N1K faster than G2?

[DB603]

S!

 What makes 109 aerodynamically poor,or even worse than say La7?Give some facts and I will believe You.109 is a very sleek and clean aircraft with very small frontal area.




------------------
DB603
3.Lentue
Lentolaivue 34

[GRUNHERZ]

Me109 really is kinda poor in aerodynamics.

First all except F,G2 and K had non retractible tail wheels.

All except K had no outer wheel covers for main gear, this makes a lot of drag, though it was planned to have them on all G models.

The 109 had the big oil cooler under the nose in addion to the the 2 radiators.

The joints between the engine access panels and fuselage were very rough, Rechlin estimated that cleaning this up alone would result in 20-30km/h speed increase.

All 109s from G4 had various top wing bulges for for langing gear.

All 109s from G had 4 extra oil/engine cooling intakes on the nose.

The surface finish was rough compared to US planes, and featured many bumps, rough joints and seals etc.

Apparently the steep windshield was also a major source of drag, the K-14 was supposed to feature a new design from Rechlin.

All 109s from G6 had to deal with some sort of MG131 bulges, the G6/14 AS models, G-10, and K of course had variations of the streamlined cowl.

Although 109 is a much much smaller airplane than a P51 it is fundamentally a poorer and dirtier plane from am aerodynamic standpoint.

[jato757]

if you look at this chart it will show u how a strut or a wheel could be made more arodynamic. by tapering braces intakes stuff like that. the 109 takes advantege of most all of this designs.

------------------
     



[This message has been edited by jato757 (edited 04-24-2001).]

[This message has been edited by jato757 (edited 04-24-2001).]

[This message has been edited by jato757 (edited 04-24-2001).]

[This message has been edited by jato757 (edited 04-24-2001).]

[jato757]

well it dident show up, i will try later to post it but u can look for yourself if u like, its caled bedesign, so check it out

[jato757]

 

[jato757]

so, u can now look at all the componenets and see for youself  

[Fishu]

They say that N1K2 goes faster than G-2 with gondolas..
My experiences are also that N1K2 goes faster than G-2 without gondolas as well.

[jato757]

 

Originally posted by Fishu:
They say that N1K2 goes faster than G-2 with gondolas..
My experiences are also that N1K2 goes faster than G-2 without gondolas as well.

i think the n1k2 has a more powerfull powerplant that the g2

[juzz]

Hmm, that's odd - the Me 109G-6 accelerates quicker and has a higher top speed than the N1K2-J at 5,000ft and over...

[niklas]

 

Originally posted by GRUNHERZ:
Me109 really is kinda poor in aerodynamics.

First all except F,G2 and K had non retractible tail wheels.

Tests in charles meudon showed that in fast flights (low angles of attack) the influence of the tailwheel is neglectable.

 

All except K had no outer wheel covers for main gear, this makes a lot of drag, though it was planned to have them on all G models.

I wouldnīt say a lot of drag, because the main part is covered, and the tires a very small.

 

The 109 had the big oil cooler under the nose in addion to the the 2 radiators.

Every inline engine has an additional oilcooler. The cooler of the P51 includes a big watercooler and an additional oilcooler

 

The joints between the engine access panels and fuselage were very rough, Rechlin estimated that cleaning this up alone would result in 20-30km/h speed increase.

The estimated speed increase is imo way exagerated. 30km/h more topspeed is worth 300PS!

 

All 109s from G4 had various top wing bulges for for langing gear.

Yes, the larger wheels didnīt fit into the wing. But this affects only the G6 in AH. The G10 already had a modified solution which was a cleaner design.
The G6 was maybe the poorest design of all 109.

 

All 109s from G had 4 extra oil/engine cooling intakes on the nose.

"Grenzschichtabsaugung"   nur ein witz...

 

The surface finish was rough compared to US planes, and featured many bumps, rough joints and seals etc.

The tail was very clean, and i didnīt see what you describe when i walk around a 109. A camouflage painting was rough, but it was common to polish the machine.

 

Apparently the steep windshield was also a major source of drag, the K-14 was supposed to feature a new design from Rechlin.

Yes, it was steep, but the effective frontal area was also VERY small. Less than 50% of the cockpit is looking over the nose of the 109.  

 

All 109s from G6 had to deal with some sort of MG131 bulges, the G6/14 AS models, G-10, and K of course had variations of the streamlined cowl.

The G6 is the only plane in AH with those bulges - 1 of 4...

[/quote]
Although 109 is a much much smaller airplane than a P51 it is fundamentally a poorer and dirtier plane from am aerodynamic standpoint.[/QUOTE]
It was definitly not the BEST, but it wasnīt either a "VERY poor" design. Why are 109 always faster than Spitfires with less engine power? BTW compare the shape of a XP-51 to early 109 designs and you must come to the conclusion that they copied the 109 design.
The 109 is so small compared to other fighters. Necessary equipment, outlets, inlets, whatever, is so close together that the 109 looks dirty compared to other, larger fighters.
Aerodynamic is also influenced by the size of the drag components, and the idea behind the design of the 109 was from the beginning smallest surface areas (and excellent light construction)
 
niklas

[Dowding]

Niklas, the P-51 was not copied from the 109. It has wings and an engine like the 109, sure, but the design has a lot of differences.

Also, I'm assuming you never have walked around an actual war-time fighter, during the war? Versions still flying today would probably have parts that are machined to a better standard.

It seems to be a stock answer for the LW contingent - 'Oh, it's a great plane, but if you look at it, it is clearly copied from <insert German designed A/C>.'

It's like some irreparable chip on the old shoulder.  

[Lephturn]

Niklas, you need to do some reading about aerodynamics.

I'll give you one example.  You claim the steep windsheild wasn't a big deal because it was small.  That is largely irrelevant.  The problem with the windscreen was that the angle was too steep.  This caused the airflow over the plane to separate from the surface and cause a great deal of additional drag.  It's not a matter of the size of the windscreen, but a matter of how badly the airflow along the fuselage separates and how much drag the turbulence causes.

There is a whole lot more to aerodynamics than the size and shape of the components.  How they all fit together is far more important in my view.  You are missing some important information about boundry layers and separation that play a large role in the aerodynamic efficiency of a shape.  How the air slides along it's surface is often far more important than the frontal area.

Hmmm.  Any Aero techies around that can give us some numbers?  I'd be interested to see the drag numbers on a 109 versus a P-47.  It would be enlightening.  

Take the air intakes on the 109 vs. the P-51.  Which one do you think is more aerodynamic?  The 109's is right up against the fueselage.  See how the P-51's is dropped below the fueselage considerably?  The design of the P-51 intake allows the airflow along the fuselage to stay stuck to the surface and not "separate" when it hits the intake.  The P51's intake is far move aerodynamically efficient as a result, although it is not intuitive to most folks just by looking at it.

------------------
Sean "Lephturn" Conrad - Aces High Chief Trainer

A proud member of the mighty Flying Pigs
http://www.flyingpigs.com

Check out Lephturn's Aerodrome for AH articles and training info!

[Graywolf]

 

Originally posted by Jigster:
One of these days you'll be able to feel it when those dadgum butterfly flaps pop out on the N1K2.

Just cause they were automatic doesn't mean they can defy the properties of lift and drag  

Indeed. I'd like to see these kind of devices modelled a little better. From what I've read some of the Bf109 pilots disliked the leadinf edge slats as they would often delpoy unexpectedly changing the trim of the aircraft and messing up a gun solution. Also I believe they often deployed unevenly causing the aircraft to roll unexpectedly.

As things stand now the beneficial effects seem to be modelled, but not the drawbacks...



------------------
Graywolfe <tim@flibble.org>

[niklas]

Dowding, of course there are differences in detail, but the general shape... i put together a model drawing of an early 109 (~1937) to a XP-51 (i adjusted manually the scale, so the scale it not 100% correct!!) - IMO there are similarities (you already mentioned the similar wing):
   
   
   

Lephturn, the size is defintily NOT irrelevant!!!
If you compare drag coeffizients, be always aware that aircrafts with lower wingloading have usually a better Cd.

The airintake (supercharger) of the 109 is on the left side btw, almost at the same height like the propeller axis - itīs not the intake below the engine.
The coolant radiater of the 109 donīt pick up the boundary layer either. Itīs only a bit hidden into the wing, hard to see. There was an additional sheet that picked up the boundary layer and leaded it around the radiators. You can see it here: http://people.freenet.de/luftwaffeln/109f4_eval3.gif

niklas



[This message has been edited by niklas (edited 04-25-2001).]

[Zigrat]

size is irrelevant, but wing loading is not.

since the me109 has a higher wing loading than the p51, and drag coefficient is normalized by wing area, the lower wing loaded aircraft will have a lower drag coefficient than the higher one (but the wing area will be greater, proportionally, so the drag will still be greater.) This is since stuff like cooling drag, and fuselage drag isnt changing.\


anyways, the main bad parts about the me109 aerodynamiclaly are the wings. Its wings had teh slats, which added considerable drag even in the closed position since they tripped the boundry layer (so ive heard). Also thge pony had a laminar flow wing which improved drag coefficient at high speed.

Any way you cut it, teh me109 was a poor design by 1944 standards. For much more refined (aerodynamically) in line engined airplanes, see for example the yak 9-u.

Or se the he-100 which the stupid germans never produced