why does 109G10 climb so bad??

[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.

Those aircraft being rather closely on par with engine power have a difference rather in favour of the Spitfire, so I at least would point my finger at the wing rather than thrust-to-weight or prop blades etc etc. to explain the difference between the two.
There must be a good equation somewhere to be able to get at least a close guess at climb rate from the input data "wing area, weight and thrust" rather than just weight to thrust as Niklas used in the beginning. Does anyone have it? ??
And now to the "Much superior wing of the 109"

Niklas:

"I really wondered myself when someone brings up the unique "the elliptical wing explains everything" argument. Actually the wing of the 109 was much superior. The wing of the spit can described by only 2 words: wing area. Lot of wing area, that´s all. No slats, cannons and guns in the wing, only one setting for flaps.. actually a very primitive wing. Nevertheless it can achieve with a very gentle slow speed handling the lift coefficients of a 109 that uses slats and has no disturbing weapons in the wing(same for Tempest, Typhoon), but i already said that i consider RAF planes the most overmodelled ones in the set. The naca test says the spit had a surpisingly low CL btw, and this was a wing with 8*30. Installing the large cannons booms reduced cl by another 2-5% for sure!
What remains for the 109 is the poorer arment of only one central mounted cannon....and even dispersion is very close to that of a spit where the cannons are mounted far outside in a rather "soft" environment (wing)... ahh i better stop... "

Well...

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)

So.....an elliptical wing is no laughing matter....it is a seriously superior design in aerodynamic terms. Furthermore, the Spitfire wing was STRONGER than the one of the 109. And finally, regarding the issue of loading guns into it, That was because it was intended to take guns. Although not intended to take the 20mm originally, it could. However, the Wing of the 109 had "structural?" problems with that, so apart from the 109E, the 109 was not loaded with wing mounted guns.
The Spitfire could however have been loaded with more guns near center (cowling, pods or hub) had the designs demanded that. Remember that the reason that the .303's were wing mounted in the first place was that in that way they were able to deliver the maximum fire output, uninterrupted by the engine RPM.
So, what do we yet have in favour of the 109 wing? Well, the slats. Well, that is one double edged sword. For while the inferiority of the 109 wing near the stall could be compensated withg slats, they proved rather a nuicance in combat. In wild maneuvers, turbulences etc the slats were prone to slam out when they were not supposed to resulting in many a pilot having them "fixed" resulting in worse stall behaviour while other aspects remained more predictable.
BTW, weren't the slats originally from Handley-Page...a brithish design,,,,,

So, to sum it up, I have not been able to find any field in which the 109 wing was superior. Apart from the ease of manifacture of course....

Well...there will be some flames...looking forward.

[Karnak]

Oh yes, the Spitfire was just a pathetic design, tremendously primitive.  While the German aircraft were all fabulously advanced.

Talk about transparent agendas.

The Spit and 109 both had innovations in them.  They both had strengths.  It so happens that the Spitfire was able to develope better than the 109 was.  Cie la vie.

Fortunately for the Germans, they had the excellent Fw190 series to step up to the plate.  The British had a fighter to do that too, the Typhoon.  It was a disaster in air-to-air combat.  Fortunately for the British (and us all) the Spitfire proved to be exceptionally adaptable.  That is fact.

All of the top end warplanes of WWII (even the much maligned, unfairly I think, A6M) had lots of innovations.

[GRUNHERZ]

I dont know how you can say Spit V was even slightly better than 109F. The 109F was faster, climbed faster, dove faster, accelerated better, had similar roll,  turned almost as well, its only real weakness vs the spitfire might be in armament- but even on that count I have heard that quite a few senior British pilots thought the light centerline armament more effective vs heavier wing armament.

[GRUNHERZ]

If you wanna go say the slats were British, and they were, than I can say that the whole Spitfire wing was German, since it was copied from the He70. No previous Supermarine aircraft had such a wing and the leader of the Spitfire wing design addmited he copied the He70. Of course he was lying because that's just so uncool you know.....

They all copied each other thats nothing new, just like the Grumman Fw-8F!

[Karnak]

GRUNHERZ,

I would say that I see the breakdown like this:

Bf109E-4 is better than the Spitfire Mk Ia (Bf109E-4 climbs better, out rolls the Spitfire Mk Ia and isn't handicapped by a float caurburator)
Bf109F-4 is slightly better than the Spitfire Mk Vb (for the reasons you stated, except the Spitfire Mk Vb outrolled the Bf109F-4 significantly)
Spitfire LF.Mk IX is slightly better than the Bf109G-6/U2
Spitfire F.Mk XIV is better than the Bf109K-4 (The Spitfire's better ability to take more power and weight has had a telling effect by this point and the Spitfire has a significant edge)

[Naudet]

@funkeup:

sure it's better to tell from the consumers end, but hell i know HTC doesn't do it.

There is a PRO document (# not at hand, i am at work) and this examines the difference betweem technical sheet data and production machines. The differences are impressive, and as far as i can read the AH charts, those are not for production machines (all nations).

The test flights on the spitpage where all the quotes are from are also no real production machines, they are shiny "performance chart makers".

And the data i mean is from Rechlin, flight evaluation of production machines, no calculations. Problem is the publication of this material is restricted and some things (especially from the FW190) yet have not returned to germany.

And the british airministry admitted that the RAE did some incredible inaccuracies in some test. i.e. the 109E evaluation. In the comments to them, the ministry asks the RAE guys what a roadkill they did by not telling the engine of the 109E was not running smooth.

And i wonder which allied data you mean that shows the german planes better? Every allied charts posted in here show them worse as in GE charts.
Same goes with allied planes in german examinations.
Were might be the reason for this?
It's simple: production machines usually suffer performance losses, but those losses are not modeled in AH. We all fly shiny prototypes, everyone of the same quality not faults no differences.


A little example of what i remember what was found out in Rechlin about 109G+K:

all late 109ers G10-K4 in the chart had climbrates of  20-22 m/s at steig&kampfleistung (climb&combat rating) at sea level, which translates into 3934 - 4327 ft./min. Now if someone can provide a performance chart of the DB605D we could tell how many HPs were used to get that, and what is the HP difference between climb&combat and Special WEP.

I can't provide data special WEP with MW50 cause my time was limited and i was more interested in some new FW190D data and ammunition charts.

P.S.: HoHun, were did i quote 4600 ft./mins? i quoted rougly 3 mins to 16k, which is to me more like 5300 ft./mins for the K4

[HoHun]

Hi Funked,

>A variation of "just 12%" is exactly what this thread is all about.  

And I demonstrated that it would take a ridiculous amount of extra drag to generate this small variation.

>The difference between the AH G-10 (4786 fpm) and a nice fat figure like 5300 fpm is "only" 11%.

The difference between 4600 fpm Niklas measured and the 5500 fpm for the 2000 HP Me 109K-4 is 20%.

>No need to accuse RAF or HTC of error or dishonesty.

This is a very unfortunate statement since it places well justified and factual criticism in close proximity of personal attacks. It's also unfortunate by implying that I've posted a personal attack here, which couldn't be farther from the truth. I'd appreciate it if you'd choose your words with a bit more care unless you're trolling for a flame war - which I'm confident you weren't.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

[Naudet]

lol, if a differnce of 11-12% is doesn't matter, cause its "just" or "only" that difference, i vote for a test by reducing all Spitfire climbrates by the small amount 10%.  
Sure if it doesn't matter in a 109 it should not matter in a spit.

[HoHun]

Hi Naudet,

>P.S.: HoHun, were did i quote 4600 ft./mins? i quoted rougly 3 mins to 16k, which is to me more like 5300 ft./mins for the K4

Sorry, I quoted Niklas' numbers, not yours. Your names both start with an "N", that's what confused me :-)

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

[HoHun]

Hi Hitech,

>Prop designs for climb or speed, the never ending problem gets much worse with more HP.

No doubt we're using crude methods to analyze the game. However, we're fortunate to have the Me 109K-4 for reference which is very similar to the Me 109G-10, so crude methods work quite well for once.

Of course, the analysis is even easier for you since you - unlike us - can actually check whether the Me 109G-10 has a 1800 HP or a 2000 HP engine in the game.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

[Naudet]

HoHun, your really think he will post a single ingame number?

When we did our D9 research, he never posted anything, i think this behaviour hasn't not changed.

and with such comments

Prop designs for climb or speed, the never ending problem gets much worse with more HP.

Just curious anyone every think what happens to thrust when the prop airfoil stalls? And hence why the padle blade was devloped?

Or about such simple things as the effect of the prop to eng gear ratio?

HT has lost many trust points to me,

how could we assume gear ratio, if we don't even know what AH uses, or the effect of a paddle blade prob - a 109G has one - if he doesn't give any ingame numbers

many player do researches, have original tables and HT implies that they are generally wrong cause they forget something

but if anyone uses an original chart - even if it only contains peformance calculations - i would say he has a valid point

AH "just" calculates the performances of planes too, based on some "raw" material like drag numbers etc., but as long as HT never posts some of those basics anyone will have a real chance to compare

P.S. just a question of personal interest, is it true that Pyro was the guy back in WB who put some extra weight into the FW190?

[funkedup]

Hohun, sorry about that, didn't mean to accuse you of anything.  

I agree with you that 4600 to 5500 fpm is too big to be explained by variation in drag or prop efficiency between G-10 and K-4.

All the stuff I was saying about climb rate variation is directed towards Niklas' initial comparisons between different aircraft types.  I.e. How could a Spitfire outclimb a 109 which has a better hp/weight ratio?  In those cases where you have a big difference in the airframe and prop design, it's clear than you can get significant variations in the climb rate even if power loadings are similar.

But 4600 to 5500 is definitely too much for 109 to 109.  Unless the G-10 was turning one of the plastic props from a balsa wood model.

BTW the AH chart shows ~4790 fpm for the G-10.  Where do you get 5500 fpm for the K-4?

PS did you read my quick-and-dirty estimates of G-10 hp in AH?  It looks like ~1800 hp to me if I assume the Bf 109G-2 in AH has about 1500 hp.

[funkedup]

Naudet

Hitech was merely pointing out things which were missing from the analysis in the original post.  As far as him posting his figures and methods, it's quite unlikely.  This is proprietary information which he has no doubt spent a lot of time and money to develop.  It's not in his best interest to teach us how to make flight models as good as his.  

About flight test data sources, I think I understand what you mean.  Just be aware that most of the USAAF and RAF planes in the game appear to be based on service flight test data, not manufacturer's flight test data.  If they used manufacturer's data we would have a 450 mph P-51B among other things.  

[funkedup]

One more thing - What the heck is a PS?
I only know kW and hp.  PS is not used by US engineers.  
It seems to be used interchangably with hp, but are we certain that PS and hp are the same thing?

[GRUNHERZ]

Funked they are the same according to this I saw on a auto industry website:

"The relationship between horsepower (ps) and torque is expressed by the following formula:"

I think ps might a Japanese term as this was a Mitsubishi website.