Very Insightful BF-109 Vid

[PR3D4TOR]

The 109's vertical stabilizer has very little fixed surface area and is mostly just a big rudder. That means that there is very little to counteract rudder forces except the fuselage. Combined with prop wash that should give the 109 a lot more rudder authority at any speed than an aircraft with a more conventional vertical stabilizer with larger fixed surface area.

[Angus]

Don't forget the shape of the fuselage here, which also affects stability. Anyway, the 190 has a twisted tail to allow for complete stability at a certain speed. No rudder trim.
Anyway, since we're all into aces here, I'll give you a comparison.
On his first flight operational in a military airplane, Hartmann crashed his plane. On his first flight with a 109 he spent a while trying to shoot down his boss. So much for that.
On his first combat sortie, F.O. Jonsson flying with the RAF, wound up in a 2 vs 1 situation, that means 2 x 109 vs 1 Spitfire, altitude practically none. He didn't even catch a bullet, and after a long jostle the enemy was engaged with more RAF fighters.
What does that tell about pilot quality?
He actually complained about the LW doctrine of engaging at better position while the RAF doctrine was more like engaging anytime. That, as well as the LW mostly operating close to "home" will explain the additional part to Rall's excellent layout.
Rall got shot down 8 times by the way, but never over enemy territory. What would the score of the LW aces have been if their career had ended after being shot down for the first time?

[PR3D4TOR]

Hartmann was shot down over Soviet territory and captured early in his career, but managed to escape. I don't know why you want to continue this confrontational Axis vs Allies noodle measuring competition. It serves no purpose.

[Debrody]

Pathetic
My uncle is stronger than yours... therefor my c0kk is much bigger than yours...
Grow up ladies.

[mtnman]

The 109's vertical stabilizer has very little fixed surface area and is mostly just a big rudder. That means that there is very little to counteract rudder forces except the fuselage. Combined with prop wash that should give the 109 a lot more rudder authority at any speed than an aircraft with a more conventional vertical stabilizer with larger fixed surface area.

(Image removed from quote.)
(Image removed from quote.)

Yup, I understand the large rudder part.  As Skip mentions though, the 109 has a small rudder.  I don't argue that the 109 has a good yaw ability, but I suspect it has more to do with the overall plane design and fuselage moment than the rudder itself.

And my point is to the fact that he gives no information that can be used to correlate the AH flight model to the real aircraft.  That video has been linked to on these forums several times over the last few years.

The "if you can yaw through the aircraft and shoot in front of it" statement holds true for any aircraft (even the ones with horrid yaw ability).

I'm curious about the effect of the "balance tab" on the 109 rudder (beyond the less-physical-strain-on-the-pilot effect).  I'm of the understanding that it causes more drag, and even decreases the effectiveness of the rudder somewhat (which is why many sailplanes have gone away from that idea).

Why not make the entire vertical surface movable, with no stationary section at all?  Would that be a benefit or a hindrance?

When it comes to large rudder / small vertical stabilizer planes, I'm familiar with one too.  I fly the F4U, and it has possibly the best rudder in the game...  But, I've also read that it was considered to have a too-small vertical stabilizer...  Does the 109 fit in there too?

[Wagger]

Great conversation starter and many good arguments. But it is all based on conjecture.  There are way to many variables pilot experience, Theater of war, quality of pilots, quality of planes, time spent in theater, hours flown, quality of instruction, tactics....     I give all my respect to the individuals who fought in the skies during all wars but the truth will only be based on conjecture.  And as for examples given in AH fights based on 1 Sim Pilot against another is not a good example.  Its a Sim/Game.  You can do things in AH that can not be done in real life.  But it makes for good conversation. 

[MiloMorai]

Hartmann was shot down over Soviet territory and captured early in his career, but managed to escape. I don't know why you want to continue this confrontational Axis vs Allies noodle measuring competition. It serves no purpose.

That is the first time I have heard that.

Now on Aug 19 1943 his a/c was damaged by debris from a victim and he had to crash land behind Soviet lines, captured and then escaped.

[Devil 505]

When it comes to large rudder / small vertical stabilizer planes, I'm familiar with one too.  I fly the F4U, and it has possibly the best rudder in the game...  But, I've also read that it was considered to have a too-small vertical stabilizer...  Does the 109 fit in there too?

This was an issue with the 109, that is why in 1944 109s began being built with a taller verticle stab and rudder. Remember the 109 was a 1930s design with top speeds near 380mph until 1941 with the introduction of the 109F. Further engine improvments in the G series increased speeds beyond the capibilities of the standard tail dementions, leading to longitudinal stability issues. Hense, the need for a redesigned tail.

In the case of the Corsair, these issues only began to surface with the F4U-4. With the construction of the F2G-1 "Super Corsair" a taller tail was also fitted. This was a particular need on this model because of the cut down rear fuselage for the bubble canopy. See also P-51D and P-47D,M,and N models.

If you look at most fighters during the war you will see modifacations made to the tail area to increase stability at high speeds and altitudes. Spitfires with the Griffon engines soon saw an enlarged tail. The 190 had fuselage length added before the tail with the Dora, eventually a larger tail was fitted to the Ta 152.

[PR3D4TOR]

That is the first time I have heard that.

Now on Aug 19 1943 his a/c was damaged by debris from a victim and he had to crash land behind Soviet lines, captured and then escaped.

Yes, that's the incident I was thinking about. Could easily have ended his career then and there.

[Angus]

The enlarged tail would serve better at lower speeds, since the whole deal was about countering a growing number of horsepowers.
At higher speeds the forces are greater. I belive the 109 was trimmed to be stable at some 200 miles, which means a slight boot on the rudder at higher speeds, - and oh, the 109 was quite a cruiser.
Don't forget TAS and IAS though, since the ceiling and combat zone pushed up to very high altitude inb the mid war.
BTW, Jefferey Quill flew a 109, and was very pleased with the rudder. However not so much with the rest.
He did engage a 109 in a dogfight once, and easily out-maneuvered it, but what would you expect

[Debrody]

Here we go, Angus.
You stated the allied pilots were superior to the german ones.

On his first combat sortie, F.O. Jonsson flying with the RAF, wound up in a 2 vs 1 situation, that means 2 x 109 vs 1 Spitfire, altitude practically none. He didn't even catch a bullet, and after a long jostle the enemy was engaged with more RAF fighters.

Yet you state the 109 was a poo.

BTW, Jefferey Quill flew a 109, and was very pleased with the rudder. However not so much with the rest.
He did engage a 109 in a dogfight once, and easily out-maneuvered it, but what would you expect

Now what?
No Luftwheenie told you the spitfire (or any allied ride) was a piece of crap, nor the allied pilots were worthless. Please keep your thoughts about it for yourself.
One more thing to note. My 1941, 1350Hp Bf-109 F-4 would be more than a match for your magnificent 1944-45, 1750Hp Spitfire Mk-XVI. Think about it.

[pervert]

Interesting that you mentioned Von Richtofen, Charge.  One of the things I went and looked at was the top aces of WW1 and the top 3 were a German, a Frenchman and a Canadian, all within less then 10 kills of each other. with another German and an Englishman topping out the first 5. 

If there is a consistent theme in reading the stories of the WW1 aces of all sides, it's that they all were flown beyond the point of exhaustion as the folks leading them had no idea of the conditions in which they fought.  You look at any of the early pictures vs late of aces from all sides and the differences are scary in how physically and emotionally beaten down they look.

As you say, the Axis pilots in WW2 suffered much the same fate, while the Allied pilots benefited from the rotation policy and larger training programs and pools of well trained pilots.

Wheres Mick Mannock in all this??

[MiloMorai]

Wheres Mick Mannock in all this??

Mannock is #5.

Top 10

Manfred von Richthofen
René Fonck
William Bishop
Ernst Udet
Edward Mannock
Raymond Collishaw
James McCudden
Andrew Beauchamp-Proctor
Erich Löwenhardt
Donald MacLaren

[Angus]

Debrody, don't misread me. I am just shaking off the ubermench-uberflugzeug myth with some teasing points.
I will however state that after a certain point in the mid-war most of the allied pilots had more training under their belt than the axis ones. However the axis were normally on the defensive line, which allowed them to get shot down on more occations without ending their career, and then they were kept busy untill either they fell, or the war was over.
The allies had a different training programme, and it turned out in a better way.
BTW, Jonsson spent some time as an instructor after his first T.O.D. And promptly hated it!
Rall spent some time as an instructor too, but only because of problems with is thumb, or actually what used to be his thumb, - he was regarded unfit for frontline duty at the time.
Quill, - what would you expect, - would probably not have had a problem with many a 109 pilot, since his job was after all riding the spitty to the limits of the envelope, and the hours under his belt superceeding most aces if not all. I am still having problems with copying one of his maneuvers in AH.
And the 109F, - Rall said it was the finest of the lot. Just wish I had the stats over it. And the 109 was never a piece of crap anyway.....always at least a fast bird with good ROC and a central armament. Will still choose the Spitty though

[PR3D4TOR]

the ubermench-uberflugzeug myth

You found any of that in this thread?