Izzie, I belive we have yet to bash each other to death about the turning ability vs wingloading.
Now you said:
"
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Angus
Messerchmitt religion at it again.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I only see the Mtt-envy of two redcoat zealots. Oh come on guys, why the stupid reaction all the time?
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Angus
The 410 has interesting features, yet not much of an impact in WW2. Why so, I admit I do not know. Maintenance or low production numbers?It's the one called Hornisse, or was that the 210? All ears anyway.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hmm, probably low production numbers (less than 2000 iirc) and relatively late appearance. Besides, it was never a highly propagandized plane, unlike the Stuka or the Mossie. And yes the 410A and B were the Hornisse (Hornet).
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Angus
And then to this:
"Wingloading tells little alone. The 109s had some 25% higher wingloading than Spits, but all pilots who flew them both say the difference in turn is so little that it`s the pilot who makes the difference. "
I completely disagree. Given similar wing designs, which was often the case in WW2, wingloading tells a lot and affects primarily climbrate, then secondarily turning ability.
The 109 probably got saved by the slats in a turning campaign vs a Spitfire, yet it was not enough. 109E vs SpitI 18 seconds to 25?
Just imagine if the Spitty would have had adjustable flaps, - giving even more lift than slats......
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hmm, in what context this 18 vs. 25 secs is true? You always seem to take things out of context, Angie. This data comes from the Brits, (
http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/e...spit109turn.gif) - and thanks for bringing it up, because there no better way to show how little wingloading means! The 25 secs vs. 18 secs doesn`t show up on this chart, at least if you compare like with the like, because 25 secs is for 6G turn for the 109E at 500 mph TAS, and 18 secs is for the Spit I w. 6G at 370mph TAS. For 400mph, it would be 20 secs for the Spit already, but the curve doesn`t last that long. At the same 400 mph, the 109E would require the SAME amount of time, 19.5-20 secs for a full 360 degree turn.
Of course the 109E does this with 32.2 lbs/ft wingloadign vs. 24.8 lbs/sq.ft on the Spit I. 30% "better" wingloading, and where`s the advantage? It`s FAR more complex than that.
So so much about the wingloading stuff. Alone it shows nothing. Look at the Cls... at 6G it`s 1.38 for the Spit and 1.44 for the 109E. It`s a coefficient, and it means with the same wing area, a 109E wing would generate 4.3% more lift than a Spit wing. In fact, a lot more if we take the NACA`s 1.12 for the Spit V vs. 1.49 at 3G for the 109E.. Or if you like you can read German veterans. Many say no Spitfire ever turned inside them, some even say they had no problem outturning them.. "
Got something for you to eat.
Wingloading is a very absolute figure, just as well as spanloading.
Just sheer area/span vs weight.
Move to CL. Bit more complicated. It's calculated.
Move to Power. Bit more complicated. Varying quite a bit.
Ok,what I did,quite a while ago, was to compare the Spitfire MkI to the 109E on a climb scale, with time and weight being absolutely definate. I caculated the climb to Newtons.
The Spitfire DEFINATELY provided more total lift in Newtons than the 109 as soon as provided with a 3 blade rotol airscrew, - i.e. a comparible airscrew to the 109. (?)
This was BTW, all running on 87 octanes fuel to avoid any misunderstanding.
So, if you disagree, and intend to prove that the 109 wing as a whole provided more lift than the wing of a Spitfire, please put up a seperate thread with a title guiding to that.
We should not be hijacking this one should we?
Be prepared.....you'll have Spitfires all around, turning well....
