restored Messerschmitt Bf 109 E4 WN 3579

[GScholz]

Originally posted by MiloMorai
Gee Scholtzy, I see lots of mention of late model 109s in this thread. Photos as well, even posted by you. Are those posts off-topic?


The 109D was 450kg(990lb) lighter than a 109E(max TO) so it would be a 'nicer flier'.

Tell me, did the 109D have engine cutout during the aerobatics, since it was fitted with a carburated Jumo210D. The 109D could not even reach the much stated 450kph, @SL, and only reached 470kph(292mph) at rated altitude.

He DIVED it to 400+ mph.

EDIT: No the engine did not cut out as you would have known had you actually bothered to read what he said.

"I touched the right rudder, pressed forward on it slowly but steadily, moving the control stick to the right, and that Messerschmitt actually snapped out of the left-hand climbing turn into a righthanded climbing turn. That satisfied me. From there on, I tried every acrobatic maneuver I had ever executed in any other single-seater fighter with the exception of the outside loop and the inverted loop."

[GScholz]

Originally posted by Angus
GScholz: The Spit I had less Power than the 109E, and slightly more weight.  Engine performance at high alt was also a tad inferior.
However, once the Brits had a proper rotol airscrew on it, it would climb to altitude in the same time or quicker as the 109E. At say 15K that makes more newtons, the difference increasing when looking at Newtons pr hp.
Now, the calculated total lift of the wing is lower according to many sources, i.e. in this thread, so there must be an error somewhere. I tend to belive absolute numbers better than calculated ones at least.

Oh? I always thought the Spit Ia had a bit more power.

What I can find on the Spit Ia with Merlin III is:

Max power: 1,175 hp (max continuous unknown)
Initial climb rate: 2,820 fpm (with Rotol C/S propeller)
Ceiling: 34k
Max speed: 355 mph
Empty weight: 5,067 lbs
Loaded weight: 6,409 lbs

And on the 109-E4 with DB601A

Max power: 1,050 hp, 1,100 hp or 1,175 hp (max continuous 800 hp or 1,000 hp) sources vary.
Initial climb rate: 3,280 fpm
Ceiling: 36k
Max speed: 356 mph
Empty weight: 4,856 lbs
Loaded weight: 5,532 lbs

One can clearly see that the Spit Ia is much cleaner aerodynamically than the 109-E4, the Spit with more weight achieving similar top speed. However the 109 is the better climber with its lower weight.

[VO101_Isegrim]

Originally posted by gripen
Dear Isegrim,
I have been so worried about you, where have you been?


Away.  If you are very interested in the details, fetch a mail. Next question.

So lets look converted DVL Bf 109F-2 data again:

Oh indeed dear gripen, let`s look at YOUR data instead the real data...

I just keep wondering, why you only give your own "adjusted" dataset, instead of the original one recorded by DVL, and why do you keep ignoring half a dozen sources that say your way is the wrong way ? These are questions worth to think of.


At 30lbs stick force Spitfire V has better rate of roll above about 240mph IAS.

Certainly, but then your maths must be a whole different than my one.

Let`s see. The NACA roll chart, which shows an actual test with Spit MkV. It shows 55 deg/sec at 280 mph w. 30 lbs stickforce

You claim your converted 109F-2`s roll rate is 50 deg/sec at 30 lbs, which would be just the same, even if we would ignore that your numbers are quite dubious and underrate it`s performance by a factor of 2.5, and conflict all the independent sources already mentioned.

Well let`s see how a G-2/trop behaved according to those who flew it :

A full stick roll through 360 degrees at 460kph takes 4 to 4.5 seconds without using rudder, and needs a force of around 20 lbf.

That is 80-90 deg/sec at 285 mph w. 20 lbs stick force for the G-2.

According to my, admittedly basic mathematical background, ~85 deg/sec is a higher roll rate than 55 deg/sec, and 20 lbs is less than 30 lbs.


At 50lbs stick force Spitfire V has better rate of roll below 260mph IAS and above 350mph IAS.
Clipped wing Spitfire does far better at all speeds.

At least according to you, dear Gripen. I`d like you to prove that one too.. until then, it remains a claim.


One thing makes me wonder if DVL had some super human test pilots. Data sets contains points where stick force is more than 25kg (about 55lbs), that's quite alot above max force you mentioned?

I mentioned (actually qouted) 40 lbs stick force maximum achievable on Spit VA, at least according to the NACA. I don`t see how the DVL comes into light, dear Gripen, after all, these are the maximum available sideway stick forces for the Spit VA, not any other plane.



I also wonder why RAE and NACA did tests on 50lbs if such force was impossible? Why RAE rated 60lbs as practical maximum? And the report on Joint Fighter Conference contains several pilots claims about higher than 50lbs stick forces?

I also wonder why it is so hard for you to get over the following sentence by NACA on Spit MkV:

The pilot was able to exert a maximum of about 40 lbs on the stick. With this force, full deflection could be attained only up to about 130 miles per hour. Beyond this speed, the rapid increase in stick force near maximum deflection prevented full motion of the control stick. Only one-half of the available deflection was reached with a 40 lbs stick force at 300 miles per hour, with the result that the pb/2V obtainable at this speed was reduced to 0.04 radian, or one-half that reached at low speeds.

BTW you might like to know that the NACA chart you posted is from one of those reports I gave to Niklas.

That was hardly a surprise given your previous statements, but I hardly see what that makes any different.

Oh, and I still wonder why don`t you post the original figures of DVL, or the relavant parts (stick force, aileron deflection, aileron effectiveness and the original roll rate) at 400 mph or around... I bet others wonder about this, too.

[VO101_Isegrim]

Originally posted by tagert
Emmmm sorry Isegrim.. but you are either very forgetful.. Or just trying to hide the fact that you did call someone a pedophile!

I saw that very post milo is talking about over in the IL2 forum.. It was in a thread where many of your posts were so inflammatory that the MOD's had to delete them.. One being the one that contained the pedophile statement!!

Aha! So tagert (who, just for the record, spent hundreds of posts on kicking the 109), you also saw such "pedophile" posts from me. That`s great, then you can also show a link to it !

Oh wait, you just suddenly can`t, because it was *deleted*. But that`s not a problems, since Mods at Ubi.com never delete posts completely, just edit it, and that`s is visible by a text like "This post was edited by Vengenze at... " or some text like that. So I guess it would be VERY easy for you to just post the URL to such a thread where I must definitely must have (according to you) one of such edited posts...

OH silly of me, I forgot, you can`t, because this one was one VERY special one, and just completely disappeared without a trace. Like as, say, "Chuchain Uishna", Milo Morai`s alternate nickname which he used at ubi.com to reply to his own post, supporting his own POV, or just kissing his own butt ...  

Did you just say "inflammatory"? Strange, that`s one of Milo`s favourite expressions...  And you`re from Canada, too. What a coincidence. I wonder if one would do an IP check, it would turn out you two live in the same household..

I wonder how many newly registered nicks will appear on this thread  to support somebody`s statements who does nothing else on every BB than flaming, and as a result, is soon ignored as a clown.

[MiloMorai]

Squirm Barbi, squirm.:D

You have been told Cuchulain (note the spelling)  is my brother who has no use for such a mentally and emotionally disturbed ultra melon as you.

As to the thread tagert referred to, it was cut down from 17 pages to 10 pages by the Moderators by deleting your obnoxious posts and the replies to them. When is the last time you told someone to lick a 'bunghole' Barbi? People can look on page 50 or 51 of the General Discussion forum for a 10 pg thread. They will find 'bunghole' references. Does SkyChimp, Bearcat, Bluttorski, Cajun and several others have to post confirming you called someone a pedophile?

Ignored as a clown Barbi? Is that why you don't post at Ubi any more? A laughing stock you are there, just like on the old OnWar forums. Even your bud Huckie is given more respect than you. When you show up in a thread, it is like flies to the manure.

LOL, you don't even fly online because you find it too emotionally stressful.

[Urchin]

I can't believe there is this much debate over the 109E.  You guys must be completely stupid.  The 109E sucked.  All the 109s sucked.  Ahnold the Governator himself couldn't have gotten more than about 1 degree a second out of that poorly designed Nazi slave labour built airplane.  

You know why I know all this stuff?  Because GERMANY LOST THE WAR!  That means all of the stuff they were using sucked.  You guys need to play more video games and read less revisionist propoganda.

[lord dolf vader]

anyone have any luftwaff flight tests on the spit?

since they were done in comparison to the 109
it seems like they would be very enlightening to the
whole debate.


germans? got any books on spit evaluations by lw.

[Fishu]

Funny how people, whos not flown any kind of a fighter, argues against the words of real life 109 pilots.
Always amazes me why they insist to do it so stubbornly and solidly as if they'd flown one....

[Urchin]

That is because the German fighter pilots are LIARS!  Don't forget, they are all slave owning nazi criminals who want THEIR video game planes to be TEH BEST EVAR!1!!11!!1one

[gripen]

Dear Isegrim,
Again, Southwood's does not claim if the speed is IAS or TAS nor altitude. At certain altitude DVL results match well with Southwoods numbers, generally if not otherwise stated then speed is TAS. And I don't know how did he test stick forces. In the case of the DVL report everything is documented well. You have just picked up one not so well defined anecdotal claim because it just happens to support your agenda.

My best quess for the low stick force in the NACA Spitfire test is a weak pilot. RAE 2361 states clearly 60lbs as practical limit for Spitfire. RAE  2507 gives measured dataset up to 67lbs on tests of Spitfire. RAE 1231 mentions no problems to reach 50lbs.  NACA 868 gives numbers on 50lbs. It should be also noted that even at 30lbs Spitfire V rolls about as well as Bf 109F-2 with 50lbs at 400mph IAS. Again you have just picked up one statement among many  because it just happens to support your agenda best.

As noted several times before DVL report will be released after something else comes out first. Or you can find it yourself, as most of good stuff it's available from a well known public archive. Alternatively you can ask Niklas...

BTW about your  quoting it should be noted that "Lentäjän näkökulma II" actually says: "Sauvan vieminen laitaan 450 km/h nopeudelta vaati yli kymmenen kilon voiman". And Kokko's report does not claim stick forces at all.

gripen

[niklas]

gripen send me a e-mail please i can´t contact you over the board

Stefan_L_01@yahoo.de

thx
niklas

[tagert]

Originally posted by VO101_Isegrim
Aha! So tagert (who, just for the record, spent hundreds of posts on kicking the 109), you also saw such "pedophile" posts from me. That`s great, then you can also show a link to it !

Oh wait, you just suddenly can`t, because it was *deleted*. But that`s not a problems, since Mods at Ubi.com never delete posts completely, just edit it, and that`s is visible by a text like "This post was edited by Vengenze at... " or some text like that. So I guess it would be VERY easy for you to just post the URL to such a thread where I must definitely must have (according to you) one of such edited posts...

Actully you are incorrect with regards to MOD's at ubi.com never deleting and just editing... They typically just edit, but do have the power to delet.

Originally posted by VO101_Isegrim
OH silly of me,

Agreed 100%

Originally posted by VO101_Isegrim
I forgot,

Im use to that from you.

Originally posted by VO101_Isegrim
you can`t, because this one was one VERY special one, and just completely disappeared without a trace. Like as, say, "Chuchain Uishna", Milo Morai`s alternate nickname which he used at ubi.com to reply to his own post, supporting his own POV, or just kissing his own butt ...  

See above, as with 109 data, flettner tabs being standard production on 109K alerions, 109's having a beter rear view then a bubble top P51, etc you are wrong once again!

Originally posted by VO101_Isegrim
Did you just say "inflammatory"? Strange, that`s one of Milo`s favourite expressions...  And you`re from Canada, too. What a coincidence. I wonder if one would do an IP check, it would turn out you two live in the same household..

Well alot of people say that word here, and alot of people here take a bath once a day.. Is that all it takes to set off the conspericy police in your neck of the woods.. Or does it just set off those voices in your head? PS sunny Sothern CA here, not canookland!

Originally posted by VO101_Isegrim
I wonder how many newly registered nicks will appear on this thread  to support somebody`s statements who does nothing else on every BB than flaming, and as a result, is soon ignored as a clown.

Im sure you wonder about alot of things... But the FACT remains that the ubi.com mods have the power to delete if deemed necssary.. They only use it when dealing with a real nasty thread that has nothing of value in it... otherwise they would have took the time to edit out the bad and leave the good parts... Sense your posts had nothing good in them, it was just ezer to delete the whole thing. Does that help you out? Or are you still wondering about why they were deleted?

[Angus]

Hi again GScholz.
Nice having those figures on the Spit II
I have some data on  a Spit I climbing to 20K in comparison with 109 Data. The Spitfire has a Rotol CS airscrew, and is rated at 1030 hp, - fuel is 87 octane, the test is done in 1939 I think.
109 is rated at 1075 hp, - not a lot of difference. I presume that the Spitty is delivering 1030 hp on 87 octanes.
Anyway, the Spitty is some 20 seconds faster to 20K, and while being heavier also that makes 16607250000 NM or a torque of 2156785714 NM/time while the 109 prompts 16126875000 NM or 2015859375 NM/time.
That gives the 109 a mere 93% effectiveness compared to the Spit on the category of turning weight into altitude at time, and pr hp the 109 is down to 90%.
Dang, gotta fix that decimal error on the NM, but the proportions are right
Anyway, it seems like the Spitty started to outperform the Emil in the Climbing sector as soon as it had a decent airscrew.
For the other end of the line, 109K vs the Spit XIV I would need the weight and climbing time of the 109K to run the same kind of test, - but if memory serves me the 109K only took about 4,5 minutes.
Now, calculating Newtons does not give one the platform to get into "what if's" about reduced weight influenting climb, - but none the less a rough idea. I'll look into it later.
Well, looking forward for more data.

[GScholz]

Which Spit and 109E were you testing, and what was the time to 20k for the Spit?

[Angus]

109E-3 and Spit I
Time to 20K for the Spit is 7 minutes and 40 seconds.
I really do need more 109 data though. Have any?