restored Messerschmitt Bf 109 E4 WN 3579

[Angus]

Hehe, GScholz,somebody must have touched a nerve, you usually don't do so many spelling mistakes.
Wuss or not, the Spitfire pilot would be able to cope with higher stick forces for the sole reason of being able to use both hands better, and also being able to "lock" the stick by jabbing the elbow to the side.
BTW, I think the Spit stick was very much longer,- 50% definately.
(from memory by looking at them)
Add to that the fact that the 109Ehad no rudder trim, so that the pilot would have to have a heavy boot on one rudder pedal at high speeds. That does touch the so-named control harmony, where the Spitfire on the other hand could be trimmed to fly totally hands off.
(I'd really like to know if this didn'tget fixed in later 109 models just like the aileron problem was. Anybody?)
I am not sure about the 109's throttle controls, but on the Spit those were operated with the left hand,- hence in times of trouble, sometimes only one hand was available for the stick.
BTW, your chart presumably compares the Spit I and the 109E right?
Now getting into the wuss blackout muscle thingie, you must realize that as a comparison, the Spitfire would need very little sticforce for the same thing. Too little actually, later being fixed!!!
I'll armwrestle you anytime with a 100 lbs handicap!!!!
Anyway, keep the stuff coming,and good night

[F4UDOA]

Gsholz,

Two things.

1. I am no fan of the Spitfire either. Nice airplane but I wouldn't want to fly it in combat. My preferance.

2. By comparison from the F4U-1D had average stick forces of 5lbs per G and required only 20lbs to pull 5Gs. That is what I would consider light. By contrast the F6F-5 required 12.5lbs per G and was considered to be "boardering on excessive".

BTW, If you want I will stop the sarcasm and continue with just data.

[GScholz]

Angus, I didn't write all that, just the last part between the [GScholz][/GScholz] tags. Your "long stick" argument is fine except that in the chart I posted the lbs forces were measured "on top of stick". The 109E was 20 lbs lighter on the aileron controls at 400 mph than the Spit-1 even with it's longer stick.

F4UDOA, I know the 109 was heavy on the controls at high speeds, that is not in dispute. I am however disputing the claim that the controls were "set in concrete" and that the 109 was unable to maneuver at those speeds. Yes the controls were considerably heavier than on most late-war fighters, but any grown man can pull 100 lbs on a stick mounted in front of him when he's strapped to a seat.

And yes, please dispense with the elementary school insult games. It's getting tiring.

[gripen]

GODO,
DVL report is about aileron stick forces, wing twist due to aileron deflection and it also gives some data about elasticity of the controll system. Controll forces of other controll surfaces are not discused.

GScholz and F4UDOA,
Actually RAE report on Bf 109E praises ailerons up to speed 250mph (just like the article mentioned in the beginning of this thread), below this speed RAE rated lateral controll of the Bf 109E better than Spitfire I. Above that speed attainable angle of bank was quite similar on both fighters at similar stick forces. In the Bf 109F lateral controll was not as good at low speed because they had to ad those round wing tips, at high speed lateral controll improved somewhat just like RAE notes in their 109F report. The Spitfire V got metal ailerons and low speed controll remained about same while at high speed controll forces lightened considerably, stick forces for small deflections are quite light as NACA report states while large deflections require still high stick force.

To sum up; the Bf 109E had overall better aileron controll than Spitfire I, specially at lower speeds. The Spitfire V had overall better aileron controll than Bf 109F, specially at high speed, at low speed Bf 109F had lighter but not as effective lateral controll as Spitfire V.

gripen

[GScholz]

Oh no, this is going to become another 109 vs. Spit roll rate duel. What have I done.

[Grendel]

Originally posted by 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

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

Hheehheheheheheeheh. Amusing

You quote Kit Carson as "solid".

Are you aware that Carson never flew 109 and is quite totally clueless on his writings? His 109 article has been almost totally debunked as he doesn't have a clue what he's talking about.  That text happily mixed about all 109 versions from E to K to a single summary, which is about as incorrect as anything can be.  That's why he is usually called "Storyteller Carson".

You're pretty desparate if you try to refer to his writings and claim it as "solid rock"

[Angus]

LOL, well, it always seems to be 109 vs something.
Anyway, as mentioned before, Supermarine test pilot, Jeffrey Quill found the high speed control of the 109E to be even worse than the Spit I, - at 400 mph the ailerons were unmovable, and you would also need a heavy boot on the rudder to keep the plane straight. BTW, this was quite an experience for him, because as a Supermarine pilot he was quite unhappy with the aileron controls of the Spit I and was working on improvements. So, as he put it "We were not the only ones with this problem".
Quill also described the 109 as a "delightful little plane" at low to medium speeds.
A longer stick allows more travel for each kg of force. So my dear GScholz, an equal weight on the top of the stick means that actually the Spitfire needs MORE force than the 109. Had the stick been much shorter, the roll would have been even worse;)
However, the Spitfire wins the looping contest flat out. Old ace Douglas Bader almost lost the pipe out of his mouth when he saw an unknown pilot do 3 consecutive loops (Spit I or II).!!
BTW, F4UDOA: Why did the F4U roll so well? And for that sake, the 190 as well? Anyone?

[Grendel]

Originally posted by F4UDOA

That is solid rock. [/B]

Me 109 G:
"So how does the aeroplane compare with other contemporary fighters ? First, let me say that all my comments are based on operation below 10,000 feet and at power settings not exceeding +12 (54") and 2700 rpm. I like it as an aeroplane, and with familiarity I think it will give most of the allied fighters I have flown a hard time, particularly in a close, hard turning, slow speed dog-fight. It will definitely out-maneuver a P-51 in this type of flight, the roll rate and slow speed characteristics being much better. The Spitfire on the other hand is more of a problem for the '109 and I feel it is a superior close in fighter. Having said that the aircraft are sufficiently closely matched that pilot abilty would probably be the deciding factor. At higher speeds the P-51 is definitely superior, and provided the Mustang kept his energy up and refused to dogfight he would be relatively safe against the '109.
I like the aeroplane very much, and I think I can understand why many of the Luftwaffe aces had such a high regard and preference for it."
- Mark Hanna of the Old Flying Machine Company flying the OFMC Messerschmitt Bf 109 G

109 G:
"The roll rate is very good and very positive below about 250 mph. 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. Pitch is also delighful at 250 mph and below. It feels very positve and the amount of effort on the control column needed to produce the relevant nose movement seems exactly right to me. The aircraft is perfectly happy carrying out low-level looping maneuvers from 300 mph and below. Above 300 mph one peculiarity is a slight nose down trim change as you accelerate. The rudder is effective and if medium feel up to 300. It becomes heavier above this speed but regardless the lack of rudder trim is not a problem for the type of operations we carry out with the aeroplane."
- Mark Hanna of the Old Flying Machine Company flying the OFMC Messerschmitt Bf 109 G

"The 109? That was a dream, the non plus ultra. Just like the F-14 of today. Of course, everyone wanted to fly it as soon as possible. I was very proud when I converted to it."
Major Gunther Rall, German fighter ace, NATO general, Commander of the German Air Force. 275 victories.

" I had made my own estimates of the performance and maneuverability characteristics of a lot of other single-seater fighters, and I'd be willing to wager that none of them represent the general, all-around flight and fighting characteristics possessed by the Me109."
- US Marine Corps major Al Williams.

Me 109 G:
"Fast and maneuverable Me 109 (G) would be a tough opponent in the hands of a skillful pilot. Messerschmitt was during it´s time an efficient fighter and would not be in shame even nowadays. Eventhough the top speeds of the today´s fighters are high the differerencies would even up in a dogfight.
Mersu (Messerchmitt) had three meters long engine in the nose were with 1 500 horsepowers. The speed was at it´s best 750 kilometers per hour. It turned well too, if you just pulled the stick"
- Mauno Fräntilä, Finnish fighter ace. 5 1/2 victories. Source: Finnish Virtual Pilots Association: fighter ace Mauno Fräntilä was creating the glory of the war pilots.

Me 109 G:
- How difficult was it to control the 109 in high velocities, 600 kmh and above?
The Messerschmitt became stiff to steer not until the speed exceeded 700kmh.  The control column was as stiff as it had been fastened with tape, you could not use the ailerons. Yet you could control the plane."
-  Kyösti Karhila, Finnish fighter ace. 32 victories.

Me 109 G:
"Sarantola recalled that the MT was a very stable plane, but not the most maneuverable. The stick forces were quite large and elevator trim was used quite frequently while maneuvering.
MT was easy to fly and overall a safe plane. Flying and landing was easy."
- Olli Sarantola, Finnish fighter pilot.

Me 109 G:
"-Many claim that the MT becomes stiff as hell in a dive, difficult to bring up in high speed, the controls lock up?
Nnnooo, they don't lock up.
It was usually because you exceeded diving speed limits. Guys didn't remember you shouldn't let it go over.
We had also Lauri Mäittälä, he took (unclear tape), he had to evade and exceeded the speed, and the rudders broke off. He fell in a well in the Isthmus. He was later collected from there, he's now there in Askola cemetery.
The controls don't lock up, they become stiffer of course but don't lock. And of course you couldn't straighten up (shows a 'straightening' from a dive directly up) like an arrow."
- Väinö Pokela, Finnish fighter ace and Me 109 trainer. 5 victories.

That is solid rock from people who've really flown a 109.

[F4UDOA]

Gsholz/Grendal,

There is no question that below 300MPH the 109 rolled well. But at 400MPH it left much to be desired in the maneuver in comparison to other fighters of it's time.

Even the quotes provided by Grendal support the aileron difficiences at high speed "The control column was as stiff as it had been fastened with tape, you could not use the ailerons. Yet you could control the plane." The airplane may have been controlable but that does not mean effective maneuvering against an A/C that have full control at highspeeds.

The Kit Carson comments are accepted by the allied supporters and hated by the Luftwaffe supporters. But in fighter pilots speak the phrase "set in cement" applies to the 109 much as it would to the A6M2 based on the NACA test of that aircraft for roll times at 400MPH. The two may not be equal but the analogy is similar.

The initial post of this thread was to show that the 109 was something more than unmaneuverable in the 400MPH+ speed range. I have not seen anything to sway my opinion based on this thread.

My criticism of the 109 series would really begin IMHO in the models after the G-6. Especially the G-10 and K-4 where the accepted top speeds are well above the manueverablity limits of the aircrafts design.

My remarks may seem harsh but IMHO by say mid 1944 the 109's best days were behind and adding weight and power to and aircraft cannot fix desgn limitations. My beloved F4U ran into the same issues when in 1951 they built the AU-1. The AU-1 had a gross loaded weight of almost 20,000LBS. This was no longer the same aircraft because of so much armor plate with the same wing and tail structures.

Angus,

I think I have a pretty good understanding. Stability or instability. The lack of lateral stability caused by the dihedral of the wing from root to tip. From what I understand this is the upslope angle of the wing. The F4U and FW190 were unstable of all three axis giving them the ability to not only maneuver but do it quickly without hesitation. The F4U also had boost tabs on the ailerons which were also fitted to the F6F-5.

What specific part of the 109's design limited the roll rate I do not know. However high aspect ratio and aileron shape can limit rolling as well.

[Grendel]

Originally posted by F4UDOA


The Kit Carson comments are accepted by the allied supporters and hated by the Luftwaffe supporters.

They are "hated" because the guy has never flown a 109 but pretends he has. This was checked some time ago. His writing is a fairy tale, not something that can be taken as a source.

Read this before further referring to Carson:

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

"This text refers to a famous article,
"The Best of the Breed", Airpower, July, 1976 Vol. 6 No. 4 by Col. "Kit" Carson

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

"Ok, here i have to write a bit more. Carson really does know nothing about the 109, and even worse, he obviously did not inform himself before writing such an article."

Carson is not a source but a fairy tale teller. That's the problem with his text.

The comments on 109 roll rate in high spees varies. Just last Sunday I talked with mr. Erkki Pakarinen, HLeLv 24 Me 109 pilot, who specifically commented that aelerons did not stiff up in high speeds. Same last week with mr. Torsti Tallgren, another 109 pilot. I have the luxury of knowing real life war 109 pilots and being able to ask from them. I take those guys' word rather than Carson's.

[GScholz]

That is a resource I envy you Grendel, and a resource that is becoming increasingly rare. I hope you're using this resource to it's outmost while you still can, soon it will be too late.

[Grendel]

Originally posted by GScholz
That is a resource I envy you Grendel, and a resource that is becoming increasingly rare. I hope you're using this resource to it's outmost while you still can, soon it will be too late.

I'm doing my best.

Here's the published results so far:

http://www.virtualpilots.fi/hist/

I have some 40+ hours of interviews waiting, I'm in good relations with the Finnish war pilots club and this interviewing process is actually one of the Finnish Virtual Pilots Asscoation primary goals. We don't just fly sims! Trying to do one or two interviews before christmas still...

[F4UDOA]

Grendal,

Two things.

1. The clmax used by the author of that website is for a P-51B with the prop removed (IE no prop wash at at) and 1.48 seems a little high for the 109. What was the condition of the 109 the 1.48 came from? Do you have any stall data on the 109 from say a manual or some other document?

2. Kit Carsons report is based on the RAE evaluation, not test he did himself. He even quotes directly from the report.

Just an example of a more real world Clmax would be from a P-51D based on the stall speeds from the flight manual of 101MPH at 9000lbs power off at sea level.

9,000 * 391 / 101^2 * 234
3519000 /  2387034

=1.47CLmax

With prop installed no power.

[Angus]

Well Grendel, I'll be very interested to see more of the stuff you're digging up in interviews. After all, those pilots are becoming fewer and fewer.
I also have had the privilege of spending a day with a 109 Pilot (LW) as well as sharing many days (and beers) with a RAF pilot (Hurris, Spits, P51's). Treasured moments indeed;)
BTW, did mr. Erkki Pakarinen fly the Emil also? For afterthe Emil comes directly the quantum leap in 109's history regarding high speed handling.
Oh, and GScholz, - from your thread, - or rather from you link maybe, there comes the classical example of the Spit's low CL, - and that not adding up to the wing area.
Well, this has been discussed in so many threads before. However, nobody seems to able to explain how a Spitfire with equal power as a 109 will still pull more Newtons to altitude.
I can think of 2 things for starters. Firstly, CL could be underestimated. (miscalculation). Secondly, the Elliptical shape reduction on induced drag is not in the parameters (hehe, all LW freaks say that the elliptical shape is incignificant). Anyway, the fact remains, that although the 109 has a very fine calculated CL, it is no grandiose at pulling NM's. Just wondering, after all, it's mostly about lift....

[GScholz]

IIRC the Spit-I had more power than the Emil?