Jesus Christ, Hohun... where the
HECK were you when we were discussing about 109 stability issues earlier on in other threads...
What you've wrote is EXACTLY what I wanted to know. Thank you so very much for posting it.
Using Hohun's post to demonstrate our "Luftwhiner" points:
The Me 109 is perfectly stable with the slats asymmetrically deployed - more than a slat-less aircraft in the same situation, actually.
* Not so in AH - Slats popping out is an indication that the plane will soon enter instability. Much less, anything more beneficial
"than a slat-less aircraft in the same situation". If anything, there is NOTHING more advantageous or beneficial to the AH 109s when entering the edge of the envelope.
The original design locked the slats as soon as the flaps were retracted, but Messerschmitt conducted an extensive series of tests before the war and found that leaving the slats unlocked was beneficial in all flight situations.
* Not so in AH. In AH the handling characteristics are so poor that it makes you wonder,
"gee, if this plane is this wobbly with the slats which were supposed to make them better, then how worse can it be when it had no slats at all?"The French test of their captured Me 109 mentions that during tests against the D.520, the Messerschmitt matched the D.520's circles exactly, with neither aircraft being able to gain an advantage. However, while the D.520 gave no warning before it (sooner or later) flicked out of the turn into an accelerated stall, the Messerschmitt reliably signalled the incipient stall by shaking the stick a bit so that the pilot could relax his pull on the stick and avoid flicking out. (This kind of behaviour does not depend on slats, but it's considered a good handling quality.)
* OBVIOUSLY, not so in AH.
The slats were not deployed just one hair short of the stall, as is often suggested. The RAE tests of the Me 109 found that with gear and flaps retracted, the slats deployed at Cl = 0.865, while they measured Clmax = 1.4 under the same conditions. This means that if the maximum available G rate is (for example) 5 G, the slats come out at 3.1 G already.
* This is interesting. Perhaps I'd better test it out.
From my reading, it appears that the Messerschmitts - Me 109 and Me 110 alike - could be slightly upset in roll while pulling through the slat-deployment Cl (which is a transient effect), but otherwise were perfectly docile and superior to most contemporary designs with regard to near-stall handling.
* If we can call the AH 109 "docile"... then gee.. what are the P-51s and P-47s? UFOs??
The Spitfire also combined the good handling characteristics with a much smaller turning circle, which might have contributed to give the out-turned Me 109 a reputation of bad handling which it doesn't really deserve. You should not expect the Messerschmitt to turn with a Spitfire, but you should not expect anything but trouble-free handling from it either.
* "Trouble free." I wish.
...
Some of you have expressed different opinions. Claiming that you had no problems fighting in 109s. Ok, so you may have felt that way. But I doubt even you guys won't go so far as to say,
"... and I feel the 109 handles more docile, or benevolent, than its contemporaries such as P-51s and P-47s." If anything, the 109s and the 190s are the worst handling planes in the entire set. I dare you to come up with any plane you think that handles worse or has more vicious stall characteristics than 109s or 190s.
Bf110s or Mossies may have dreadful weird flat spins, but perfectly docile during tight turns. P-38s may have accelrated stalls that are hard to recover, as their pilots claim, but in most cases the plane is solidly stable - try fly level with a P-38 and then suddenly yank back at the stick at max deflection, and see if they develop a spin. P-51 pilots go so far as to claim they have no problems fighting La-7s in a low-and-slow fight - a plane that has a 41m shorter turn radius than the P-51, which the difference is equivalent to that of between an A6M5 and a Spit16.
And then there is the 109.
A plane with average 30m~50m shorter turn radius than the P-51 or the P-47, and supposedly should be more docile and and gentle, easier to handle in than most of its contemporaries. Which turns out to be in fact, the most violent and sensitively reacting plane in the entire plane set including bombers. Because we are complaining about that fact, now we're being called Nazi sympathizers.
So I'll say state it loud and clear and simply, in a big tantrum, so even the people dim of wit can understand:
* We don't want our 109s to outturn Spits.
* We want our 109s to outturn P-51s and P-47s handily, without rocking right and left wildly. Or at least, if it be so that our plane is pushed into such severe status as to be so much destabilized, then we should be seeing the enemy planes suffer even more of it, since the 109s are supposed to be much more easier to handle.
* In other words, we want the plane to handle much more easily, that even a relative n00b won't have much trouble just plain outturning P-51s, P-47s, Typhoons and such - so much easier that they can just pull the stick back and it will come behind them, just like a Spitfire won't have any trouble doing that to a 109. By all means 109s should be able to do that - they are supposed to be easy to handle, and already has a smaller turning radius than any Mustang or Jug.
* The claims that "we have to be competitive enough" to be able to outturn P-51s or P-47s is bullshi*. How much skill does one need to simply outturn a 109 with a Spitfire or a Zero? Nobody says that people need to be 'competitive' to be able to outturn 109s in Spits or Zeros. The difference is that much clear. And we want to see that much clear difference between the 109s and its main opposition US fighters too.
* We want to stop seeing the bullshi* of P-47s or P-51 handling severely tight loops or hard-core 180degrees wingovers much more easier than 109s just because they are so much more stable than 109s.
[/b]
