"Kit" analyses 109 and 190

[niklas]

Kits analysis seems to be based on a 109E - but you can´t compare a E to a G.

I think i know where they got the extremly bad CD value for the 109E - During trials in England, the 109E made only 475km/h near sealevel (in russian tests even less) - but with more altitude, the speed reaches almost the speed of the factory claim. So i assume that the supercharger was not working correctly in low altitudes, thus the poor speed and the bad CD.

The canopy of the 209-V1 doesn´t offer a bad visibillity. The canopy of the 109-V13 (world record 1937) was also a clean design with good visibillity. But i have the impression that at this time it wasn´t possible to realize a round shape of the windscreen with bulletproofed glass. I mean those race-canopies were made out of plexiglas.

I don´t think that there was a gap between the slats and the wing. If the outer wing section was total turbulent, how was good ailleron control possible in a normal flight?
A real gap in the wing that caused a lot of drag existed in frise-type-ailleron designs. Another reason why e.g the 190 was not very fast for its engine power. Very light aillerons, but this gap between the wing and the sharp leading edge of the ailleron caused a lot of drag.

I think kit is also overestimating the speed gain of his proposals. If i remember myself correctly then there was running a program in germany to improve the 109.  But they estimated the speed gain of all improvements together (canopy, tailwheel...) to about 20-25km/h.

niklas

[This message has been edited by niklas (edited 04-28-2001).]

[Sturm]

Its a good thing Hartmann was stuck in a 109    Just imagine what he could have done in a really good fighter plane.  lol if the 109 was so bad why did the pilots not want to give it up?  Familiarity, or maybe because they knew it was still a formidable plane in the right hands.

[R4M]

I'm not a 109 hardcore fan (tho I like the plane), but for sure if all that load of bad things is true, then someone will have to explain me with detail why most of the german pilots who flew the 109 were so in love with it. Because if it was so much of a squeak and so bad, then the Germans should have had to hate it right?

anyway, I think that until the P51B flew over Europe ,the 109 was a first-class fighter. For 1944 was beginning to show its age (too much power for a 1935 airframe), but was still an able plane.

The accounts about the 109 being outdated in 109 are laughable. In 1942 planes like the MC200 were outdated ,the 109 was one of the best planes in the world until early 1944.

Either that or the German Jagdflieger were the Deustche Supermen  (or should I say Übermen?  )

[This message has been edited by R4M (edited 04-28-2001).]

[illo]

Sturm mostly because of familiarity, good climb and alt performance from what ive heard. Most LW 109 pilots agreed 190 being better desing, but didnt want to learn new plane from start. Some did and scored outstandingly well in 190s. Nowotny, Bär...

[This message has been edited by illo (edited 04-28-2001).]

[Jekyll]

 

FW-190A


A superb airplane, every inch a fighter. It could do a half roll at cruising speed in one second.

Not in AH it can't!

FIX THE BLOODY ROLL RATES!

[-lynx-]

 

lol if the 109 was so bad why did the pilots not want to give it up? Familiarity, or maybe because they knew it was still a formidable plane in the right hands.

lots of reasons: Say, there was nothing else available, I don't think they had much choice, not like in AH hangar ... Charisma attached to 109 from early days of glory - remember Ju87? Withdrawn from service due to incredibly high combat losses and generally falling apart every time a fighter looked at them by ~43 and yet there was no shortage of volunteers to fly them... Then again - might have been natural selection at work .

I find it unbelievable that a fighter pilot with many a kill and shedload of experience is being ridiculed by some home grown experts who, quite possible "...didn't know how to fly and didn't want to learn..."

 

ever seen all those natural metal US fighters with paint on the upper surfaces - that's all about "image" I suppose

Actually yes, most of them flew with bare skins in later stages - there was no need to camouflage anymore.
 

Then arbitrarily apply 2º of geometric twist with absolutely NO IDEA of exactly how that will affect the handling characteristics of the plane, let alone the integrity of the wing structure

Hey - aerodynamics expert juzz has spoken... And you know that he had "NO IDEA" how? I guess since most planes DO have washout (that's the term for it, OK?) their designer didn't have a clue either. Geez...

[AG Sachsenberg]

Illo I was just poking around, I know why a lot of the old hands kept flying the 109    

------------------
 

[This message has been edited by AG Sachsenberg (edited 04-30-2001).]

[CJ]

This is a little off topic, but some might find it interesting...

Regarding the aluminum finishes used on ww2 fighters.  Dural aluminum, which is an alloy of aluminum that has many times the tensile strength and stiffness of pure aluminum, was used for aircraft construction during this time, but some aircraft used this aluminum, but with a layer of pure aluminum on the surface that was around .001 inches thick on both surfaces.  When the aluminum oxide forms, it forms a clear layer that has the same density as the pure aluminum, and so forms a continuous barrier, that doesn't flake off, that protects against oxidation that would affect an alloy that is exposed to air.  This allowed the crews to polish the aluminum instead of painting it.  Most modern aircraft use "Alclad" which is dural aluminum of some alloy with this layer of pure Al, and it is then painted also.  You could take a Cessna 172 right off of the 2001 assembly lines, strip the paint, and polish it to a mirror shine...  too bad it still requires regular polishing to maintain this shine, because it still corrodes.. just not as fast as exposed alloys...

CJ

[juzz]

 

Actually yes, most of them flew with bare skins in later stages - there was no need to camouflage anymore.

That's the point - the Me 109 absolutely needed camo paint - I imagine it's kinda hard to hide an airfield full of shiny bare metal aircraft...

 

Hey - aerodynamics expert juzz has spoken... And you know that he had "NO IDEA" how? I guess since most planes DO have washout (that's the term for it, OK?) their designer didn't have a clue either. Geez...

And I suppose that Willy Messerschmitt had no idea either when he chose to use leading-edge slats to allieviate the stall characteristics of a tapered wing rather than one of the other options available, washout being one of them?

[This message has been edited by juzz (edited 05-06-2001).]

[Seeker]

Two very interesting posts, thanks you Illo.

There's a couple of points I'd like to see expanded..

Fuel duration.... Both the Spitfire and the 109 suffered greatly from limited range. Indeed, British designers continued the short comings well post war (The Lightning was severly hampered in this regard). Is there a specific doctrine or military difference between British and American designers regarding this? Why was the 109 specification so short legged? I know Udet picked the 109 from several strong competitors, was it in general a short legged specification?
Wingloading..  It's always been my (limited) understanding that high wingloading means stability but poor turns, and low wingloading the opposite. In the post above, the P-51 is credited with a lower loading than the 109, but I've always thought the 109 (particularly earlier models)would out turn a 'Stang in a flat turn turn fight?

Trim... How is it that we have intense discussions on the type of ammo used in LW planes, maximum speed figures, load outs, gun dispersion, practicaly every thing on the model, but no LW flier has ever complained that he has completly arcade trim facilities? How can the addition of a non existant feature work towards authenticity?

Obsolescence..... Whilst Galland proposed the 109 be completly dropped in favour of 190's/262's, Johnson still rated the 109 a more dangerous opponant at bomber heights. Altitude and intended mission profiles aren't touched in the two articles, and would make an interesting discussion. Some airforces contineud to use (and presumably develop) the 109 post war, none the 190. Any one have any information as to why that would be?

I'd suggest that one (perhaps far fetched)conclusion drawn from the articles could be that we really do need a later Spitfire to complete the plane set and enable more Scenario choice.

[newguy]

Seeker, as to your question of why the 109 was so short legged, I would venture that it is directly related to the german high commands belief in the blitzkrieg tactic. They did not plan on taking over Britain at the beginning of the war. This is the same reason that they had no massive long range bombers. It wasnt in the plans in the begining. Why did they not create new planes as the war went on? Inflexibility of Goering and Hitler. Thats the quick and easy answer anyway   This inflexibilty is illustrated in one case by Hitler's insistance that the me262 be used a bomber. Their tactics were to hit quickly, accurately. This worked well for them on the continent, within their supply lines and ground forces. Adolf Galland's 'The First and the Last' is a good book to read about the Luftwaffe's philosophies. As I said, this is my quick and easy answer. I dont like typing all this stuff out, unless it's for a mark  

newguy