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

Author Topic: Me109 landing characteristics  (Read 5455 times)

Offline Kev367th

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5290
Me109 landing characteristics
« Reply #105 on: November 17, 2006, 10:37:50 AM »
If it had been operational late 1942 that was the same time the Seafire IIc with the Merlin 45/6 was discontinued in favor of the L IIc with the Merlin 32.

Planned powerplant 109T was DB-601E @ 1350HP (for take off)

versus

L IIc with a Merlin 32 @ 1645HP

Compare that to the old Spit V that had a Merlin 55M @ 1585HP (not including the uber WEP)

An L IIc would have been more than a handfull for a converted 109E. (109T).
Logged
AMD Phenom II X6 1100T
Asus M3N-HT mobo
2 x 2Gb Corsair 1066 DDR2 memory

Offline MiloMorai

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6864
Me109 landing characteristics
« Reply #106 on: November 17, 2006, 10:48:21 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Angus
That set aside, was there anywhere some performance specs of the 109T around?
You mean like this Angus?

This is for the 109T-2, the de-avalized version.

Climb

0m - 17m/s - 2400rpm - 1.25ata - speed 250kph
6km - 13m/s - time > 6.4min - 2400rpm -1.06ata - 195kph
10km - 1.5m/s - time > 17.4min - 2400rpm - 0.68ata - 170kph

Speed

0 - 1.15ata(2300rpm) > 433kph - 1.25ata (2400rpm) > 475kph - 1.35ata(2600rpm) > 490kph
6km - 1.08ata(2300rpm) > 552kph - 1.25ata(2400rpm) > 570kph
10km - 0.68ata(2300rpm) > 515kph - 0.70ata(2400rpm) > 520kph

2600rpm could not be used over 4km height. Cruise is 2300rpm. Full power is 2400rpm. Take off and emergency is 2600rpm.

Data for 2800kg weight
Take off distance to 20m > 500m  
Liftoff speed > 120kph
Landing distance, from 20m > 700m
Landing speed > 130kph

See pages 114 and 115 for more in Messerschmitt Bf 109 A-E by Radinger and Schick

For comparison with the Spitfire V see http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spitfire-V.html
Logged

Offline Kev367th

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5290
Me109 landing characteristics
« Reply #107 on: November 17, 2006, 10:56:57 AM »
Better comparison -

Same site but with a Merlin 32 L IIc -

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/mb138.html

Should point out - Prod L IIc's were delivered with 6 exahust stacks not the fishtail ones in the report.
This resulted in a slight speed increase.

Saying that the 109T probably would have retained a small speed advantage over the L IIc, but lose in almost every other category, esp rate of climb and acceleration.

Should add as it never happened this is IMO only.
« Last Edit: November 17, 2006, 12:19:31 PM by Kev367th »
Logged
AMD Phenom II X6 1100T
Asus M3N-HT mobo
2 x 2Gb Corsair 1066 DDR2 memory

Offline Angus

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10057
Me109 landing characteristics
« Reply #108 on: November 17, 2006, 04:08:12 PM »
So.....by the time the 109T would have had it's chance, it's....not the meanest dog around.
Nice data guys. Milo, I wish I had as much about the 109 as you. Interesting to see the differences in ground clearences as well, which actually give a very good point on how the aircraft actually behave in combat when the stall starts teasing you.
Would you happen to have something of this quality of data from a 109E in the BoB? I've been asking quite a bit but even from the Messer camp, I have got very little. Looking for weight, power, ROC (alt vs time), top speed and of course ground clearance is a good bonus ;)
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
Me109 landing characteristics
« Reply #109 on: November 17, 2006, 09:41:03 PM »
Angus, dispite Kurfurst's German is superior, all else is crap attitude he does sometimes prove useful. ;) This is his site on the 109, http://kurfurst.allaboutwarfare.com/  You should be able to find some info there.

The book I mentioned has some data on the 109Es. ISBN 0-7643-0951-X There is a 2cd book for the F-K series.

Try also, http://109lair.hobbyvista.com/index1024.htm

and http://www.beim-zeugmeister.de/zeugmeister/index.php?id=7&L=1

All kinds of manuals you can buy for German a/c, http://www.luftfahrt-archiv-hafner.de/

DB605 engines, http://www.axiomdigital.com/db605.htm

Another site with 109 and other a/c info, http://mitglied.lycos.de/luftwaffe1/aircraft/lw/
Logged

Offline Angus

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10057
Me109 landing characteristics
« Reply #110 on: November 18, 2006, 03:09:41 AM »
Ah, good old Kuffie ;)
A lot of good stuff on his site. Now I finally have some stuff on the Emil ;)
Many things there I'd been looking for, such as Mölder's notes on the 109E vs Spit & Hurry. Hehe, he tried an old MkI with two pitch prop and presumably 87 oct fuel, so It must have come as a surprize when he faced the later types. But lots of good stuff there, Lots.
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 Angus

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10057
Me109 landing characteristics
« Reply #111 on: November 18, 2006, 03:47:17 AM »
Oops, just stumbled on the difference between a CS airscrew and 2 pitch regarding climbing. It's awesome!
Same with the takeoff roll, Spit I:
Airscrew Take-off run
(yards) Distance to clear
50' screen (yards)  
   Rotol 225 370  
   2-Pitch Metal 320 490  
   Wooden Fixed Pitch 420 790  
Spit V:
The take-off run in zero wind and standard conditions is 330 yards, and the distance to clear a 50 foot screen is 530 yards.

So it must have needed headwind to take off a carrier while being loaded with a big slipper tank, but however it had the flaps half down in that business.

Lots of stuff on the http://www.spitfireperformance.com, hadn't looked there in a while.
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 Charge

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3414
Me109 landing characteristics
« Reply #112 on: November 18, 2006, 11:22:58 AM »
"Oops, just stumbled on the difference between a CS airscrew and 2 pitch regarding climbing. It's awesome!"

Cmon Angus, what did you expect? The fixed pitch is optimized for flight, not for take off. It really starts to bite well only after some speed is gained... :p

-C+
Logged
"When you wish upon a falling star, your dreams can come true. Unless it's really a giant meteor hurtling to the earth which will destroy all life. Then you're pretty much screwed no matter what you wish for. Unless of course, it's death by meteorite."

Offline Angus

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10057
Me109 landing characteristics
« Reply #113 on: November 18, 2006, 02:19:07 PM »
Yes but with variable speeds, angles and so on, the CS wins.
Acually, the LW's estimates from Mölders are fun to read. He compares a 109 E4 I belive, to a Spit I with a 2 spreed screw, running on 87 octs.
While the Spit is an underdog in Speed and climb, he advises against close manouvers like turning.
So, he later got pawned by some Spitty running on a CS and even 100 octanes, with a very good pilot at the controls.

Anyway, the CS owns the oldr version in all ways eithe as equal or better.
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 Charge

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3414
Me109 landing characteristics
« Reply #114 on: November 18, 2006, 07:56:15 PM »
Well, if two planes are close enough in turn performance it gets tactically unwise to engage into a decelerating turning fight where the odds tend to get even.

I think Mölders was being wise and trying to direct the fight tactics to direction where Germans where already strong. I don't think he was necessarily trying to point out an apparent deficiency in 109...

-C+
Logged
"When you wish upon a falling star, your dreams can come true. Unless it's really a giant meteor hurtling to the earth which will destroy all life. Then you're pretty much screwed no matter what you wish for. Unless of course, it's death by meteorite."

Offline Virage

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1097
Me109 landing characteristics
« Reply #115 on: November 18, 2006, 08:44:06 PM »
On the original topic:

The toe-in of the 109 was a design to counter the force that could produce a ground loop if you touched down 1 wheel first.  For example: if the right wheel touched down first, the nose would want to swing right.  The wheel acting like a brake and the center of gravity behind pivot point.  The left toe-in of the right wheel created a counter force to reduce swing until left wheel touched down.
Logged
JG11

Vater

Offline Angus

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10057
Me109 landing characteristics
« Reply #116 on: November 19, 2006, 07:03:59 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Charge
Well, if two planes are close enough in turn performance it gets tactically unwise to engage into a decelerating turning fight where the odds tend to get even.

I think Mölders was being wise and trying to direct the fight tactics to direction where Germans where already strong. I don't think he was necessarily trying to point out an apparent deficiency in 109...

-C+



Absolutely. And on top of that, Mölders does NOT  consider the turn performance close. So, it was indeed a wise move.
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)
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 7 [8]   Go Up
« previous next »