restored Messerschmitt Bf 109 E4 WN 3579

[GScholz]

Seems like US Marine Corps Major Al Williams don't share the opinion that the 109 was hard to control at 400 mph,

US Marine Corps Major Al Williams, Schneider Trophy competitor with his own Kirkham-Williams aircraft, Pulitzer winner from '23 and a head of the Gulf Oil Company's aviation department, had a chance to fly the latest aircraft in the German Luftwaffe's arsenal, Messerchmitt 109 D in summer 1938. Major Williams' view on the capability of the fighter gives an interesting view on the usual commentary about flying and the capabilities of the Bf 109 fighter.

"The most delightful features of the Messerschmitt were, first, in spite of its remarkably sensitive reaction to the controls, the ship showed no disposition to wander or "yaw" as we call it; neither was there any tendency to "hunt". It was a ship where the touch of a pianist would be right in keeping with the fineness of the response. And, likewise, I am sure that any ham-handed pilot who handled the controls in brutal fashion would soon be made to feel ashamed of himself.

Seldom do we find a single-seater that does not stiffen up on the controls as the ship is pushed to and beyond its top speed.

I checked the control reaction in three stages - one as I have already mentioned, slightly above the stalling speed, and the controls worked beautifully.

In the second stage, about cruising speed, a movement of the control stick brought just exactly the reaction to be expected. And at high speed, wide open, the control sensitivity checked most satisfactorily.

Then I wanted one more check and that was at the bottom of the dive where the speed would be in excess of that ship's straightaway performance. So down we went about 2,000 feet with the air speed indicator amusing itself by adding a lot of big numbers - to a little over 400 mph. A gentle draw back on the control effected recovery from the dive; then up the other side of the hill.

It was at that point that I subjected the ailerons to a critical test. I had pulled out of the dive around 400 mph and had started in a left-hand climbing turn. The ship was banked to about 40 degrees with the left wing low.

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."

http://www.virtualpilots.fi/en/hist/WW2History-109Dtestflight1938.html

[MiloMorai]

LOL Scholzy, comparing the handling of a 109D to a 109G/K is like comparing a Spit I to a later model Spit. One cannot draw any conclusions from a 1938 test flight. You is getting desperate.

[gripen]

Grendel and GScholz,
Every one with a bit of knowledge on Bf 109 knows that Carson's article is full of errors. But it should be also noted that this "counter article " is about as full of errors, pure myths and selectively quoted sources as was Carson's article (starting from the name of the page "Why Carson was an idiot").

gripen

[GScholz]

Milo, perhaps you should read the title of this thread.

[FUNKED1]

Originally posted by Batz
@ 660kph  "was extremely smooth and stable"

Kinda reminded me of F4UDOA's comment "locked in concrete above 400mph"

Smooth and stable's got f___ all to do with stick forces.

[Batz]

No **** but if he takes the time to mention something as obtuse as "smooth and stable" don't you think that if stick forces were "locked in concrete" he would have mentioned it? Just as I said above:

From 3.0km during the VNE dive he reached 660kmh. He described it as "smooth and stable" and stated he was "only limited by his altitude". He makes no mention of stick forces and certainly if the controls felt like they were "locked" in concrete he would have commented on it.

Thanks for your well thought out ,well informed reply. It added a lot to current discussion.

[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.

[MiloMorai]

Originally posted by GScholz
Milo, perhaps you should read the title of this thread.

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.

[VO101_Isegrim]

Originally posted by F4UDOA

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.

Of course, since your opinion is set in concrete... I guess not even a letter signed by the Pope would ever change your mind.

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.

You mix up IAS and TAS... Not even those very late versions could attain 400 mph IAS, at which you claim it was cement like, at any altitude in level flight. At most altitudes, they could go no faster than 300 mph IAS, mostly less than that. And even you admitted they were fine at those speeds.

[VO101_Isegrim]

Originally posted by gripen

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

I don`t agree with this latter. The NACA`s testing of MkVA shows the control forces were excessive on the Spit, so much that even when using full stickforce (40lbs) the ailerons could not be fully deflected above as slow as 140 mph IAS... other Mk V tests show that at 400mph, the Spit V would have required 71 lbs (almost twice the possible force!)  just to deflect ailerons to less than half (10.3 degrees), and produce a roll rate  of 45 degrees /sec. The rates of roll in degree are neither anything inspiring, I bet you are well aware of these results :



One can draw any 109F roll rate figures, even your ones over this graph, but I doubt we would find any spot where the Spit requires either less stickforce, or would produce a higher rate of roll than the Friedrich.

[Grendel]

Originally posted by F4UDOA

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.

1.

No stall data I'm afraid.
G-2 pilot notes say...
Landing...
Slow down to 220 kph
Set pitch control to automatic
Extend undercarriage
Flaps fully down
Approach speed 180

109 G-6 manual says...
Landing speed ca. 160 km/h
Take-off run 400 m
(landing)
Glide speed 200-220 km/h
At threshold lower to 180 km/h


2.
Carson's report is mix of evaluations and his own fantasies. If he is talking about one airframe, why his expnalation includes bits from 109 E, F, G and K models? He happily mixes all the various models together and acts like he has flown one.

[FUNKED1]

Originally posted by Batz
From 3.0km during the VNE dive he reached 660kmh. He described it as "smooth and stable" and stated he was "only limited by his altitude". He makes no mention of stick forces and certainly if the controls felt like they were "locked" in concrete he would have commented on it.

Yeah that's pretty conclusive evidence.  

[FUNKED1]

PS Stick forces are inversely proportional to stability.  Oops.

[gripen]

Dear Isegrim,
I have been so worried about you, where have you been?

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

IAS 30lbs 50lbs
mph deg/s deg/s

200 80 80
240 65 85
280 50 88
320 37 90
360 22 45
400 11 25

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

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 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?

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

gripen

[tagert]

Originally posted by VO101_Isegrim
When did I called anyone a pedophile, Liar ? You are so pathethic with your lies about others, all you have did on this thread is making up ugly stories about others. You are a child, others got it right.

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!!