Author Topic: 109e vrs Spit 1 (Read 569 times)

Wotan · « **on:** May 07, 2002, 04:01:09 AM »

Impossible to Follow?

opinions?

did the 109

Quote

leading edge slats automatically deployed, with a loud bang clearly audible over the engine roar!

PrillerJ · « **Reply #1 on:** May 07, 2002, 04:19:58 AM »

I always thought the 109E was better than the Hurri I and Spit I in the first 270 degrees of a turn. And after that the spit/hurri would gain.

mw · « **Reply #2 on:** May 07, 2002, 06:35:46 AM »

That piece is a reasonable take on the subject. Opinions aside: This diagram and this diagram should put an end to the never ending debate. It won't though

illo · « **Reply #3 on:** May 07, 2002, 11:04:57 AM »

MW what version of 109 is in those charts? E-3, E-4, E-7, F-4?
Were test pilots familiar to using slats?

Zigrat · « **Reply #4 on:** May 07, 2002, 11:09:12 AM »

me those are fantastic!!! you have more like that???

udet · « **Reply #5 on:** May 07, 2002, 01:34:22 PM »

spit 1 would definitely win if flown properly and with a constant speed rotol propeller. it can outclimb and out-turn the 109E

Virage · « **Reply #6 on:** May 07, 2002, 01:34:34 PM »

Do the Clmax figures on this chart
http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/spit109turn.gif

mean that the 109 wing creates more lift then the spit? Would this translate to a faster instantaneous turn? Is the difference in induced drag the cause for the spit's sustained turn advantage and e-retention?

funkedup · « **Reply #7 on:** May 07, 2002, 01:45:45 PM »

MW - Wow Mikey!

Virage - Lift coefficient (CL) is the lift divided by wing area and dynamic pressure (proportional to the square of indicated airspeed). Bf 109 had quite high maximum CL figures but a very small area. The Spit's bigger wing means it will create more lift at the same CL and IAS.

niklas · « **Reply #8 on:** May 07, 2002, 03:08:42 PM »

Those turn comparisons spit1-109E are based on CALCULATIONS. They are theoretical calculations, and not test flight data.

Look at the charts from mw´s page : "ASSUMED values of Clmax"

It´s funny anyway to see how many think that one captured 109E is representative for several hundred or thousand build.

niklas

gripen · « **Reply #9 on:** May 07, 2002, 04:38:06 PM »

Niklas,
That flight envelope is based on real flight tests of the RAE. But Clmax values are calculated.

Gripen

Urchin · « **Reply #10 on:** May 07, 2002, 05:21:46 PM »

Don't know about real life, but I do know which plane out-everythings the other in a fight between a spit I and a 109E.

Speaking of which, it'd be nice to have the slats visually (or at least audibly) modelled. I've heard that they are modelled, but there really isn't any way to tell. I do know the plane is stable when behind another plane, although supposedly the slats would pop open and ruin stability.

Kweassa · « **Reply #11 on:** May 07, 2002, 06:38:43 PM »

Urch, I think the slats were put in there to increase stability of aircraft performance, not decrease it.

From what I've read, much like the article Wotan suggested, the slat deployment was more of a psychological barrier to inexperienced pilots rather than physical barrier of the plane. A newbie's gotta be scared when he's sweating all over in a tight turn and then suddenly a *bang* and a *shake*

Another problem seems to be the assymetrical extensions and retractions, which stabilized the plane in near-stall situations, but kept ruining the gun solution.. *bang* *ploop* *bang* *ploop* everytime the air speed went up and down in turns..

I think I've read somewhere this assymetrical deployment was fixed in latter version 109s..

Glasses · « **Reply #12 on:** May 07, 2002, 08:46:53 PM »

Another thing AH doesn't model correctly in the 109 is that the whole vertical stab and elevator moved when the aircraft was trimmed. It was not only the elevator like we see in AH. It might give the 109s some disadvantage in that aspect not to be able to move the whole vert stab while in high speed dives.

Angus · « **Reply #13 on:** May 07, 2002, 10:05:52 PM »

I rather had the opinion that the 109 pilots in the Battle of Britain were rather experienced, ore atleast more experienced than their opponents from the RAF anyway.
Anyway, the slats were a nice reminder that the aircraft was close to stalling. While it was a good thing that they "took over", one would still know that there was not so much a space any more for error, and unlike the Spitfire, the 109 could be forced into a nasty snap, slats or no slats.
But generally putting it,,,,giving the same amount of thrust to each of the opponents, the Spitfire would definately be the winner of the turnfight, maybe even also climb and run;)

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #14 on:** May 07, 2002, 10:44:57 PM »

Atually Angus all I have read about the Bf109 suggested it had very benign stall characteristics with no tendancy to snap like the Fw190 is known for. In fact some said the Bf109 was perhaps too stable for a fighter.