Originally posted by Angus
To sum it up again from history.
Spitfire I vs Me 109E ......on par
Spitfire V vs Me 109F....Spit slightly better if anything
Spitfire Mk IX vs Me 109G2/G6 Spitfire slightly better, increasingly over 19.000 feet
Spitfire XIV vs Me 109 G10.....Spitfire better.
This is what the pilots said. Please post anything you find that indicates the opposite.
Lol define "worse" or "better". Do you have only the slightest imagination about what pilots actually are talking here? Is this all, do you expect the FM modelling based on such statements? Unbelievable.
Here comes an educated lesson in the superiority of an elliptical wing platform:
"The benefit in flight is significant. The amost perfect spanwise distribution of lift combined with the small wingtips reduces induced drag.
This means that the aircraft can maneuvre without substantial loss of performance.
Conversely, an aircraft with straight, constant section wings has a very highinduced drag. It may be fast but it slows when it turns..................
............................. ......The significance of this induced drag is illustrated by the Avions Mudry CAP 10 with its elliptical wing. Although relatively low powered, it can complete an aerobatic sequence without loss off altitude and, if managed properly, can even climb throughout."
(AEROBATICS, principles and practice by David Robson)
You better start to learn what youīre talking about before you begin to quote wildly statements.
The THEORETICAL elliptical wing has a constant ca over the wingspan. The 100%(!!) rectangular wing has an elliptical distribution. This picture makes it clear:
Now what is the difference between a rectangular wing and an elliptical wing?
You can write the induced drag coefficient as
cwi = k*K*ca^2
k is the correction Factor, K is the 1/ pi*aspect ratio
For a 100% rectangular wing the correction factor k is as follow:
AR = 3 -> k = 1.02
AR = 5 -> k = 1.04
AR = 10 -> k = 1.09
So even high aspect ratio wings with 100% rectangular shape have only 9% more drag.
In reality, fighter wingshapes are very close to elliptical ones, so the advantage of elliptical aircraft is marginal compared to a wing of P51, 109, 190 or so with Aspect Ratios between 5 and 6. But the elliptical wing made it unpossible to install features like slats, this was only possible on straight leading edges.
Furthermore you donīt take washout into account. This lift distribution was calculated with a special program, and you can see that washout and other influences can change the lift distribution a lot:
What WAS actually a serious advantage for the 109 is the higher aspect ratio of 6 compared to 5.5 for a spit. This means you can achieve steeper dCA/dAoA gradients, or in simple words higher CA-values with same AoA. Furthermore it goes directly into the equation of drag with 9% advantage for the 109.
- the wing of the spit has a lower thickness ratio what wonīt allow as high AoA as a thicker one.
- they have guns mounted destroying parts of the leading edge
what leads to earlier stall
- they donīt take use of slats and can only achieve good slow speed handling with a lot of washout giving up lift in the outer region
- the wing of a spit has a lower aspect ratio and wonīt be again able to reach the same CA values like a wing of a 109 with same AoA.
No way that they could achieve the lift coefficients of a 109, but in AH it does, enabling them to do the silliest manoevre. And if you donīt believe it, read this Naca test of spitfire stall characteristics:
http://members.tripod.de/luftwaffe1/aircraft/raf/spit_stalling.pdfJust a quote out of it:
"The maximum lift coefficients obtained are considerable lower than normal"
And this for a wing without those large cannons....
Many views on the slats are based on tests of emils again. But a emil is not a F, G, or K. AFAIK With the F roller bearings were used in the slats instead of gliding mechanism what improved the symmetrical work of the slats.
So next time learn first before you shout so loud please
niklas
