Author Topic: Good 109E article  (Read 5587 times)

Offline Charge

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3414
Re: Good 109E article
« Reply #45 on: October 31, 2009, 06:03:18 AM »
"Must have been a helicopter"

Must been them useless slats that enabled it to do such?  :t

Well, D had a Jumo. In 109E the DB added nearly 200kg of weight so I guess it would affect the responsiviness quite a bit. Also the view outside was probably much better in D than in later versions with armoured windscreen and thicker frames.

-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 Stoney

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3482
Re: Good 109E article
« Reply #46 on: October 31, 2009, 06:16:03 AM »
For posterity, it sure would be better if test pilots just said "it took 1,500 feet to takeoff" instead of comparitive statements like that.
"Can we be incorrect at times, absolutely, but I do believe 15 years of experience does deserve a little more credence and respect than you have given from your very first post."

HiTech

Offline Anaxogoras

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7072
Re: Good 109E article
« Reply #47 on: October 31, 2009, 07:57:31 AM »
nevermind.
gavagai
334th FS


RPS for Aces High!

Offline Stoney

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3482
Re: Good 109E article
« Reply #48 on: October 31, 2009, 10:09:32 AM »
nevermind.

What?  Its annecdotal comments like that the get us all clawing at each other most of the time.
"Can we be incorrect at times, absolutely, but I do believe 15 years of experience does deserve a little more credence and respect than you have given from your very first post."

HiTech

Offline thorsim

  • Parolee
  • Restricted
  • ****
  • Posts: 1029
      • The Luftwhiner Lounge
Re: Good 109E article
« Reply #49 on: October 31, 2009, 10:44:03 AM »
THOR C.O. II ~JG-27~ Afrika-AH
Axis Co-Op
Quote from: any number of idiots here
blah blah Blah
Quote from: oldman
Good call.  Ignore the people who actually flew the real planes against each other.

Offline Die Hard

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2205
Re: Good 109E article
« Reply #50 on: October 31, 2009, 11:15:34 AM »
"The take-off was normal, and I estimated that the ground run was fully one-half the distance used by the Hawker Hurricane and about one-fourth the distance used by the Supermarine Spitfire."

Must have been a helicopter  :t

Spitfires and Hurris don't use flaps on take off. Williams used 15 degrees of flaps on take off in the 109D.
It is better to be violent, if there is violence in our hearts, than to put on the cloak of nonviolence to cover impotence.

-Gandhi

Offline Simba

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 725
Re: Good 109E article
« Reply #51 on: October 31, 2009, 11:39:48 AM »
"The guns on this ship - five of them, all hunched on the fuselage"

On a Bf109D?  Wonder what else he made up? :headscratch:

 
Simba
No.6 Squadron vRFC/RAF

Offline Anaxogoras

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7072
Re: Good 109E article
« Reply #52 on: October 31, 2009, 11:40:16 AM »
I agree stoney.  My original comment wasn't about your post.
gavagai
334th FS


RPS for Aces High!

Offline Angus

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10057
Re: Good 109E article
« Reply #53 on: October 31, 2009, 01:11:14 PM »
1/4 th of a Spitfire takeoff is just about nothing. And sounds a bit silly with an aircraft with a higher wingloading, it may be very close or maybe in the 109D's favour though, but much less power instead.
Anyway, for the horsepower, the Spit did haul more than the 109, so the anecdote sort of ... falls.
FYI, Spitfires did take off from HMS Eagle, butt full of fuel with an extra tank for a 600 miles flight. The HMS Eagle was only 200 metres long, and with a pointy front. Of course you have wind and cruising speed playing with this, but 1/4 th....it's a joke.
The article also features a part from Lindberg, and he was very much of a fan of all the Germans did at the time.
I could type up Jeffrey Quill's part meeting Lindberg before the war, as well as Gunther Rall's account of the 109D in the cockpit, etc. Plenty of anecdotes that completely oppose the one posted.
Oh, PS:
Taking off short from the HMS Eagle was none with a little bit of flaps on the Spitfire. Not possible? Guess how it was done  :devil :neener:
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 Die Hard

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2205
Re: Good 109E article
« Reply #54 on: October 31, 2009, 01:53:38 PM »
"The guns on this ship - five of them, all hunched on the fuselage"

On a Bf109D?  Wonder what else he made up? :headscratch:

 

Two in the cowl and three in the engine. They suffered from vibration problems, so they later dropped the engine guns.
It is better to be violent, if there is violence in our hearts, than to put on the cloak of nonviolence to cover impotence.

-Gandhi

Offline Die Hard

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2205
Re: Good 109E article
« Reply #55 on: October 31, 2009, 02:07:51 PM »
The spitfire did not have a better wing loading in 1938. The 109 Dora was very much the lighter of the two and had similar power loading. With flaps and slats the 109's take off run would be considerably shorter. Perhaps not a quarter of the spit's, but that was a subjective observation not a scientific measurement.
It is better to be violent, if there is violence in our hearts, than to put on the cloak of nonviolence to cover impotence.

-Gandhi

Offline Chalenge

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 15179
Re: Good 109E article
« Reply #56 on: October 31, 2009, 03:01:35 PM »
Since you are using the Dora to support your position I am going to point out that later models (by the time of Hartmann) were not only heavier but also had more power so the trim 'window' would have been much narrower and control forces even higher.
If you like the Sick Puppy Custom Sound Pack the please consider contributing for future updates by sending a months dues to Hitech Creations for account "Chalenge." Every little bit helps.

Offline Simba

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 725
Re: Good 109E article
« Reply #57 on: October 31, 2009, 05:13:17 PM »
"Two in the cowl and three in the engine. They suffered from vibration problems, so they later dropped the engine guns."

Really? The literature on the Bf109D that I've read (The Augsburg Eagle by William Green) states that it was Jumo-engined and carried the same armament as the Bf109C, a total of four guns, i.e. two 7.9 MG17 machine guns mounted in the fuselage and one 7.9 MG17 mounted in each wing. Every photo I've ever seen of the Bf109D shows this armament. I'd be interested to know the source of your information (other than the flight test already quoted) so I can check it out and add to my knowledge.

The Daimler-Benz engine fitted to the Bf109E permitted the mounting of a cannon that could fire through the prop hub but it wasn't a success. The two MG FF 20mm cannon carried by the Bf109E were mounted one in each wing. The 'open-nose' prop spinner was retained because Messerschmitt had already manufactured hundreds of them and led to the assumption that the standard 'Emil' carried three cannon - which it didn't.

 :cool:   
Simba
No.6 Squadron vRFC/RAF

Offline Krusty

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 26745
Re: Good 109E article
« Reply #58 on: October 31, 2009, 06:15:08 PM »
Sometimes they put a 7mm in the hub for a total of 5.

Maybe he means "close in" because the spitfire's guns were waaaay out towards the wingtips, scattered.

I agree that was a relatively inaccurate statement.

Offline thorsim

  • Parolee
  • Restricted
  • ****
  • Posts: 1029
      • The Luftwhiner Lounge
Re: Good 109E article
« Reply #59 on: October 31, 2009, 06:26:46 PM »
possibly the interviewer got confused with the armament between the 110 and the 109 ???
THOR C.O. II ~JG-27~ Afrika-AH
Axis Co-Op
Quote from: any number of idiots here
blah blah Blah
Quote from: oldman
Good call.  Ignore the people who actually flew the real planes against each other.