrust loss to cooling drag after pressure recovery. The aircraft referred to were the Spitfire Mk.VIII, Bf 109G-6/R2 and a P-51D-10-NA. Losses were defined as a percentage of available thrust.

The British figures for the Bf 109G-6/R2 they captured were far below par, so if these were used as a basis, I'm not surprised reverse-engineering the aircraft gave poor drag figures.

Probably based on these test, a post-war aerodynamics text book published a detailed drag break down of the Me 109 which is pretty far off the mark, too. If this kind of data was used to calculate the Me 109's cooling losses, they'd of course appear exaggerated.

These are just my spontaneous doubts about the accuracy of the figures you quoted, I could probably comment more reliably if I'd know that article :-)

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

Offline gripen

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1914
109's kill ratio (all variants from B to K)
« Reply #318 on: November 15, 2003, 05:42:34 AM »
The early Allison Mustang had adjustable inlet and outlet in the radiator but I have not seen if there was some kind of boundary layer separator. The chamber behind radiator cell and before outlet was quite small. Later Allison mustangs had somewhat different shaped inlet and outlet and there appear to be a small boundary layer separator visible. The P-51B and later Mustangs had all fixed inlet (boundary layer scoop) and overall radiator was longer and chamber behind radiator was bigger than in earlier model, intercooler was also located inside (edited: not intercooler but the radiator of the intercooler). The radiator of the Mustang still evolved after P-51B; the P-51H had all new design (appear to be smaller) and developement still continued in the F-82.

If compared to the Bf 109, the early Allison Mustang had functionally quite similar radiator as Bf 109G/K ie adjustable inlet and outlet, no boundary layer separator (it should be noted that the radiator flap was a part of flap in the Bf 109F/G/K). Late Allison Mustang had functionally similar radiator as early Bf 109F ie boundary layer separator was added. The Merlin Mustang radiator has no equivalent in the Bf 109 series but the Do 335 appear to had quite similar design for the rear engine (I don't know details of this system). From the functional viewpoint it seems that utilization of the backpressure was better in the Merlin Mustang because volume of the chamber appears to be bigger and size of the inlet was constant, in the Bf 109 radiator I don't see any structural attempt to utilize backpressure. But this is all pure speculation, anyway, I'm pretty sure that Attwood knew these things much better than us.

gripen
« Last Edit: November 15, 2003, 01:40:18 PM by gripen »

Offline gripen

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1914
109's kill ratio (all variants from B to K)
« Reply #319 on: November 15, 2003, 06:09:42 AM »
niklas,
You can easily get very detailed test data (real stuff including temp or what so ever...) of the P-51B and D from the PRO. But the Bf 109K is a very different story, so far I have not seen data which can be certainly rated as real test flight data. I have gone through quite many NASM microfilms and I have seen all graphs claimed here as real test flight data (which I highly doubt).

gripen

Offline Neil Stirling1

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 105
109's kill ratio (all variants from B to K)
« Reply #320 on: November 15, 2003, 07:10:54 AM »
Mustang tests contained within AVIA 18/732, order 10th part of report No. A.&A.E.E./781,c  for Mustang III FX.953 and 3rd part of report No. AAEE/781,d for Mustang IV at +18lbs and +25lbs boost.

Neil.

Offline Batz

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3470
      • http://bellsouthpwp.net/w/o/wotans/4JG53/
109's kill ratio (all variants from B to K)
« Reply #321 on: November 15, 2003, 08:01:36 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Charon
LOL, something in my post must have hit a bit too close to home. I don’t really recall providing inaccurate information in this thread (or being corrected for it). If I have, open season on me, please post it for my embarrassment instead of yours.

As for insulting someone in a post, we all can’t be as evenhanded and impersonal as Wotan is in contentious threads, now can we.  I sincerely apologize to any Germanic person who was actually offended by my post. If anybody took it seriously, and not as the obvious jest it was, well, I’m truly sorry.  I don’t think Germanic people actually have smaller (or larger) noodlees than the rest of Europe, red-blooded apple pie fed Americans or even Corsair aficionados. And as we all know, size really doesn't matter anyway.

As far as the general quantity and quality of the "information" offered throughout this post, with all the meandering points (from formulas for winning the war for the Luftwaffe, to murmansk convoys to drag coefficient and Meridith effect debates) being raised, just what was the question again? The NIKI thread has more focus and continuity, and that says a lot :) I just see the same conjecture and scattered, disconnected factoids from the last four or five times this type of thread has run. I personally have less emotional attachment to the P-51 than I do the Bf-109 series or the P-47, P-38, F4U… a pretty long list. If it came down to it, CO-E I would probably choose the 109K-4 in a “dogfight to the death.” Just as long as I didn’t have to win a war with the airplane. I generally agree with Gscholz’s assessment:



What touched off my toung-in-cheek response was the religious belief by a few that if the P-51 had something like the Meredith effect, then the 109 must have it in spades (just prove it didn’t!) and that commonly stated flight characteristic deficiencies noted by allied, German and modern day pilots are overstated or non existent. I mean, really, did the 109 have any faults at all from a flight characteristics standpoint? Was it light on the control at all speeds, tighter turning better in a dive in addition to the clear advantages in acceleration, climb and speed in various configurations at various altitudes. Why did they bother with the 190 at all?

German engineering was/is great. But the US and UK had some quality engineering as well, which seems to be hard for some to reconcile with the mythology of the grand Nazi war machine. Forget about the extensive prewar work conducted by NACA, or the engineering genius of a Mitchell or an Edgar Schmued -- if Willie or Kurt or Ernst didn’t have a hand in it, it just can’t be first rate. With greater weight and less power, the multi-role long range P-51 performs comparably to the 109K-4 tactical battlefield fighter/ interceptor. Could that possibly be due to superior aerodynamics in an airframe developed 6 years after the Me-109. Six years that saw rapid increases in aerodynamic knowledge and fighter development throughout the world? Isn’t it enough that the 109 was ahead of its time technologically compared to contemporaries like the P-35/36/40 or the Hurricane? Does it have to still be ahead of its time 10 years and two generations of fighter aircraft later to be a great airplane?

The G6 I observed at the NASM was noticeably more bumpy than the 51 or Spit or 205 in the same room.
For a long time I had as a screen saver a close up shot of the nose section of that Duxford G-2 that crashed a few years back (Black 6?, the N. Africa machine). The bumps, exposed cowling latches, antenna, balky cockpit framing and generally loose fit of panels and cowling even in the “clean” G-2 series suggest that the Bf-109 was a plane that carried on past its prime by stuffing progressively bigger engines into a small airframe until aerodynamics finally became too important to ignore any longer. The K-4 obviously was much improved, but it would have to come a long way to match the smooth package presented by a P-51.

Charon


You give me a wall of text saying nothing. Despite "what a smooth package" the p51 was it was still out climbed and depending on alt slower then the k4. So if you are saying the k4 would have been even faster, climbed even better if it was "more smooth" then well ok.

But you made a post on the "Meredith Effect" (or medideth as you called it) and Niklas corrected an error in the article and you come back with "noodle size" and assumptions over motivation.

Offline GRUNHERZ

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 13413
109's kill ratio (all variants from B to K)
« Reply #322 on: November 15, 2003, 08:18:16 AM »
From what I see both sides, ceratin personalities in particular,  are equally responsible for saying my plane is the bestest of the best and both sides eqally take offence at any data that does not go their way - a hillarious thread.


BTW I still maintain that the Bf109 looks mean as hell and has nice paintjobs. Go to hell any of you who now start a discussion obout which side had higher quality pigments in their paint or emplyed more malevolent designers.  ;)

Offline Hooligan

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 889
109's kill ratio (all variants from B to K)
« Reply #323 on: November 15, 2003, 10:48:32 AM »
Quote

BTW I still maintain that the Bf109 looks mean as hell and has nice paintjobs.


It in fact had a HUGE variety of nice paintjobs.  Excellent point Grun.

Hooligan

Offline dtango

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1702
109's kill ratio (all variants from B to K)
« Reply #324 on: November 15, 2003, 11:42:44 AM »
gripen:  Thanks for the reference to PRO.  I was tinkering with that site.  How do you navigate and search it for the type of data we're interested in?

Tango, XO
412th FS Braunco Mustangs
Tango / Tango412 412th FS Braunco Mustangs
"At times it seems like people think they can chuck bunch of anecdotes into some converter which comes up with the flight model." (Wmaker)

Offline Grendel

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 877
      • http://www.compart.fi/icebreakers
109's kill ratio (all variants from B to K)
« Reply #325 on: November 15, 2003, 11:58:45 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by F4UDOA

I still don't care what's in C-3.


Funny boy. You might not, but since the performance of C-3 fuel was roughly equal of the Allied 100/150 fuel, knowing what it is is rather important if you're talking about fuels. Not knowing what you're talking about doesn't make your arguments believable.

Offline Charon

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3705
109's kill ratio (all variants from B to K)
« Reply #326 on: November 15, 2003, 12:10:32 PM »
Quote
You give me a wall of text saying nothing.

Well, when I don't provide a wall of text opinions get put in my mouth that I don't have and then I get attacked for them. Kind of a lose/lose situation.

Quote
Despite "what a smooth package" the p51 was it was still out climbed and depending on alt slower then the k4. So if you are saying the k4 would have been even faster, climbed even better if it was "more smooth" then well ok.

No argument here, never was.

Quote
But you made a post on the "Meredith Effect" (or medideth as you called it) and Niklas corrected an error in the article and you come back with "noodle size" and assumptions over motivation.

Forgive me for spell checking my work most of the time. Sometimes the wrong corrections are made or overlooked. Next time you make a typo I'll just assume you're entirely ignorant of the subject matter.

Niklas was referencing Reichspatent # 299799 in his "correction" which showed how ducting can reduce drag and increase cooling effectiveness. What Junkers failed to note, as far as I can tell, and what Meredith found: (c) Conclusions -- It is shown that the power expended on cooling does not increase with speed for a properly designed ducted system but that, owing to recovery of waste heat, a thrust may be derived at speeds of the order of 300 m.p.h. Nor did the Junkers patent show the variable exhaust mechanisms that made the process effective.

I haven't seen the whole patent text, but I don't see  Junkers noting in 1915 how to provide thrust at speeds above 300 m.p.h. At the time, drag reduction itself was not even a sufficient benefit to make the patent viable in production aircraft from a cost/benefit standpoint. By 1935 this was no longer the case, and ducted radiators and ducted radial engine cowlings were finally necessary and cost effective given the increase in aircraft performance. (Much of the cowling work was conducted by the British and Vought, with NACA doing a lot of testing, and achieved the same goals -- reduced drag and improved cooling).

FWIW, you could say Hugo Junkers was just doing something Bernoulli developed much earlier (with some debate on that point too, I see) and be just as "accurate" so, yes, I did see it as a mine’s bigger than yours type of post. Comparing an apple to an orange just to prove we made the orange first. Like it or not, when you try to change conventional wisdom or common knowledge, the onus is on the person looking to make the change in perception to provide concrete data supporting those claims. There is already a wealth of primary and secondary sources to establish the “common knowledge" or else it wouldn’t be common knowledge.

http://www.bewersdorff.com/wankel/radiator/CoolingSystems1.html

http://www.bewersdorff.com/wankel/radiator/CoolingSystems2.html

Charon
« Last Edit: November 15, 2003, 12:18:36 PM by Charon »

Offline Charon

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3705
109's kill ratio (all variants from B to K)
« Reply #327 on: November 15, 2003, 12:21:27 PM »
BTW, bring the K-4 to Aces High. I know we already have the G10, but I would like to see how the aileron tabs impact roll rate at various speeds. And exchange the G10 for a G14, as Batz as called for in the past I believe.

Charon

Offline niklas

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 418
109's kill ratio (all variants from B to K)
« Reply #328 on: November 15, 2003, 12:36:56 PM »
@gripen: do you have this data? Can u sent me some?

btw, there´s no official speed claim of a k doing 600km/h with just 1600hp.


@charon: The heat energy IS transferred into the air assuming a steady state (constant cooling temperature). So the air gains energy in 1915 and in 1945 from the very same physical effect, and it produced the very same way in 1915 thrust or internal lift like in 1945.

You can´t close the radiator in every case to very low exit flow areas, somewhere is the limit. At the end what determines the exit flow area is the amount of heat that has to be taken away.

I have detailed drawings here of the Naca showing the evolution process of the cooler duct, after all it´s nothing special. The ratio cooler flow area to inlet area seems to be high, so low drag can be expected, on the other hand the big cooler increased weight.

niklas

Offline gripen

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1914
109's kill ratio (all variants from B to K)
« Reply #329 on: November 15, 2003, 01:32:56 PM »
dtango,
Neil allready claimed reference (AVIA 18/732; a large collection of various performance tests on Mustang). The easiest way to start searching in the PRO is PROCAT. There you can go directly to the reference or choose search. As an example you can search word Mustang and limit results under department code AVIA and voila! you have 59 hits (AVIA 18/732 among them).

niklas,
I have not that data, but I have gone through that map and there is quite many test reports on Mustang, most of them are well detailed and made with standard A&AEE procedures. Basicly most data I have collected is for planes which have served here in Finland all other is just for fun.

GRUNHERZ,
I think the tall tailwheel assembly of the late Bf 109s ruined cool german look of the plane on the ground. Otherwise I have no particular favorite plane, eh... maybe Gloster Gladiator

gripen