109F vrs the spit9

[niklas]

Originally posted by Nashwan
How do you adjust the slats?

They were spring loaded, and came out when air pressure dropped over the wing. If air pressure was lower over one wing than the other, the slats could deploy asymetrically.

Usually you move over this point so quickly that both slats deploy. An experienced pilot knew sooner or later when they will come out anyway and can even force the deployment with a quick pull on the stick. When there were huge differences in the deployment characteristics of both slats, then it´s another hint for bad adjustment.

Which contradicts just about every other pilot account from the BoB.

Those who got outturned by the 109 can´t report their experiences anymore.

How is a takeoff done with no slats? The only way to stop the slats deploying is to wire them shut, or set them to deploy at such a low speed they almost never come out.

Takeoff speed is low, and rolling angle is limited too. I´m not sure whether they´d come out for takeoff when they´re closed before accelerating.

Slats:

109G-6R-.JPG

[Nashwan]

Usually you move over this point so quickly that both slats deploy. An experienced pilot knew sooner or later when they will come out anyway and can even force the deployment with a quick pull on the stick. When there were huge differences in the deployment characteristics of both slats, then it´s another hint for bad adjustment.

You can have asymetrical slat deployment during sideslip, and during rolling.

Those who got outturned by the 109 can´t report their experiences anymore.

So all pilots outturned by a 109 were shot down and killed?

From where have you got the idea that they were springloaded?

Sorry, it came out wrong. Sping loaded was supposed to be in inverteds, as part of a description of how they deploy. It got left in  when the rest of the description was deleted.

[Kweassa]

Little verification please.

 I think I recall the asymmetrical deployment was fixed after the G models.. does anyone know if this is true? if it was fixed to symmetrical deployment, how was that so? Did they wire the left and right slats to deploy at the same time if one would pop out?

 

 ...

 Wmaker, I always thought the effective FM of the slats were modelled. I saw that thread, and I naturally figured that Pyro meant the visual models were going to be applied. But then again, as you said, I've never seen any direct mentions on this one from the developers myself. Anyone have the link..??

 ...

 Flyboy, they are usually called "slats" or also "slots". These are stabilizer devices which deploy automatically on the leading edge of the wing when air pressure is low - Bf109s and Lavochkin series had them, I think.

[MiloMorai]

niklas, notice in your photo the port slat is in the open position and is closed on the other wing.

I have seen other photos with them closed on the ground, as well as being open. There has to be some 'stickiness' ** for them to be closed when the a/c is not moving.

Now with the vibration of the engine and rolling over rough ground for take-off, any 'stickiness' in the slat operation would be overcome, causing the slats to open. That is until airspeed increased to such a speed as to close them.

imho;)

**: or friction

[Angus]

So why does a Spit IX fly with at least 2000 lbs more of a load than a 190F with only 100 extra Hp? Cl of lift or wing area or whatever, I'd like to see this explained.
Likewise, why does the Spit I equal the flying speed of the 109E at similar power output while being heavier?????????

[VO101_Isegrim]

Back on the original question, it depends on the Spit9 model. The MkIXF wasn`t a big performer, at low altitudes a 109F would climb faster and be somewhat speedier. At high altitudes, 20 000 ft and above
 I`d believe the turning would favour the Mk9, and rolling, particularly at higher speeds the 109F, tough at low-medium speeds roll performance is rahter similiar. Handling favours the 109F, having much better harmonized controls, whereas a Spit pilot had to fly with his aileron controls being excessive, whereas the elevators was so light and touchy, that a mere 3/4 inch of pull could stall the plane...
Despite that, I`d say in the horizontal plane where Spit 9s had advantage, provided it has an experienced pilot who got used to the controls. Rookie vs. Rookie, a 109 pilot could win, his plane being more noobie-friendly than his opponents

It would be the vertical plane where the Mk9 would outclassed, all Spits had lousy dives and zoom climbs, whereas 109s excelled at those. So if the usual 109 tactics of boom and zooming is followed, he has little to worry, and he only takes risk if he engages the enemy in a turnfight, which favours the Spit pilot.

Of course comparing the 109F to a Mk9LF would give the latter advantage in speed and climb, altough relative dives and zooms would change little... but I feel a little stupid to compare the mid/late-1943 Spitfire MkIXLF with the late-1940 Bf 109Fs...

[Karnak]

VO101_Isegrim,

Where do you get the data that the 109F would have the advantage in rolling?

Every test document I have ever seen indicates that once the Spitfire was given metal ailerons it out rolled the 109 at all speeds and by a good margin.

[Squire]

Angus, how is 7400lbs 2000lbs more than 6393lbs? check your math.

In addition the 109F-4s engine produced 1350hp max compared to the Spitfire F. IXs 1565hp max (Merlin 61).

[niklas]

Originally posted by Nashwan
You can have asymetrical slat deployment during sideslip, and during rolling.
So all pilots outturned by a 109 were shot down and killed?
 

If you add that little sideslip factor to your forward speed, there´s not much difference in velocity vector. In the Emil test by the RAF they mentioned free and easy going slats, Nevertheless they did not come out in all manoevering test, even with sudden rudder hits and quick rolls. Aileron deployed below 120mph, a speed that is barely reached in manoevering flights.
The problem was the "stick snatching", but this was adressed with the improved design of the F.
If RAF would have accepted that Spit can be outturned by experienced pilots, it may have saved some of their pilot lifes.

Originally posted by MiloMorai
Now with the vibration of the engine and rolling over rough ground for take-off, any 'stickiness' in the slat operation would be overcome, causing the slats to open. That is until airspeed increased to such a speed as to close them.
 

During rolling, the AoA was rather low. You could even say it was zero. Unlike the 190 the 109 pilots rose the tail as quickly as possible. Sometimes even before rolling, just using slipstream. I once saw on TV how Beauvais pulled out the inner slot of the Me262 with his hands. He definitly had to use a bit force. But  i don´t know it exactly.

Karnak, at higher speeds the 109 was definitly superior in rolling. The Spit had a rather low reversal speed of only less than 600mph. Furthermore the Naca result of the SpitV aileron test is significantly worse than that of the RAF (which is in the Naca comparison chart). The response time of a SpitV was very low, so for quick manoevers at medium speed the Spit an disadvantage. Huh, full stick deflection with 30lb stick force only below 110mph...and the force gradient was steep, 50lb won´t improve it much... A little bit like a zero, large ailerons for good slow speed manoevering, but stick forces naturally were too high at medium and high speeds.

niklas

[Guppy]

Originally posted by niklas
Karnak, at higher speeds the 109 was definitly superior in rolling. The Spit had a rather low reversal speed of only less than 600mph.

Low? I was under the impression that both the Spitfire and the 109 had dive limits of 470 mph (750 km/h).

Did the 109F improve the pilot's ability to exert leverage on the stick at high speed? The RAF's 109E test seemed to suggest that the 109 had problems with rolling at 400 mph, let alone 600.

[mw]

Karnak:  A&AEE found the 109F to roll better than the 109e and the Spit I with fabric covered ailerons, but not as good as a Spit V with metal covered ailerons.  Later Spits had shortened span ailerons to increase high speed performance as well.  It short, you're right.

Can someone time how long 109F4 has wep available?  Is it longer than 3 minutes?

[B17Skull12]

Can someone time how long 109F4 has wep available? Is it longer than 3 minutes?

if i remeber right it was 9 mins or was that the 190 but they are both around 9 mins

[B17Skull12]

flyboy there is only 1 way to slove this. i would go DA and have someone record it. that would give us a solid answer.

[Batz]

wep/boost wasnt set on a timer.

The restrictions set to limit boost were mostly maintenance related. An eng wouldnt blow up or fail if you hit 3 min 1 sec.

So who cares? In ah like all these games each time you up a plane its factory mint condition. So if you ran 10 min overboost it may mean the eng gets rebuilt sooner. Again so what?

in AH all planes are similiar. AH spits run at high boost the entire time from take to flame in.

Some one post the pw test that ran for days at high boost with out fail.

[mw]

"in AH all planes are similiar. "  
Wrong:  The Spits have wep limited to the time set forth in the pilot's notes - 5 minutes.  Of course they could run much longer in real life and often did.  Wep duration is modeled at 5 minutes if I'm not mistaken.  
 
In real life 109f was limited to 3 minutes emergency.  The sim models it significantly longer.

"So who cares?"  

Obviously anyone such as yourself not interested in good fidelity wont.