Author Topic: The enigma of the Bf-109 (Read 11549 times)

Glasses · « **Reply #105 on:** February 18, 2005, 12:46:30 PM »

Who said that Milo?

MANDO · « **Reply #106 on:** February 18, 2005, 01:57:06 PM »

humble,
try to draw a weight/power curve for P51D and 109K from sea level to 20k. This represents acceleration and climb rate from low to medium speeds). You will see how brutally outclassed was the P51D (any P38 or P47 also) from low to medium speeds during combat.

And, do you believe the fantasies about P51s or P47s turning on a dime with wonderful fantasy combat flaps?

Angus · « **Reply #107 on:** February 18, 2005, 02:09:50 PM »

Some cookie for you Mando.

Try to calculate the P51's force on cruise or climb into Newtons.
Hence lift, or rather force.
Compare it with the 109.
Do the same with a Spitfire in the similar power class as the 109.
The Ideal ones would probably be the Spit IX, the P51B and the 109G2, all in the same old 1943 class.

In this weight/power curve, you should see that the 109 is a power creature while the others are lift creatures. As a total, hauling weight to altitude for instance, the 109 was beaten by the Spitfire in 1940 already. (Newtons to alt, same power(but by Izzy's claim the Spitfire would have been 200 hp behind actually))

I can give the details for this if you like.

So, it's the same with the 190, - dump the 190's performance in here, it's very similar to the U.S. aircraft, - hence the modern 190 is hopelessly outclassed by the 109.

So, at low speeds the 109 has a nicer frame, better power to weight.
It has slats to assist.
Actually good flaps do provide much more lift.....
That was the cookie for now.

Charge · « **Reply #108 on:** February 18, 2005, 02:20:00 PM »

FYI

Boundary layer problems in P51:
http://yarchive.net/mil/p51.html

109 problems:
"It started to become a slight issue on the F series, and it was a significant issue on the G series but was never dealt with, probably because there really is no good solution for wing scoops."

See: http://109lair.hobbyvista.com/techref/systems/cooling/f_flaps.htm

-C+

edit:

Ty for that Scholzie.

Maybe you did read the linked pages before your reply?

GScholz · « **Reply #109 on:** February 18, 2005, 02:32:11 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Charge
109 problems:
"It started to become a slight issue on the F series, and it was a significant issue on the G series but was never dealt with, probably because there really is no good solution for wing scoops."

See: http://109lair.hobbyvista.com/techref/systems/cooling/f_flaps.htm

-C+

Your quote is not on that site.

MANDO · « **Reply #110 on:** February 18, 2005, 02:32:14 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Angus
Try to calculate the P51's force on cruise

Cruise? Did I forget to mention WEP?

Lift? Certainly that was not a chocolat coockie. Lets talk about acceleration from 180 to 300 mph and substained climb rate from 0 to 20k, P51D vs 109K. Which outclassed which? Was the P51 able to flee if enough vertical room avaiable to reach hi speeds, yes, that's all.

MiloMorai · « **Reply #111 on:** February 18, 2005, 02:59:53 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by GScholz
Your quote is not on that site.

Well naturally it is not because he was quoting from my post. See the 4th last statement.

Just for the record, I don't necessarily agree with everything he says.

Meyer · « **Reply #112 on:** February 18, 2005, 03:23:34 PM »

From other thread, about the P39... this is priceless

Quote

Originally posted by humble
It was originally designed with a supercharger...in fact had it been rolled out as designed it would of been awful close to the P-63....probably would of been the dominant fighter in the early war set by far for any country....as it was it was great at lower alts...totally dominated the early 109's at lower alts prevalent in eastern front combat...thats why russians loved it so much....

humble · « **Reply #113 on:** February 18, 2005, 03:41:32 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Meyer
From other thread, about the P39... this is priceless

Actually its something else....the truth

Glasses · « **Reply #114 on:** February 18, 2005, 03:46:48 PM »

That's new to me.

P-39 dominated the 109?

Compared to the P-39 the 109 is a lspitfire for god's sakes.

It was in the EF because it was cheap and it was in stock listis of the Americans that were facing it out in favor of better and faster aircraft, that's why and part of the main reason it was rejected by the brits and the Americans in the ETO, it was much more unstable than the 109, and the higher the poor bird went the worse it got,wasn't until later they fixed some of the performance issues with the P-63 but still the instability and vulnerability of having a rear engine didn't help it be an aircraft that was widely used for most countries, the Rusians paritucalrly liked it because of the lo altitude performance and that it was cheap, comparatively, and they could fill entire squadrons with it.

BTW Mando I think you hit the nail right on the head.

Nos vemos.

humble · « **Reply #115 on:** February 18, 2005, 03:51:50 PM »

Hehe....

Pretty obvious you 109 fans have nothing but blanks....you counter fact with fantasy across the board. You simply make statements and expound on them as gosple while demanding "facts" from the counter view. You then ignore those facts and counter with other useless dribble. Show me a single report where the test pilot concludes that the 109 (any flavor) is superior to the P-51. I'm including german ones from WW2 (they had P-51 mustangs they flew to various units for familiarization).

So far I havent see any one of you counter any statement I've made...meanwhile i've backed up every single comment with multiple 3rd party source material and countered everything posted objectively....

so far you guys are in the same league as your beloved plane....back in the pack.

MiloMorai · « **Reply #116 on:** February 18, 2005, 03:53:24 PM »

in fact had it been rolled out as designed

ie. with the turbo charger

Did you miss this part Glasses?

Glasses · « **Reply #117 on:** February 18, 2005, 03:57:09 PM »

As I understood it even the P-63 wasn't that stellar at higher alts so it remains the same.

Like I said I don't particularly like the 109 but I do not like the fact that the aceleration and climb of the 109 is being left out, the fact that the power to weight ratio of the late war 109s was superior, and also the pilots did say under what conditions the P-51 was better performer than the 109,that's what being left out conviniently by you.

I said before and I said it again, either the 109 was competitive or the Pilots were super human.

MiloMorai · « **Reply #118 on:** February 18, 2005, 04:07:39 PM »

The Air Fighting Development Unit received a British Airacobra I on July 30. They subjected it to tests and completed their report on September 22. They found the aircraft to be pleasant to fly and easy to takeoff and land. Controls were well balanced and although heavier than those of the Spitfire at normal speeds, did not increase appreciably in weight at high speeds as they did in the Spitfire. It was difficult to hold the aircraft in a dive at high speeds unless the aircraft was trimmed nose-heavy. During a turn, the Airacobra would give ample warning of a high-speed stall by severe vibration of the whole airframe. Handling in formation and formation attacks was good, although deceleration was poor because of the plane's aerodynamic cleanliness. Take-offs and landings in close formation were not considered safe, since there was considerable difficulty in bringing the aircraft back to its original path after a swing.

An the luftluver 109 fanatics talk about myths.

The AFDU also did some comparative dog-fighting tests with the Airacobra against a Spitfire VB and a captured Messerschmitt BF 109E. The Airacobra and the Bf 109E carried out mock dog-fighting at 6000 feet and 15,000 feet. The Bf 109E had a height advantage of 1000 feet in each case. The Bf 109, using the normal German fighter tactics of diving and zooming, could usually only get in a fleeting shot. The Bf 109 could not compete with the Airacobra in a turn, and if the Bf 109 were behind the Airacobra at the start, the latter could usually shake him off and get in a burst before two complete turns were completed. If the Bf 109 were to dive on the Airacobra from above and continue the dive down to ground level after a short burst of fire, it was found that the Airacobra could follow and catch up to the Bf 109 after a dive of over 4000 feet. When fighting the Bf 109E below 20,000 feet, the Airacobra was superior on the same level and in a dive.

Granted this test was vs a 109E.

The P-63 was faster than a Fw190 above 20,000ft.

HoHun · « **Reply #119 on:** February 18, 2005, 04:10:39 PM »

Hi Glasses,

>P-39 dominated the 109?

>Compared to the P-39 the 109 is a lspitfire for god's sakes.

From http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p39_17.html

"The 31st Fighter Group was provided with Airacobras in Southern England in August of 1942. Between August and October of 1942, the Group participated in missions against enemy targets in France. The Group suffered heavy losses in air-to-air combat against the Luftwaffe, and the 31st FG re-equipped with Spitfire Mk Vs."

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)