« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 ... 30   Go Down

Author Topic: 109 it fly wrong  (Read 16930 times)

Offline GScholz

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8910
109 it fly wrong
« Reply #75 on: May 12, 2004, 08:40:53 PM »


Logged
"With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censored, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably."

Offline Crumpp

  • Parolee
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3671
109 it fly wrong
« Reply #76 on: May 12, 2004, 09:20:55 PM »
It's not my ignorance,  it is Eric Brown's quote.  I am leaning toward believing him over you.

No one is claiming the 109G10 didn't have a good climb rate and good speed.  Read the rest of the thread and you will figure it out.

To be an effective fighter you need more than just that.  If the control forces above 440 kph are "unacceptable" as Gollob worded it then it does you no good to fly in a straight line really fast up high.

If your plane does not turn well you have to fight in the vertical.  If you do not maneuver well as high speeds then your fighter is not very effective in a vertical attack were high speed passes and zoom climbs are the order of the day.

Seemed pretty common sense to me, so I spelled it out for you Gscholtz.

Crumpp
Logged

Offline Batz

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3470
      • http://bellsouthpwp.net/w/o/wotans/4JG53/
109 it fly wrong
« Reply #77 on: May 12, 2004, 09:23:07 PM »
Quote
Put in the mix in a Target rich enviroment and sure some are gonna score. Especially when the fight occurs in the 109G's "best performance" zone above 25,000 feet.


You dont know wth you are talking about.

You are just as ignorant in this thread as you were in the BoB thread.
Logged

Offline Crumpp

  • Parolee
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3671
109 it fly wrong
« Reply #78 on: May 12, 2004, 09:27:29 PM »
BTW

Pretty graphs, but what is the source?  AH? WB? Your paintshop pro files?

Crumpp
Logged

Offline GRUNHERZ

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 13413
109 it fly wrong
« Reply #79 on: May 12, 2004, 09:58:16 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Crumpp
BTW

Pretty graphs, but what is the source?  AH? WB? Your paintshop pro files?

Crumpp


They are all lies!!!!  Only Carson knows the truth!!!
Logged

Offline Virage

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1097
109 it fly wrong
« Reply #80 on: May 12, 2004, 09:58:56 PM »
Erich Hartmann's first kill was in Nov '42.  His second kill was 3 month's later.  

Obsolete plane?
Logged
JG11

Vater

Offline Crumpp

  • Parolee
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3671
109 it fly wrong
« Reply #81 on: May 12, 2004, 10:07:52 PM »
Just like the Bob thread,

Your resorting to name calling when you run out of facts Batz!

Get a life.

Crumpp
Logged

Offline HoHun

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2182
109 it fly wrong
« Reply #82 on: May 12, 2004, 10:18:52 PM »
Hi Crumpp,

>Definition of Obsolete IMO.

>I define a fighter being obsolete when equal pilots cannot achieve a victory.  By 1944 only the experten had a chance to survive going one on one with your average trained allied pilot.  

Try to prove that :-)

According to objective parameters, the Me 109 was still highly competitive:

Me 109G-10 performance:

http://www.hitechcreations.com/ahhelp/models/109g10.html

P-51D performance:

http://www.hitechcreations.com/ahhelp/models/p51d.html

As you can see, below 25000 ft the Me 109G-10 is considerably superior to the P-51D. Above 25000 ft, the Me 109G-10 holds the climb advantage and the P-51D the speed advantage.

>the discussion was on the rudder forces of the 109 NOT on it's drag coefficient.  

You quoted Carson's overall verdict on the Me 109, so it was you who expanded the discussion.

>In the end it is your conclusions that matter NOT how you arrived at them.  

LOL! So if I rolled the dice to determine which aircraft was superior, my conclusion would be valid, too, because only the results count? ;-)

>When you refer to "prototype" testing at Messerschmitt and Focke-Wulf are you refering to Beauvais and Gollob's test flight?  

No, I'm referring to Me 262 and Fw 190/DB603 testing. The Fw 190A was excellent, but it wasn't as good as the Me 109F in some areas of performance, for example climb rate.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)
Logged

Offline HoHun

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2182
109 it fly wrong
« Reply #83 on: May 12, 2004, 10:34:07 PM »
Hi Crumpp,

>To be an effective fighter you need more than just that.  If the control forces above 440 kph are "unacceptable" as Gollob worded it then it does you no good to fly in a straight line really fast up high.

Well, since you quoted "700" above, I guess that was km/h and "440" is in fact mph.

Let me point out that you seem to be neglecting the difference between true and indicated airspeed.

Control forces depended on indicated airspeed, so if 700 km/h are quoted, you're actually talking about for example 903 km/h @ 5 km altitude, and even more if you go higher.

The Me 109 was far from being restricting to "flying in a straight line really fast up high" because really fast up high translated into low indicated airspeeds, and the Me 109's manoevrability at low indicated airspeeds was rather good. At 30000 ft, 440 mph TAS are only 270 mph IAS.

Of course, the Me 109G-10's good power-to-weight ratio greatly helped its manoevrability at high altitude, too.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)
Logged

Offline Angus

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10057
109 it fly wrong
« Reply #84 on: May 13, 2004, 05:39:19 AM »
Well, Crumpp is basically referring to really high speeds, where the 109 was definatley "heavier" than the U.S. Fighters in particular, so I get his point there.
The 109 in combat had two things in its favour, which helped its pilots to rack up so impressive kill numbers
Firstly: Situation. Plenty of targets, and due to that, the engagements were often only executed under favourable conditions. Hit and getaway, - typically diving away after a pass, or if things went bad.
However, on the western front in 1943/44, it could not count on that any more.
Secondly: Speed. The 109 was always about as fast as the fastest planes the enemy could mount. It enjoyed speed superiority over enemy fighters for long times in many theaters. That is a pure and undisputable fact.
So, up-to-date with everything, perhaps not. But definately not that obsolete.....
Logged
It was very interesting to carry out the flight trials at Rechlin with the Spitfire and the Hurricane. Both types are very simple to fly compared to our aircraft, and childishly easy to take-off and land. (Werner Mölders)

Offline Crumpp

  • Parolee
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3671
109 it fly wrong
« Reply #85 on: May 13, 2004, 05:40:51 AM »
I know the differenece between IAS and TAS.  I fly a real plane on occasion.

I did mean MPH not kph.  The RLM test said 700 kph.


Nice data, but we are talking about the real plane not some games version.  All the sources I have including flight graphs from the RLM of the 109G with DB-605D AND GM-1 put the max top speed between 685-695 Km/h.  That's quite a bit slower than the P51D.

Since I fly only LW A/C it's nice to know that AH HAS in fact thrown us a bone.

Crumpp
Logged

Offline Angus

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10057
109 it fly wrong
« Reply #86 on: May 13, 2004, 05:43:06 AM »
IMHO the AH 109 is just pretty ok
Logged
It was very interesting to carry out the flight trials at Rechlin with the Spitfire and the Hurricane. Both types are very simple to fly compared to our aircraft, and childishly easy to take-off and land. (Werner Mölders)

Offline MiloMorai

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6864
109 it fly wrong
« Reply #87 on: May 13, 2004, 05:47:02 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Virage
Erich Hartmann's first kill was in Nov '42.  His second kill was 3 month's later.  

Obsolete plane?


Would you say the I-153 bi-plane was obsolete?

Wunder of wunders, it was still being used into 1943and still having some success.:eek:

Would you say the He112 was obsolete?

Again, wunder of wunders, in March 1943, a Spanish He112 damaged a 14thFG P-38.:eek:

It would seem they are not obsolete because they were still having success in the air, using your definition.
Logged

Offline Crumpp

  • Parolee
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3671
109 it fly wrong
« Reply #88 on: May 13, 2004, 06:02:15 AM »
Some of you are pretty dense.  No where in my definition of Obsolete MiloMoran does it say anything about the plane not having some success.  In fact I point out in a target rich enviroment such as the Luftwaffe struggled on in 1944 it would not be amazing for an expert pilot to rack up kills.

Let me reword it for you without the "big words" you didn't look up so It's easier to understand:

If the pilots are equal and the performance of their equipment is not, then the equipment is obsolete.  

It's a tough concept to wrap your mind around, especially when there are many different parameters in measuring plane performance that can be critical in a fight.

Especially if they followed Hartmanns techniques and avoided DOGFIGHTING and stuck to See, decide, attack, coffe break, style he perfected.  Hartmann felt that mixing it up was stupid and strived to "ambush" his victims.  It's well documented.  Do a little research and you will see it.

Crumpp
Logged

Offline VO101_Isegrim

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 577
109 it fly wrong
« Reply #89 on: May 13, 2004, 06:29:52 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Crumpp

Nice data, but we are talking about the real plane not some games version.  All the sources I have including flight graphs from the RLM of the 109G with DB-605D AND GM-1 put the max top speed between 685-695 Km/h.  That's quite a bit slower than the P51D.

Crumpp


UHm, thats a pretty good example of your heavily lacking knowladge on the subject you desperately want to force through.

Things like:

a, Bf 109G-10 never used GM 1
b, G-10 max. performance was 695 km/h 6000 to 7500m. K-4 did 715 km/h at the same altitudes. The P-54D could manage 698. Quite a bit slower...? Of course max. speed is rather irrevleant, the fact that late Bf 109s enjoyed MARKED RoC advantage (4500-4900 fpm vs. 3400 of the P-51D), and even more marked, nearly double to level acceleration advantage weighted a lot more in air combat.

As for your maximum range comments, I guess the the increase from 460 miles range of the Bf 109E to 1200 miles on the Bf 109G with six hours of endurance does counts as triple range.. Later 109Gs and esp the 109K had even better range. There were even longer ranged recce 109Gs, but those are not listed here, even though 1800-2000 miles range for them seems reasonable for them with their two droptanks.

As for your range specs, they refer to range at the highest cruising speed, not economical flying for which other a/c specs are listed for.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 ... 30   Go Up
« previous next »