Author Topic: 109G6 vs Spit 9, 14, Tempest 5, and P-51  (Read 8562 times)

Offline Charge

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3414
Re: 109G6 vs Spit 9, 14, Tempest 5, and P-51
« Reply #15 on: February 17, 2010, 08:28:38 AM »
1.)  Cant tell whether its a late or early G6.  Partially retractable tail wheel and redesigned rudder - BUT - "This aircraft has the old type canopy."

-> That is why they made the G14 -to get rid of random variation of features in those many G6 variants.

4.)  "Engine revs and boost are interconnected and are operated under normal conditions by the throttle control.  provision is made, however, for independent operation..."  Didnt know that.  Thought integrated engine management was, primarily, a 190-only feature.

-> IIRC the engine controls were automated from F onwards. You could control the engine revs through a switch in throttle column and IIRC the constant speed unit from dashboard.

5.)  "The tail wheel locking device on this aircraft has been disconnected..."  Why on God's Earth would they do that?  Its a small miracle that the plane lasted more than a single flight.

-> Providing that the 109 was as notoriously unstable to land and take off as is commonly thought? And novice 109ers (Brits) could still operate the plane without incidents, strange indeed. In Finnish use leaving the tailwheel unlocked was considered very very dangerous. Somehow I suspect this statement in report. The surface from where the 109 si operated makes also a difference. Soft grass field, no probs, but concrete RW could pose a problem.

7.)  Regarding Spitfire Mk XIV: "The Spitfire has no difficulty in out-turning the Me109 in either direction."  Figured they would be close.

-> Again novice 109ers cannot use the 109s strengths but however the result is foreseeable. In able hands the 109 should be somewhat competitive -at least without gondolas.

8.)  Regarding the Tempest Mk V:  "The climb of the Me109 is superior to that of the Tempest at all heights..."  What?!

-> No too surprising.

9.)  Regarding the P-51B (III):  "When the aircraft are dived and subsequently climbed there is very little to choose between their performance."  If only this were the case in AH!  ...the Mustang has no difficulty outturning the Me.109 in either direction."  Wow, again.

->Indeed, again.  :)

-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 PJ_Godzilla

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2661
Re: 109G6 vs Spit 9, 14, Tempest 5, and P-51
« Reply #16 on: February 17, 2010, 09:15:51 AM »
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/me109/me109g6-tactical.html

The tests would indicate the 109G6 pretty much sucks, even against the Mustang.  Funnily, I think the 109G6 is a much better turner in this game against the Mustang and Tempest. 

As far as the 109G-6 (w/gondo) comparison to Spit IX, this comparo is more informative: http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit9v109g.html

I note the G-6 is a trop model. I'm wondering if the increased air filtration has any impact on engine performance.

Exec Summary: It confirms your report's results, at least for climb and speed, subject to the Gondo/Trop caveat. I'd also note the dive limitation on the G-6 of 750 kph - which limits the utility of its superior dive accel.

Some of the pilot testimonials are interesting, especially w/r the whole FW190 issue. I'd direct you to Alan Deere, here. I recall Gaston questioning the low-speed modeling of the 190 within AH.

I think, given the record of a guy like Jonah, for example, using the A-8, the 190 is perfectly capable of being quite deadly without us faking in some undocumented low-speed handling to boot.
Some say revenge is a dish best served cold. I say it's usually best served hot, chunky, and foaming. Eventually, you will all die in my vengeance vomit firestorm.

Offline Saurdaukar

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8610
      • Army of Muppets
Re: 109G6 vs Spit 9, 14, Tempest 5, and P-51
« Reply #17 on: February 17, 2010, 01:32:59 PM »
Some of the pilot testimonials are interesting, especially w/r the whole FW190 issue. I'd direct you to Alan Deere, here. I recall Gaston questioning the low-speed modeling of the 190 within AH.

I think, given the record of a guy like Jonah, for example, using the A-8, the 190 is perfectly capable of being quite deadly without us faking in some undocumented low-speed handling to boot.

I did not go to your link yet (at work and just logged on for a quick fix), but just about every 190 test Ive read indicated both a very high stall speed and a rather violent wing dip.

As for pilot testimonials... I read them because they are interesting but there are simply too many variables, in my opinion, to take the "results" at face value.  

For example, a "first hand account" of a 190A turning inside a Spit IX should not (theoretically) be possible in sterile conditions - like we have in AH.  Mathematically, it simply cant be done, all things being equal.

However, in reality, the list of items that can influence (and invalidate) what is observed by the pilot is long.  

The list starts with the pilot sitting down and trying to recall 30-45 seconds of adrenalin-soaked action with his hands still shaking on the typewriter.  His recollection may be flawed, etc, etc.  He may be grossly under- or over-estimating speed, altitude, relative positioning, etc, etc.  Something as simple as a half circle flat turn to a top profile snapshot could be considered "turning inside" the EAC in the mind of that pilot.  In addition to this; consider that most of these guys were, at the oldest, in their mid-20's and probably embellished their encounter to get their 'truly exceptional skills' on record.  It wouldn't even be on purpose.

From the typewriter backwards, the list of variables only increases in complexity.  Air density, air temperature, humidity, wind direction and speed, relative E states, speed & altitude, fuel load, weapons load, any existing damage, pilot experience, etc, etc, etc.

Hell; maybe a 190 driver finds a Spit in a lazy right-hand turn, scanning for a bandit in the middle of a multi-con engagement, turns with him and lights him up after a half-circle because the pilot in the Spit wasn't looking in the direction that counted most.  

Put yourself in the shoes of the 190 driver after that.  Boots on the ground, your first kill and yeah, youre probably going to type it up as "...full elevator deflection, turned inside Spitfire for guns solution.  Fired.  Strikes on right wing root, fuselage and cockpit."

Meanwhile, the Spit was only applying 30% elevator authority.

See where I'm going?
« Last Edit: February 17, 2010, 01:37:35 PM by Saurdaukar »

Offline PJ_Godzilla

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2661
Re: 109G6 vs Spit 9, 14, Tempest 5, and P-51
« Reply #18 on: February 17, 2010, 03:06:53 PM »
I did not go to your link yet (at work and just logged on for a quick fix), but just about every 190 test Ive read indicated both a very high stall speed and a rather violent wing dip.

As for pilot testimonials... I read them because they are interesting but there are simply too many variables, in my opinion, to take the "results" at face value.  

For example, a "first hand account" of a 190A turning inside a Spit IX should not (theoretically) be possible in sterile conditions - like we have in AH.  Mathematically, it simply cant be done, all things being equal.

However, in reality, the list of items that can influence (and invalidate) what is observed by the pilot is long.  

The list starts with the pilot sitting down and trying to recall 30-45 seconds of adrenalin-soaked action with his hands still shaking on the typewriter.  His recollection may be flawed, etc, etc.  He may be grossly under- or over-estimating speed, altitude, relative positioning, etc, etc.  Something as simple as a half circle flat turn to a top profile snapshot could be considered "turning inside" the EAC in the mind of that pilot.  In addition to this; consider that most of these guys were, at the oldest, in their mid-20's and probably embellished their encounter to get their 'truly exceptional skills' on record.  It wouldn't even be on purpose.

From the typewriter backwards, the list of variables only increases in complexity.  Air density, air temperature, humidity, wind direction and speed, relative E states, speed & altitude, fuel load, weapons load, any existing damage, pilot experience, etc, etc, etc.

Hell; maybe a 190 driver finds a Spit in a lazy right-hand turn, scanning for a bandit in the middle of a multi-con engagement, turns with him and lights him up after a half-circle because the pilot in the Spit wasn't looking in the direction that counted most.  

Put yourself in the shoes of the 190 driver after that.  Boots on the ground, your first kill and yeah, youre probably going to type it up as "...full elevator deflection, turned inside Spitfire for guns solution.  Fired.  Strikes on right wing root, fuselage and cockpit."

Meanwhile, the Spit was only applying 30% elevator authority.

See where I'm going?

Indeed, and I second the motion. Those aren't "tests", they're anecdotes. RW is different  - and far richer in variables.
Some say revenge is a dish best served cold. I say it's usually best served hot, chunky, and foaming. Eventually, you will all die in my vengeance vomit firestorm.

Offline Ardy123

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3417
Re: 109G6 vs Spit 9, 14, Tempest 5, and P-51
« Reply #19 on: February 17, 2010, 05:58:33 PM »
Another thing about turning ability that is not taken into account in AH is pilot posture. I have read that in both the 190s and the 109s, the pilot was slouched a bit. This allowed the pilot to withstand more 'G's in a turn. This could allow a 190 out turn a spit at high speeds, simply because the pilot of the 190 didn't black out.
Yeah, that's right, you just got your rear handed to you by a fuggly puppet!
==Army of Muppets==
(Bunnies)

Offline Krusty

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 26745
Re: 109G6 vs Spit 9, 14, Tempest 5, and P-51
« Reply #20 on: February 17, 2010, 06:01:10 PM »
Don't foget the ever-forgiving AH flight model for all spits.

Spits in WW2 didn't turn so well at slightly higher speeds. They had great low-speed turning. Similar to zeros, though, you get faster by a hundred mph or so and that degrades.

A Fw190 would out-turn a spit at 350mph, maybe be even at 250, and be totally whipped by a spit at 150 (to make up an example).

Offline Karnak

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 23048
Re: 109G6 vs Spit 9, 14, Tempest 5, and P-51
« Reply #21 on: February 17, 2010, 09:46:13 PM »
Another thing about turning ability that is not taken into account in AH is pilot posture. I have read that in both the 190s and the 109s, the pilot was slouched a bit. This allowed the pilot to withstand more 'G's in a turn. This could allow a 190 out turn a spit at high speeds, simply because the pilot of the 190 didn't black out.

I understand that later Spitfires had an elevated foot position on the rudder pedals to try to do the same.  I could be mistaken though, as it is merely from a pilot anecdote.

Don't foget the ever-forgiving AH flight model for all spits.

Spits in WW2 didn't turn so well at slightly higher speeds. They had great low-speed turning. Similar to zeros, though, you get faster by a hundred mph or so and that degrades.

A Fw190 would out-turn a spit at 350mph, maybe be even at 250, and be totally whipped by a spit at 150 (to make up an example).
You have any evidence to back that up?  It contradicts everything that I've ever read about Spitfire handling at high speed.  The elevators were too light, not too heavy, making it a risk for the pilot to pull too hard and break the airplane due to excessive Gs, a problem that actually happened in Mk Vs before they added resistance on the elevators.

They absolutely had issues with roll rate at high speeds, but never have I heard of any issue at all with turning at high speed.  Unless you can provide some evidence I will have to call you on that as having been made up.
« Last Edit: February 17, 2010, 09:48:07 PM by Karnak »
Petals floating by,
      Drift through my woman's hand,
             As she remembers me-

Offline Krusty

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 26745
Re: 109G6 vs Spit 9, 14, Tempest 5, and P-51
« Reply #22 on: February 17, 2010, 11:37:38 PM »
Has to do with the number of pounds of stick pressure require, pilot position (G related) and the airframe itself.

I'm not saying "it's as bad as a zero" -- just saying something along those lines happens. I've read a numbre of stories (including the one I think mentioned above, where a 190A out-turns a spit) where the Focke Wulf was superior in turning, but they all take place at higher speeds than Aces High's stall-turn-yank-and-bank fest.

It's like a P-40E being more manuverable at 200-250mph than at 150mph, and FWs had the power/speed to spare, they'd be fighting at higher speeds.

Offline Karnak

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 23048
Re: 109G6 vs Spit 9, 14, Tempest 5, and P-51
« Reply #23 on: February 18, 2010, 01:37:11 AM »
Krusty,

It can't have anything to do with pounds of stick pressure required.  As I just pointed out, the Spitfire's elevators were excessively light at speed.  The Bf109 does seem to have an issue with heavy elevator forces at speed though.  Are you sure you didn't get that mixed up with the Spitfire?

You will really need to post some supporting data as none I have ever seen, and I have seen a lot on Spitfires, supports you on this.
Petals floating by,
      Drift through my woman's hand,
             As she remembers me-

Offline Charge

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3414
Re: 109G6 vs Spit 9, 14, Tempest 5, and P-51
« Reply #24 on: February 18, 2010, 03:27:32 AM »
"I think, given the record of a guy like Jonah, for example, using the A-8, the 190 is perfectly capable of being quite deadly without us faking in some undocumented low-speed handling to boot."

Well it's not actually "undocumented". This claim is based on Russian claims that "190s always offer turn fight with minimum speed" which is a rather strange claim considering how we see 190's slow speed handling at high AoA. IIRC the FW is said to compete in turning even with LA5 which is lighter and has slats to aid turning with hihg AoA and I have no reason to believe the slats would be any worse in LA5 that they are in 109. So it could be as well said that 190 would beat a 109 in a turn fight. Maybe it could, who knows. At least Egon Mayer and Julius Meimberg could not solve whihc plane is better and that was G2 against A6, again IIRC.

Technically the 190 had a NACA23015 profile with 2 deg washout at 20% of its wingtip which in theory would enable it to hang with AoAs up to maybe 16 to 18 deg (depending on Mach number). I have previously given quite a lot of weight on washout but I realized that that 20% of wing tip, even if it has lower AoA that the rest of the wing, only has a NACA 23009 profile which cannot support flow at 15deg of AoA. So while providing warning about imminent stall the washout could not "hang" the FW in the air on its wingtips. It probably enabled the 190 to regain control quite quickly after an accelerated stall but it did not help in turning, as far as I understand.

-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 PJ_Godzilla

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2661
Re: 109G6 vs Spit 9, 14, Tempest 5, and P-51
« Reply #25 on: February 18, 2010, 06:47:23 AM »
"I think, given the record of a guy like Jonah, for example, using the A-8, the 190 is perfectly capable of being quite deadly without us faking in some undocumented low-speed handling to boot."

Well it's not actually "undocumented". This claim is based on Russian claims that "190s always offer turn fight with minimum speed" which is a rather strange claim considering how we see 190's slow speed handling at high AoA. IIRC the FW is said to compete in turning even with LA5 which is lighter and has slats to aid turning with hihg AoA and I have no reason to believe the slats would be any worse in LA5 that they are in 109. So it could be as well said that 190 would beat a 109 in a turn fight. Maybe it could, who knows. At least Egon Mayer and Julius Meimberg could not solve whihc plane is better and that was G2 against A6, again IIRC.

Technically the 190 had a NACA23015 profile with 2 deg washout at 20% of its wingtip which in theory would enable it to hang with AoAs up to maybe 16 to 18 deg (depending on Mach number). I have previously given quite a lot of weight on washout but I realized that that 20% of wing tip, even if it has lower AoA that the rest of the wing, only has a NACA 23009 profile which cannot support flow at 15deg of AoA. So while providing warning about imminent stall the washout could not "hang" the FW in the air on its wingtips. It probably enabled the 190 to regain control quite quickly after an accelerated stall but it did not help in turning, as far as I understand.

-C+

Whoa, please clarify... Are you saying the wing has an inboard 23015 with geometric washout (or twist) while the outboard section is the 23009? I can't imagine why they'd effectively have an aero "wash-in" if this is the case - e.g., in the example you cite as I posit here, tip stall would be quite severe since the 23009 would hit max alpha well before the inboard washed-out 23015.

I note that my  (brief and offline only) experience with WB in past would recall a severe tip stall in the 190 - the very problem the 109 gets around with their self-deploying slat.

Regarding the "undocumented" - I concede readily. I should've said "anecdotal"... My only point in citing the Biggin Hill stick was that, for every anecdote cited pro, I can come up with one con. Anecdotes are like that.

As for some of this other stuff about speed-dependent turn rate - it'd be really interesting to see some data on the impact of speed versus turn rate on a type-by-type basis. I'd expect most types will pull to their "generative" (coining) g-limit, the radius increasing (likewise the rate decreasing) as speed increases, yet that generativ elimit clearly changtes radically across the speed range of the AC - a readily available example is the 190, for example... It clearly pulls higher g at speed, unless I've totally lost the plot, and is painfully slow to point or make g at low speed.

THe other thing rearing it's ugly head: instantaneous turn rate versus sustained turn rate. I believe a fine example might be the Mustang - good in the former, provided the interval is sufficiently small (and it's really NOT all that small, key word being "sufficient), poor in the latter relative, to say, the beloved Hurri.
« Last Edit: February 18, 2010, 08:13:20 AM by PJ_Godzilla »
Some say revenge is a dish best served cold. I say it's usually best served hot, chunky, and foaming. Eventually, you will all die in my vengeance vomit firestorm.

Offline thorsim

  • Parolee
  • Restricted
  • ****
  • Posts: 1029
      • The Luftwhiner Lounge
Re: 109G6 vs Spit 9, 14, Tempest 5, and P-51
« Reply #26 on: February 18, 2010, 11:15:39 AM »
i think the stall character programed is more drawn from anecdotal sources than a result of modeling wing foils ...

the 190s stall seems to be more in line with the f5 USN testing than any operating force reports, or even RAF/USSR opinions ...

it is "funny" as by all accounts one of the easiest planes to fly in TRW is one of the hardest in WB/AH ...
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 PJ_Godzilla

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2661
Re: 109G6 vs Spit 9, 14, Tempest 5, and P-51
« Reply #27 on: February 18, 2010, 11:36:32 AM »
i think the stall character programed is more drawn from anecdotal sources than a result of modeling wing foils ...

the 190s stall seems to be more in line with the f5 USN testing than any operating force reports, or even RAF/USSR opinions ...

it is "funny" as by all accounts one of the easiest planes to fly in TRW is one of the hardest in WB/AH ...

Speculating, I'd guess you're about half right. I doubt they do much 2d airfoil modelling either. Rather, I suspect HTC bases A/C performance off empirical data fits. I doubt they use the anecdotes at all, since translating would be guesswork at best.

But I'm speculating. Why can't we get HiTech to weigh in on this one? Don't be afraid to hit us with something complicated, Dale. Many of us are technical people, it seems. Remember the old joke about engineers and wrestling with pigs...
Some say revenge is a dish best served cold. I say it's usually best served hot, chunky, and foaming. Eventually, you will all die in my vengeance vomit firestorm.

Offline thorsim

  • Parolee
  • Restricted
  • ****
  • Posts: 1029
      • The Luftwhiner Lounge
Re: 109G6 vs Spit 9, 14, Tempest 5, and P-51
« Reply #28 on: February 18, 2010, 11:49:51 AM »
i just think they have a predetermined stall character taken from one report or another ...

the idea that they are actually modeling airflow behavior in relation to the wing surface is pretty far fetched ...

you just get to speed (a) at AOA (b) combined with whatever other conditions they decide to model and away you go ...

i don't really have much trouble with how it stalls, when it stalls can be problematic but you get used to it ...

it is a relative handful compared to other aircraft though, and that seems strange for a plane who's handling was so well regarded by all accounts.

EDIT: and there is that coffin corner where the low speed handling is to difficult to perform the maneuvers you need to perform very easily, and yet you are too fast to deploy your flaps to improve your lift and help you out ...


 
« Last Edit: February 18, 2010, 11:53:22 AM by thorsim »
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 Stoney

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3482
Re: 109G6 vs Spit 9, 14, Tempest 5, and P-51
« Reply #29 on: February 18, 2010, 01:02:11 PM »
What charge is talking about is the high propensity for the FW-190 to tip stall due to a combination of planform (slight) and airfoil thickness (high) taper.  Deploying flaps would exacerbate this situation as the inboard portion of the wing near the root would fly much further into a tip stall than when flaps were not deployed.  Interestingly enough, almost all WWII fighters suffered from tip-stall tendencies as a result of thickness taper, since the thinner airfoils do not perform as well at the higher AoAs, and are also exposed to lower Reynolds numbers due to the planform taper.  The 15% root/9% tip thickness profiles were very common among the FW-190's peer aircraft.  The FW-190 airfoil will still be able to achieve the same angles of attack as most other WWII fighters, but its resulting lift coefficient at the same AoA would be less, due to the much smaller wing area and resulting high wing-loading.  Therefore, it will always suffer from higher stalling speeds compared to its peers, even with the same airfoil and thickness ratios.  All of these characteristics would be exacerbated at high g-loads, or when operated at low dynamic pressure.  While the washout should help alleviate some of these tendencies, its my understanding that the FW-190 suffered from the wing tips' tendency to flex/twist, which in essence, removed the washout from the wing. That it should be very maneuverable about the roll axis and a pig in the turn is, from an aerodynamic standpoint, very easy to explain. 

As we've said many times before, defining exactly what "out-turn" means in these reports is extremely difficult, because there is never any quantitative data (such as degrees per second, etc.) in the report.  They always rely purely on the test pilots' annecdotal statements.
"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