restored Messerschmitt Bf 109 E4 WN 3579

[GScholz]

The 109 caught fire as Hanna was landing. Hanna didn't die in the landing/crash, but rather died from the burns later in hospital. I can't imagine they let the 109 just burn.

[gripen]

Isegrim,
Niklas is most welcomed to join discussion any time to clear this issue to you, I have gave him couple documents including this DVL report and NACA report on P-36, P-40, Hurricane and Spitfire.

I have not tried to ignore or modify any data you have bring in discussion, all I have done is some quick conversions to keep data sets roughly comparable. You argued that values on this DVL report are way off and presented various anecdotal comments without defining conditions or form of values behind them (IAS/TAS, altitude) and I have merely pointed out that at certain conditions they seem to agree pretty well with DVL data. Your data actually makes this possible because you don't seem to know form of values, that mach 0,75 claim is a good example. For meaningfull discussion you should define your data better; IAS/TAS, altitude, peak roll rate or time for given bank etc. these are all clearly defined on DVL report.

Mentioned clear error in the Messerschmitt AG calculations is that they use max roll rate value for to calculate 360deg roll time. This ignores acceleration and deacceleration of the roll.

DVL report will be probably available to all from Niklas's site (after something else comes out first (possibly before end of the year, I don't know I'm not the writer).

gripen

[F4UDOA]

Quote from Mark Hanna's evaluation of the BF109J.

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

Isigrem,

Where does it say the 109 rolls even reasonably well at 400MPH? In fact it says it is solid after 300MPH. You either can read or you are the dumbest person I have ever spoken too. Oh yeah, you are.

Go away tourist, the little bus is leaving town. Buh, Bye!!

[GScholz]

"After that it's all getting pretty solid and you need two hands on the stick for any meaningfull roll rates"

Is there something wrong with your reading comprehension?

[Angus]

Jeffrey Quill, Supermarine's test pilot took a ride in a 109E. He said the rollrate was every bit as bad, if not worse than the fabric-aileron Spit I's roll rate. At 400 mph the 109 did not roll at all any more.
The confined space in the 109's cockpit also did not allow much both hand leverage on the stick, and also remember that the sideways stick travel was extremely little.
Spit pilots however were blessed with a lucky co-incidense, - being able to jab one elbow to the cockpit side for better one-hand leverage, and also being able to use both hands more effectively.
The amazing roll rate of the P-36 was for instance mostly a clever combination of stick travel and gearing.
Now from 109F onwards, the 109's roll rate got improved by new ailerons, and stayed decent untill rather high speeds.
The Spit also fixed their problem with the metal ailerons from Spit V onwards (some spit V's still had fabric ailerons, which got swapped out later). However, the Spit always had to be tuned and tested with each set of ailerons (a lot of factory/test pilot work). Some Spits were reported to be "rogue" aircraft with bad behavior,and I guess that most manufacturers in WW2 had some of that as well.
Charlie Brown is I belive a seasoned Spit V pilot. If he is who I think, I have seen him at Duxford, - very British guy and even mounting a big mustache!
I do not know much about his Spit V, but it would not surprize me if many of today's Spits were a bit out of trim compared to what the test pilots of old concidered good. Many of them of course are combined with parts and spares from several planes, and so are doubtlessly many other old warbirds.
Charlie's comment on the 109's performance rather surprized me at first, but looking deeper into it, it all seems quite normal.
Firstly, he did not try out the 109 at extreme speeds, save one shallow dive. And at that speed the 109 would easily pull out.
Secondly, his delight with the 109's roll rate goes about medium speed, where indeed most would agree that the 109 was all over a delightful plane. He seems to have been pleasantly surprized with the aircraft, which indicates that he did not have too high hopes for it.
By the way, did you see that part about looping not being too easy? That surprized me quite a bit, looks like one easy way for a Spit to shake a 109 off then, - I've seen a Spit IX go directly into a loop from takeoff!
Anyway, another semi biased 109 thread...yawwwnnn

[F4UDOA]

Gsholz,

What does solid mean to you?? Could you please draw a curve of meaningful or explain how that statement proves that the 109 had any quality of rollrate at 400MPH?

Because there is absolutely nothing there that says that. It is not even a statement that comes close to trying to make your point.

What is your point again??

[GScholz]

Meaningful (i.e. useful) role rates were achievable above 300 mph with the use of both hands. That's what that means.

[Grendel]

Where does it say the 109 rolls even reasonably well at 400MPH? In fact it says it is solid after 300MPH. You either can read or you are the dumbest person I have ever spoken too. Oh yeah, you are.
[/B]

Just yesterday asked this question from mr. Erkki Pakarinen, Me 109 G combat pilot from HLeLv 24.

He commented, just like last week mr. Torsti Tallgren, 109 G-6 pilot, that the roll rate was still good in high speeds of 600 km and over. Both spesififed that roll rate did not get remarkably worse as speed increased. The stick forces did increase very much with horizontal stabilizers though.

There was large differences between 109 models between D-E-F-G-K. Each new version was better with high speed conrols than the previous ones and at least by G-6 models high speed roll rate was rated "good".

[Angus]

Each version also had a more powerful engine, weighted more, thus had a higher wing loading, and while high speed handling was gradually improving, low speed handling was getting worse.
Pretty much the same with other aircraft at the same time going through the same phase of development

[F4UDOA]

Gsholz,

Could you please draw a meaningful curve for roll rates. I would luv to see what that means or how meaningful is proof of anything that could be considered valid test data.

[GScholz]

Why don't you draw a cruve for "pretty solid"? LOL you're amazing, you use this anectodal evidence in one post and dismiss it in the next. I have yet to see a roll curve for the 109G, do you have one? If not then I suggest you just STFU.

[F4UDOA]

Gsholz,

Yes I can draw curve for pretty solid. It looks allot like a straight line. It is also defined in multiple locations by various pilots Kit Carson, RAE testing and Mark Hanna.

As defined by Kit Carson

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

That is pretty solid. Of course it is no where solid as the substance that fills your head. That is solid rock.

[gripen]

DVL report gives following stick force values for Bf 109F-2 at 750km/h TAS (about 400mph IAS depending on conditions) at 3000m. 20kg to move stick 3deg (full movement 15deg) and 30kg to move stick 5deg, graph does not give directly initial stick force but it seems to be around 10kg.

At least Messerschmitt AG uses values of the F model for calculations of the G model and physically ailerons (without flettners) appear to be very similar on both models. I have not seen evidence if ailerons were modified for G model.

gripen

[GODO]

Is that all about ailerons? How about rudder and elevator response above 300 mph?

[GScholz]

From here.

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

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

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

Well, "unmaneuverable" is tough eh? What Carson doesn´t say is that the same report mentions equal roll rate of a Spitfire and a 109 up to 400mph... so the Spit was an unmanoeverable aircraft too?? I already said that Carson is often quoting the RAE test report of the 109-E. In the very same document, the following chart is included, comparing the aileron force of a 109-E to the Spit-1:



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

It also should be noted that in technical language you distinguish between an observation, a judgement based on given requirements, and a conclusion. Of course the ailerons of the 109 were never as light and as effective like the FW190 one´s, BUT the german chief test pilot Heinrich Beauvais did very early disagree with the negative judgement and tactical conclusion of the RAF. It should be noted again that the english test is based on a SINGLE aircraft that saw plenty of service already. Beauvais tried to get into contact after the war with Eric Brown who also critized the 109. His major critic points were:
- Bad control harmony characteristics
- Bad wheel brakes
- Aileron impuls during opening of the slats
Guess what, strangley Eric Brown REFUSED to get into a discussion about such questions. Did the 109 has to be bad for the english? Handley Page would have known how to solve the unsymmetric opening, why did noone from the RAF ask them?
There exist german test report where aileron forces of over 45lbs are mentioned. So high stick forces WERE possible also in the 109!

Let´s go on:

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

100lb, 45kg, so what? This is no extraordinary high force for pulling. Did english test pilots lack muscles?
The following document shows that the 109G was designed for elevator stick forces of even 85kg!! And this was a realistic assumption!



[GScholz]
So you can see that the 109 was designed for 85 kg max pull, 70 kg max push on the stick and 150 kg foot pressure. If you can't pull 85 kg with both hands you're a wuss and wouldn't have been accepted in the LW in the first place. [/GScholz]