Good 109E article

[Die Hard]

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.

My position? What may that be?

[Mace2004]

Interesting discussion regarding the slats.  The A4 had similar aerodynamic leading edge slats and few ever said they'd get rid of them and they added much more than they took away although they required some special techniques at times. 

Assuming the tracks were cleaned and properly aligned the slats rolled in and out during approach/takeoff fairly smoothly and evenly.  High G maneuvering and especially rolling pulls were different.  Snatch on a lot of G quickly at the right speeds and the slats would snap out hard enough to make you wonder, especially if one came out first and caused you to snap roll.  The biggest problem was lining up for a gun shot.  You start an easy pull to bring the pipper ahead of the target and all of a sudden the slats would pop and the nose would pitch then you back off on the pull to bring the pipper back down and the slats would pop in again and drive your nose low.  The trick was to unload for a second and then pull harder so that your pull would get the slats out first while maintaining sufficient AOA (G loading) to keep them out as you lined up and fired.  Not as hard as it sounds and it only happened in a certain speed range.  The worst thing the slats would do is asymetrically deploy, especially during a rolling pull.  The slat on the outside of the roll would deploy first which could cause a departure.  That's ok though, you learned to roll then pull.  It is interesting though that the Blues bolted their slats up so they could be smoother and more precise but then they weren't trying to out turn anyone.

[Widewing]

What?  Its annecdotal comments like that the get us all clawing at each other most of the time.

Very true... This statement in the piece is ridiculous: "I found this trigger sensitive to the touch and extremely light, later ascertaining that a pressure of 3 milligrams was required to close the circuit and actuate the guns."

3 milligrams??? A sheet of toilet tissue weighs more than 3 milligrams. 3/1000ths of a gram?? Ludicrous statement. Such a remark casts doubt on the entire story.


My regards,

Widewing

[Widewing]

possibly the interviewer got confused with the armament between the 110 and the 109 ???

There's several issues with that story.... Which is why you often have to take anecdotal evidence with a grain of salt.


My regards,

Widewing

[Angus]

The 109D will have to be a lot lighter for a short field hop, - only has 700 ps.
However I am not so sure how much power could be applied on takeoff.
I have seen very many Spitfires taking off, and if they gave some throttle they were up after a very short ground roll. The first time I saw one, he opened up quite well, was up in a whiff and carried on straight into a loop.
So, the 1/4th of that and with only 700 ps instead of 1050 sort of rang my alarm. The fanboy alarm

[Anaxogoras]

Says the Spitfire fanboy.

[Zwerg]

"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  

I think this is a misunderstanding.
I rather assume: one-half=1 1/2 and one-fourth=1 1/4

Otherwise the takeoff distance of a Spitfire would be the double of the Hurricane's...

[Angus]

The Hurricane AFAIK needed less than the Spitty. Not much of a difference though.
One-halfwould in my understanding be half, - 50% while one-fourth the distance would be 25%.
And you don't have to be a Spitfire fanboy to see that this claim is way off. 
As for Linbergh, he popped in for a Spitfire check after being in Germany in 1939. He had been there as Göring's guest, with all the red carpets ready, so it must have been like stepping back to the mediavals to see the scruffy WWI hangars at Eastleigh in comparison with some brand new facilities in Germany. To Jeffrey Quill, Lindberg seemed to show a condescending interest in the Spitfire, presumably based on the accommodation. Quill does not mention a test flight at all.

[Zwerg]

That's what I mean. If the takeoff for the 109 is 150% of the Hurri and 125% of the Spitfire the Hurri is a little better than the Spitfire. Makes sense like this.

[Angus]

125% is less than 150%.
 

[Zwerg]

 

Hurricane
=====.=====.=====.=====.

Spitfire
=====.=====.=====.=====.====

109 (150% of Hurricane, 125% of Spitfire)
=====.=====.=====.=====.=====.=====.

[Karnak]

If you want to get realistic, 99.99999999999999999999999% of all WW2 combat was with flaps firmly locked in the "up" position.

That number is enough to be stating that no N1K1 or N1K2 ever saw combat.

In short, you're making things up and stating them as fact again.

[Die Hard]

The 109D will have to be a lot lighter for a short field hop, - only has 700 ps.

The only Spitfire Major Williams could have compared the 109D to in the summer of 1938 was the early Mk I, powered by the 1,030 hp Merlin Mk II driving a two-blade wooden fixed-pitch prop. That fixed-pitch prop was designed for high-speed and would waste a lot of the engine power at low speed/take off. The 109D had a variable-pitch two-blade metal propeller of American Hamilton Standard design, built under license by the German firm VDM. Even if we discount the differences in propeller efficiency at take off the power loading of the two aircraft is very similar: Spitfire Mk. I: 4,810 lbs, 1,030 hp, 0.21 hp/lb. Bf 109D: 3,522 lbs, 700 hp, 0.20 hp/lb. Wing loading: Spitfire: 242 sq ft wing area, 19.8 lb/sq ft. Bf 109D: 174 sq ft wing area, 20.2 lb/sq ft.

With the 109 using 15 degrees of flaps (with drooping ailerons), leading edge slats and a Hamilton Standard variable pitch propeller, its take off run would be considerably shorter than that of the Spitfire Mk.I Major Williams could have compared it to in the summer of 1938.

I'm not sure, but I don't think a U.S. Marine Corps Major would be a 109 "fanboy"... Unless there was good reason to be one.

[Die Hard]

Oh... and the Merlin II/III only had 880 hp at take off. 1,030 hp at full pressure height (12,250 ft). The Jumo 210 had 681 hp at take off. 690 hp at first supercharger speed (4,920 ft) and 671 hp at second supercharger speed (12,140 ft).

The weight difference between the two engines is considerable: Merlin II: 1,375 lbs. Jumo 210G: 974 lbs. That weight difference of 400 lbs alone makes up one third of the weight difference between the Bf 109D and Spitfire Mk.I.

[Angus]

Now that was at least something. Was digging in my pile and could not find the specifications of the 109D. Did find a description of flying the 109D (mainly take off) as well as a lot of the Spit.
The account comes from Rall.
What he points out is that the UC is too narrow to support the power you have (already with the 109D!), so take-off accidents are not unique to students, but also take place in the operable squadrons, this becoming more marked with the 109E. The 109 is no calm wagon horse he sais, it's a nervous racehorse. And the prop, - you have to be fast to modify the settings, or you will crash on the other side of the field. That indicates a different setting for takeoff.
So there is nothing to choose from in regards of wingloading. Power is slightly in the favour of the Spitfire, and possibly more if the 109D cannot apply what it has, Thrust might even be in the favour of the 109D, and slats and flaps are. But a quarter of the roll, - I seriously doubt so. Not even sure it would be shorter at all.
Oh, fanboys? Lindbergh was. At that time, the USA had mixed feelings about Germany, and Göring really knew how to roll the red carpet
Oh, the Merlin while being heavier, has less weight behind each hp. But the Jumo is more favourable at SL.
As a sidenote, if HTC adds more into the early planeset, the 109D is perhaps a must?
-