109 flight model

[BnZs]

The drag of wings, open slats and all, as well as the fuselage over the range of AoA are not some kind of magic "unknowables" and their effects are entirely calculable.

Further, in-game 109s DO seem to bleed speed in turns to a greater extent than some similar aircraft. So....

  Getting back to the original poster's complaint, or rather lack of specific complaint, there is one thing that is really obvious to me from the reference article he links to: In that article, the pilot very clearly describe the Me-109E as a big energy bleeder in turns compared to a Spitfire, and this is WITHOUT the wing slats extended... He clearly states that with the wing slats extended, this Me-109 feature would be worse still (maybe not as bad as he thinks?), meaning that even at a similar turning radius, and with an equivalent or better climb rate, the Me-109E would lose more speed in turns compared to a lot of slower-climbing aircrafts...

   This issue points to a basic problem with overall computer simulation flight modeling, where acceleration is treated as being the same for straight-line, climbs, turns, dive or zooms. There is no direct relationship in real life...

   There is an old thread here where F4UDOA(?) points out, quite correctly, that the Tempest V has a slower level straight-line acceleration than many other inferior-climbing types, yet had an excellent climb rate, and the countering arguments all went along the lines of "not the exact on-the-nose climb speed acceleration" for where the level straight-line acceleration was tested as it went "past" the "best climb speed"... Typical nonsense... The basic problem is that drag is simply not the same depending on what the aircraft's specific, and unique, shape is doing in turns, climbs or in a straight-line...

   I believe the pronounced speed-bleeding in turns displayed by the 109E, in the OP's linked article, likely applies to some extent to all Me-109 variants, and explains why the presumably tight-turning and fast-accelerating Me-109 is matched or out-turned by many heavier types, even perhaps those with less power-to-weight. This is not reflected in the Me-109's climb rate, which is excellent, but this apparent contradiction has led to a very unrealistic Me-109 in most simulations, since they simply do not include a drag that is specific to turns...

   The complexity of airframe shape is close to the complexity of natural phenomenons, and thus an over-reliance on math alone will lead to very skewed and unhistorical results...

   On that issue at least, the OP chose a good article that illustrates the point well...

   Gaston

  

[hitech]

   Getting back to the original poster's complaint, or rather lack of specific complaint, there is one thing that is really obvious to me from the reference article he links to: In that article, the pilot very clearly describe the Me-109E as a big energy bleeder in turns compared to a Spitfire, and this is WITHOUT the wing slats extended... He clearly states that with the wing slats extended, this Me-109 feature would be worse still (maybe not as bad as he thinks?), meaning that even at a similar turning radius, and with an equivalent or better climb rate, the Me-109E would lose more speed in turns compared to a lot of slower-climbing aircrafts...

   This issue points to a basic problem with overall computer simulation flight modeling, where acceleration is treated as being the same for straight-line, climbs, turns, dive or zooms. There is no direct relationship in real life...

   There is an old thread here where F4UDOA(?) points out, quite correctly, that the Tempest V has a slower level straight-line acceleration than many other inferior-climbing types, yet had an excellent climb rate, and the countering arguments all went along the lines of "not the exact on-the-nose climb speed acceleration" for where the level straight-line acceleration was tested as it went "past" the "best climb speed"... Typical nonsense... The basic problem is that drag is simply not the same depending on what the aircraft's specific, and unique, shape is doing in turns, climbs or in a straight-line...

   I believe the pronounced speed-bleeding in turns displayed by the 109E, in the OP's linked article, likely applies to some extent to all Me-109 variants, and explains why the presumably tight-turning and fast-accelerating Me-109 is matched or out-turned by many heavier types, even perhaps those with less power-to-weight. This is not reflected in the Me-109's climb rate, which is excellent, but this apparent contradiction has led to a very unrealistic Me-109 in most simulations, since they simply do not include a drag that is specific to turns...

   The complexity of airframe shape is close to the complexity of natural phenomenons, and thus an over-reliance on math alone will lead to very skewed and unhistorical results...

   On that issue at least, the OP chose a good article that illustrates the point well...

   Gaston

   

Never in the history of this board has such complete and utter kaka been spoke with such great ignorance.

HiTech

[10thmd]

Never in the history of this board has such complete and utter kaka been spoke with such great ignorance.

HiTech

       And the master of our lives has Spoken.

[thorsim]

Never in the history of this board has such complete and utter kaka been spoke with such great ignorance.

HiTech

wow 

[PanosGR]

Never in the history of this board has such complete and utter kaka been spoke with such great ignorance.

HiTech

i think this sounds kinda familiar to me

http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,260209.30.html

[Anaxogoras]

i think this sounds kinda familiar to me

http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,260209.30.html

Nah, HT flamed me by saying he hadn't heard such a load of BS "in a long time."  It's completely different. 

[hitech]

Nah, HT flamed me by saying he hadn't heard such a load of BS "in a long time."  It's completely different. 

Very true it is completely different. Your statement just had risen slightly above the noise.

This one I almost want to laminate, decorate, make poster size and frame on my wall as the all time wall of shame poster.

HiTech

[gyrene81]

Never in the history of this board has such complete and utter kaka been spoke with such great ignorance.

HiTech

I'm trying to beat that HiTech...really I am...just can't seem to push the envelope enough to achieve that level...I keep blacking out 

When I do, be gentle...and I'll pay for an 11x14 photo of you standing by the poster size framed reproduction...   

[hitech]

I'm trying to beat that HiTech...really I am...just can't seem to push the envelope enough to achieve that level...I keep blacking out 

When I do, be gentle...and I'll pay for an 11x14 photo of you standing by the poster size framed reproduction...   

 

[Gaston]

  Quote, Hitech: "Never in the history of this board has such complete and utter kaka been spoke with such great ignorance."

HiTech


    -Well, with that kind of attitude...

     In any case, I'll add the caveat that climb, straight-line or turn relative acceleration, or more precisely, speed retention in turns, are not linearly related across aircraft types, but often do retain a link within each type.

    But not always: In the British RAE tests, the P-51B with full twin 108 Gallon drop tanks was found to be MUCH slower-climbing, but LITTLE appreciable increase in turning radius or turn rate was noted with full drop tanks versus clean... It was still considered VASTLY superior-turning to a CLEAN Me-109G (or at least one with gondolas, which is not that great a difference in sustained turns:
     http://www.virtualpilots.fi/feature/articles/109myths/#g6r6
), with the P-51B lugging around two full 108 gal. drop tanks! (Le Fana de l'Aviation, Hors Serie #38, p.102)

    Note the same P-51B, WITHOUT drop tanks, was considered about equal in turn rate to the FW-190A... Hmmmmm...

    I for myself, think these tests are wrong but not outlandishly so, and they show to a certain extent the unreliability of test pilots flying unfamiliar foreign aircraft: Perhaps the Me-109G's slats were not fully exploited...

    I think that, rather than the FW-190A and P-51B being equal in turn rate, and the Me-109G being far behind, it is more likely the FW-190A would be noticeably ahead of the P-51B, with good aileron stall-catch use, and the Me-109G would be very slightly behind or equal to the same clean P-51B, maybe because of better wing leading edge slat use than in the actual test.

    But this objection of mine is a far cry from any simulation's calculated la-la land, where the Me-109G-2 or G-6 is ahead of either of them(!)... Gunther Rall himself confirms that the Me-109F could barely hold its own, or win, in turns against the FW-190A, with all of 900 fewer lbs (410 Kg) to lug around than the Me-109G... But surely he is just a doofus like me?

    It's one thing to tweak real-life tests results with math assumptions, or in my case, combat or flight test anecdotes. It's another to turn reality completely on its head with them...

    Sorry, but reality has its own math book, and unlike yours, there are no gaping omissions in it...


    Gaston

 

[Angus]

At what altitude?
Anyway, if you compare the ROC of a Spit I with the 109E, it's just about the same. The Spitty is heavier, the engine power is similar (favouring the 109) so it seems to create more lift. Well, after all, the wingloading is lower.
The difference calculated over to Newtons (how much is it hauling) is some 10%.
Strange isn't it?....

[Mister Fork]

The FW can almost out turn a Bf109? The 190 is a flying shoebox with a big heavy engine in the front.

I'm going to stop before I violate forum rules... (shaking head).

[thorsim]

i have heard the same when the roll rate was considered as well, i.e. in follow the leader instead of a luftberry ...

the Brits felt the same in the encounters over the channel before they had a 190 to test ...

flying around in circles may give you the rates but it does not always translate well to ACM. 

i suggest the germans were more pragmatic with their testing ...

The FW can almost out turn a Bf109? The 190 is a flying shoebox with a big heavy engine in the front.

I'm going to stop before I violate forum rules... (shaking head).

[hitech]

   This issue points to a basic problem with overall computer simulation flight modeling, where acceleration is treated as being the same for straight-line, climbs, turns, dive or zooms. There is no direct relationship in real life...

You have just declared Isac Newton wrong. But of course you do not even know you just did.
So yes you will get that attitude because your post is so far from fact that it shows clearly you do not even have the level of knowledge need to discuss the topic.

HiTech

[Anaxogoras]

Gaston, you seem to place a lot of weight on testing and combat reports, but it's clear you haven't read VVS evaluations of the Bf 109 and Fw 190.  Russian pilots held the Bf 109 in higher esteem than the Fw 190 and confidently claimed that it was the better dogfighter of the two.

Not long ago, a rebuilt 109G-10 was compared to a P-51D in a flying magazine (I forget which one), and the author was scandalized to report that the 109G-10 out-turned the P-51D.