Author Topic: info needed on 109 wing slats  (Read 931 times)

Offline Charge

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3414
info needed on 109 wing slats
« Reply #15 on: February 13, 2008, 05:04:58 AM »
I suggest you use the sideways moving hinge. Its simple and reliable also in smaller scale and easy to make. Notice that you need the have the channel between the slat and wing at the corrrect angle. I don't think it needs to be accurately some specific degrees but the basic direction of flow needs to be right.

***

The accurate operation is not all clear to me either but the basic wing profile might give you a hint of how the pressure works on the surface of the wing at different speeds and angles of attack (AoA). If the profile is thick near the leading edge the profile usually tolerates more AoA but in turn provides more drag so the profiles used on fighters are usually a compromise to achieve both. The farther back you move the thickest point the less drag you willl have but at radical AoAs the wing stalls quicker since there is no profile surface to support the air flow.

My guess is that when the wing profile nears the stall a low pressure area builds up on the wing surface and rapidly shifts forward forcing the slat open. When the slat opens the high pressure underside the wing starts flowing (or "bleeding") on top of the wing compensating the pressure difference and uniforming the flow and thus preventing the stall. When the air pressure against the slat over comes the flow pressure through the slat opening the slat closes.

So it doesn't really work through giving more wing surface but just preventing a tip stall.

If a typical wing profile (wing tip) thickness is 9% (~11% in 109) of profile chord the profile itself has a rather low AoA tolerance of about 13 degrees of AoA (pulling out of hat) Where as the root with typical 15% thickness can tolerate about 16 degrees, so with slats you can expand this theoretically to 25 degrees. It is another matter if you have enough engine power to handle the drag caused by such AoA.

I'm not sure if I got it right so corrections are welcome.

-C+
« Last Edit: February 13, 2008, 05:07:38 AM by Charge »
"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 Holtzauge

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 2
info needed on 109 wing slats
« Reply #16 on: February 15, 2008, 01:55:51 PM »
The slat on the Me 109 started moving out at a Cl of approximately 0.8 at AoA circa 12 degrees and was supposed to move out gradually from there until fully deployed at Cl=1.25 AoA 18 degrees. The slat was then effective in keeping the flow attached up to an AoA of 30 degrees after which the Cl reduced gradually (no sharp stall of the airfoil section evident). Mind you this does not imply that you could fly the airplane to 30 degrees alfa, only that the 2D section could go so far and that the device was sucessful in keeping the flow attached over the aileron part of the wing until the inner portion lost it's lift thereby maintaining lateral control up to stall.

Source for slat operational data: Messerschmitt reports TB 33 and 34 on optimum slat kinematics, by Braun, 1941.

The function of the Me 109 slat was a tricky business though and required proper maintenance and there are Allied test flight accounts of the 109 in which the slat comes out unevenly and with a bang against the stop. This however was most likely due to faulty alignment of the slat (a gap) that greated a suction force which kept the slat closed until the leading edge suction overcame this and the slat went out with a bang.

Source for slat banging problem description: Fluid Dynamic drag (page 6-9) by Hoerner.

So if properly maintained the slats should move out nice and gradually :)

Offline Charge

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3414
info needed on 109 wing slats
« Reply #17 on: February 16, 2008, 08:47:59 AM »
I thought it works quite abruptly by banging in and out but in Black 6 flying video it can be seen that the slat slowly slides in and out when the 109 flies along with the slower filming a/c.

-C+
"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 Old Sport

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 530
info needed on 109 wing slats
« Reply #18 on: February 16, 2008, 10:19:40 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Delirium
Ok, here is another question along the same lines;

How is the F86's wing slats compared to the 109? Same mechanism or was a completely different design?


Greg Goebel makes the following interesting comments.

F-86 swept wing and slats

"This [early P-86] design got as far as a full-scale partial wooden mockup, unveiled at the NAA Inglewood, California, plant on 20 June 1945. It went no further, since by this time North American engineers knew that there was no way it could meet USAAF requirements. The straight wing couldn't achieve the required speed with the engines available at the time.
 
Aircraft engineers knew that a thin swept wing could greatly reduce drag and delay the onset of compressibility problems, but such a wing also led to serious stability problems at low speed. The hard data needed to resolve the issue was not available until early 1945, when the Allies captured research data on swept-wing flight from the Germans.

The Germans had conducted wind-tunnel tests on small swept-wing aircraft models as far back as 1940. By 1944, their work had demonstrated that swept wings offered substantial performance benefits. The main difficulty was that any swept wing that was efficient at high speeds tended to be unstable at low speeds. They experimented with a number of ways to deal with this problem, one of the most promising being a "slat" on the leading edge of the wing, which could be raised to change the airflow and generate more lift.
 
After the end of the war, aviation engineer George Schairer of the Boeing Company went to Germany to examine German aviation research. He was accompanied by the well-known Theodore Von Karman of the California of Technology, and Robert Jones of the US National Advisory Committee on Aeronautics (NACA, one of the precursor organizations of the modern US National Aeronautics & Space Administration / NASA). Schairer was extremely enthusiastic about the data he found on swept-wing flight, and not only proposed that Boeing use it on their new XB-47 long-range bomber, but that the information be provided to other US aviation firms.
 
Larry Green of NAA studied the materials and came to the conclusion that a swept wing was answer to improving the performance of the XP-86, and determined that a slat attached to the wing's leading edge and automatically extended at low speeds would solve the low-speed stability problem. Green and other NAA engineers convinced the president of NAA, "Dutch" Kindelberger, that the swept wing was the way to go, and on 18 August 1945, Kindelberger approved further studies on the concept. Within a few weeks, NAA engineers were performing wind tunnel tests on a 1/23rd scale model of an XP-86 with wings swept at 35 degrees. The results were extremely promising. After further tests, the USAAF approved development of the swept-wing XP-86 on 1 November 1945.

* Models were one thing, a flying aircraft another. Engineering the slats was troublesome, and in fact the NAA team went so far as to obtain slatted wings from the German Messerschmitt 262 jet fighter to get ideas. The first seven aircraft would actually use some Messerschmitt 262 slat hardware.
 
---

The first production batch of 33 aircraft was designated "F-86A-1". The second production batch of 188 was designated "F-86A-5", and featured a number of enhancements. While the F-86A-1 had a rounded front windscreen, the F-86A-5 had a flat front armor glass windscreen, and the canopy was now jettisoned using pyrotechnic charges. An improved leading-edge slat scheme was introduced, and there were a number of minor internal changes.

---

North American had only begun tinkering with the wing, however. Aerodynamic studies had shown that eliminating the leading-edge slat and providing a sharper leading edge on the wing provided substantial benefits in high-speed flight, though this led to "hotter" landing characteristics. To compensate for the hot landings, the wing was extended 15 centimeters (6 inches) at the root and 7.6 centimeters (3 inches) at the wingtip. The new wing, which also featured fuel tanks in the leading edge that increased capacity by 264 liters (70 US gallons), was known as the "solid 6-3" wing. The wing was incorporated into F-86F-25/30 production in midstream, and was also sent to Korea in kit form to upgrade most F-86Fs and a few F-86Es in service there.

---

The A-4 Skyhawk also used slats as well.

All the best.