Bf-110G questions.

[Angus]

Hey Karnak.
I have a book about a RAF night Fighter. First the Beau, then Mossie. At night they were intruders, Denmark, Holland and deeper still.
Late war they were even busting V-1's at night.

100 sqn


If you like, I'll dig it up and find the ISBN.

[Charge]

"Messerchmitt religion at it again."

Very nice again Angus. This thread IS about Messerschmitt...

Anyway,

Some sources give 52lbs/sqf wingloading for ME410 and the same for 110G.

110C has 37lbs/sqf?
Spit1 23 lbs/sqf
109E 31lbs/sqf

How much did mossie have?
Some variant had a rather high value of 52 lbs/sqf but that was a bomber.

How much W/L did a typical Mossie fighter variant have?

No that this thread would be about Mossie but just for comparison?

Anybody know the roll rate for 110?
Didn't it have engines that rotated in the same direction causing some torque roll tendency?

Of course the wingloading was not the only factor but it gives some idea of relative turn/climb performance between a/c.

-C+

[Angus]

I belive the Mossie had a higher wingloading than the 110C, not sure about later variants.
I am referring to our mossie there.

The propellers rotated in the same direction, unlike the P38.

Of rollrate of 110 I do not know. I find it hard to belive that it was better than of the 109 in 1940.

I have an article from a 110 pilot in a Jagerblatt issue, I'll see what I can find about it's performance there.

Regards

Angus

[Kurfürst]

Originally posted by Angus
Messerchmitt religion at it again.

[/B]

I only see the Mtt-envy of two redcoat zealots. Oh come on guys, why the stupid reaction all the time?

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.

[/B]

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).

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......

[/B]

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/eagles/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..

In fact if we believe this curve is rigth for the Spit I, it`s actually showing that even the Spit I will be beaten in turns by the heaviest 109K, in both turn time (by 1 sec) and turning radius (by ca. 50%).. if I read the charts right, but I tried to compare like with the like, 78.5degree bank at 5G at 400mph..

Anyway, this is not the issue of this thread, - and yet.
Try turnfighting a mossie with a 110. 110 wins, at least the older type. Why? Yes, LOWER WINGLOADING! [/B]

As I said it`s far more complex than that.. but yes, the 110 could turn tightly, but it was not a wiz at it. More here to understand, powerloading, acceleration, sustained vs. instantenous etc...

Originally posted by Karnak

Slats are not magical wonders. They help a little, but not that much. DH was going to put slats on the Mossie, but decided against it as the Mossie's manuverability was fine without them.

[/B]

Who said here slats are magic stuff? They increase critical AoA. Lift coefficient increases with AoA. Thus the higher the permissable AoA for the wing, the more the maximum of the lift it can generate. Slats help this a BIG deal. That`s why EVERYBODY started using them. Simply, cheap, highly efficient devices that allow for good manouvebility without having to need to rely on huge wing surfaces with great drag.

The Mossie doesn't have low wing loading, just not stupidly high wingloading like the 210 and 410.

[/B]

Stupidly high? Hmm... IIRC it was marginally higher than the 110s... what number were u using, most books list the 410 with full bomb weight and stuff, so using that as a basis is HIGHLY misleading. Have to look up Mankau some day...

As to the dive, I have no idea where you got the idea the Mossie was bad in a dive. It was fine in a dive. I have an accout of one reaching 420IAS at 19,000ft with no adverse effects.

[/B]

I didn`t say it was bad, just nothing special. How about Mossie in tight turns? What happened to it then, sometimes, hmm?

Besides I asked you a question. Why do you think a Mossie could shake down a Spit9? AFAIK it wasn`t any faster.

No where did I claim the Mossie was a superior fighter to the single engined fighters of the day. Don't put words in my mouth.

[/B]

Think u r paranoid.

I know you worship anything German, but lose the rose colored glasses. Just because it is German does not make it automatically better.

[/B]

Think u r paranoid and have an inferiority complex, too. Bad childhood? Or what would explain such a overreaction to a simply statement like the 410 was a good plane, good for it`s task, fairly high-tech? Hell, even Nashwan likes it (!!!!)..

[Karnak]

Originally posted by Kurfürst
Besides I asked you a question. Why do you think a Mossie could shake down a Spit9? AFAIK it wasn`t any faster.

It depends on the altitude.  Down low the Mossie is indeed faster than the Spit IX.

Bassically if the Spit and Mossie are powered by the same engines, the Mossie is faster than the Spitfire.  Even if the Spitfire has a bit more powerful engine setup the Mosquito will be faster.  For example the Mosquito FB.Mk VI with Merlin 25s and flame dampers is slightly faster at sea level than the Spitfire LF.Mk IX with a Merlin 66 even though the Mosquito lacks exhaust thrust.  Also note that fighter Mosquitos have a bit more drag than bomber Mosquitos.


As to the Me410, I like the aircraft a lot.  It is near the top of my AH wish list and I will use it for Jabo work when/if they add it to AH.  I think it was a great warplane, just not Germany's gift to the poor, inept world.

[HoHun]

Hi Charge,

>Some sources give 52lbs/sqf wingloading for ME410 and the same for 110G.

After a quick check, I'd say the Messerschmitts' wing loadings were quite normal in comparison to those of other twin-engined fighters:

Mosquito IV: 235 kg/m^2
Beaufighter: 243 kg/m^2
Me 110G: 244 kg/m^2
P-38J: 244 kg/m^2
P-61B-1: 267 kg/m^2
Me 410A: 267 kg/m^2
Heinkel He 219A-7: 339 kg/m^2

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

[Angus]

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....