Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: MiloMorai on July 22, 2004, 02:08:17 PM
-
Since Issy has tried to derail the 109 fuel thread with non-related subject matter, here is what was posted, by Berkshire Hunt, on the Ubi-Il-2 board.
I thought I remembered reading an interview on this subject many years ago- and finally found it in a yellowed copy of Alfred Price's 'Spifire At War' (published 1974). It's germane to this discussion (as my teacher used to say) because the person being interviewed is none other than Mr Eric Newton who spent the war with the Air Accident Investigation Branch. He was still employed by them as an investigator in 1974- the time of the interview- so presumably still had the facts at his fingertips. This body was, and is, independent of the RAF.
Mr Newton was called in to investigate Spitfire crashes which could not be immediately attributed to pilot error (the same crashes which are detailed in Morgan and Shacklady). He says:
"Out of a total of 121 serious or major accidents to Spifires reported to us between the begining of 1941 and the end of the war, 68 involved structural failure in the air. Initially the most common reason for such failures, with 22 instances in 1941 and 1942, was aileron instability. The symptoms were not at all clear cut: the aircraft were usually diving at high speed when they simply fell to pieces. Only after one of the pilots had survived this traumatic experience and parachuted successfully were we able to find the cause. During his dive he saw both of his ailerons suddenly flip up, producing an extremely violent pitch- up which caused the wing to fail and the aircraft to break up. In collaboration with RAE we did a lot of tests and found that aileron up- float was made possible by stretch in the control cables; in those days tensioning was a hit or miss affair with no compensation for temperature. On our recommendation the RAF introduced a tensometer which ensured accurate tensioning of the controls; this, and the simultaneous introduction of metal surfaced ailerons ('42/'43), cured almost all the cases of aileron instability in the Spitfire.
The next most serious cause of structural failure in the Spitfire was pilots overstressing the airframe. She was extremely responsive on the controls and one must remember that in those days there was no accelerometer to tell the pilot how close he was to the limit. So it was not difficult to exceed the aircraft's 10G ultimate stress factor (what was the 109's?- Berkshire) during combat or when pulling out from a high speed dive; during the war we were able to put down 46 major accidents to this cause, though undoubtedly there were many other occasions when it happened and we did not see the wreckage. Incidentally, if there was a structural failure in the Spitfire it was almost inevitably the wing that went; the fuselage was far less likely to fail first (the same for most low wing monoplane fighters?-except the Typhoon?- Berkshire).
I once asked a very senior RAF officer why the accelerometer- technically a simple instrument- was not introduced during the war. He replied that he was sure it would have an adverse effect on the fighting spirit of the pilots (same was said re the parachute in WW1!- Berkshire).
Whether that would have been so I cannot say. But I do know that when they finally introduced the accelerometer into service in the Hunter in 1954, and began educating the pilots on structural limitations and the dangers of overstressing, accidents to this cause virtually ceased.
After structural failure the next largest category of accidents proved on investigation to have followed loss of control by the pilot (36 cases). Of these 20 occured in cloud and could be put down to pilot error; one must remember that in the rush to get pilots operational instrument training was not up to peacetime standards.
A further 13 accidents were shown to have been caused by oxygen starvation; the oxygen system had been used incorrectly with the result that the pilot had passed out and the aircraft had crashed. As a result of our investigations the system was modified to make it easier to operate.
The remaining 3 accidents in the loss of control category were initiated by the pilot pulling excessive G and blacking himself out.
Engine failures and fires contributed a further 17 accidents, and the remainder could be put down under the 'miscellaneous' heading (long story here about fuel leaks and explosions on the ground- Berkshire)
As I have mentioned we investigated a total of 121 Spitfire accidents during the war. The causes did not always fit simply into neat categories mentioned above. For example, a pilot might lose control in cloud and his aircraft then broke up in the ensuing dive due to aileron instability- in that case the accident would have been listed under two categories. There were one or two accidents caused by the light- weight plastic bucket seats fitted to some batches of Spitfires. The trouble was they were not strong enough and if there was a heavy pilot who pulled a bit of G they tended to collapse- on to the elevator control runs which ran underneath. We soon had that type of seat replaced.
In the nature of my work I tend to concentrate on an aircraft's failings and ignore its good points; but how safe was the Spitfire? I think the figures speak for themselves; a total of more than 22,000 were built, and we were called in on only 130 occasions- and in not all of those was the Spitfire at fault. If one considers that she was not a simple trainer built for ease of handling, there can be no doubt that the Spifire was a remarkably safe little aircraft."
To summarise:
There were 121 Spitfire crash investigations between 1941 and May 1945 involving serious structural failure:
22 aileron instability
46 pilot overstressed airframe
20 pilot error in cloud
13 misuse of oxygen system- pilot error
3 pilot blacked out
17 engine failure/fire
(22,000 produced)
I shall refrain from calculating percentages to show what an incredibly low percentage of Spitfires were destroyed by structural failure/ engine failure for the reason outlined by Mr Newton. Nevertheless, there is absolutely nothing here to suggest that the Spitfire had some kind of endemic weakness.
-
I really don`t want to waste much time on a 3rd rate cretin that is generally ignored on all forums as a result of his behaviour.
I just wish to respond to the part where the blending of truth and lies began.
Only 121 accidents involving the Spitfire during the war? I guess not even Naswhan would believe such sillyness. Obviously the guy Mindless Moron quoted from intentionally wanted to blurr together the total number of Spit accidents and the number of incidents reported to a single guy. Cheap trick, good to fool people in the kindergarten. But even when just tipping the top of the iceberg, we a lot more.
From Spitfire, History :
When the tail unit failed on a Spitfire, it often sheared off at fuselage frame No. 19. In 1942, an official at RAE Farnborough noted that out of 36 Spitfire accidents, the tail unit had broken off in flight during 24 of these mishaps.By 1944, the Spitfire was often used in the fighter-bomber role and it was reported that the engine mounting U frames had frequently buckled in dive pullouts. About 35 Spitfires from Biggin Hill Wing were found to have this fault.
Funny that S:H mentions alone 36 structural failures suffered alone to the cause of a weak tail unit.
The below partial, and far from complete list is well known.
---------------------------------------
Mar 39...Mk I....K9838...Structural failure in dive.
Jan 41...Mk I....N3191...Both wings broke off in dive.
Jul 41...Mk I....X4354...Port wing broke off in dive.
Aug 41...Mk I....X4381...Starboard wing broke off in dive.
Mar 41...Mk I....X4421...Both wings broke off in dive pullout.
Jul 41...Mk I....X4662...Stbd wing broke off in dive pullout.
Jun 41...Mk I....X4680...Wings/tail broke off in dive pullout.
Nov 42...Mk I....X4621...Failed to recover from dive.
Apr 43...Mk II...P7352...Broke up in dive.
Sep 41...Mk II...P7522...Both wings broke off in dive.
Jun 43...Mk V....BL531...Both wings broke off in dive.
Feb 42...Mk V....AA876...Disintegrated in dive.
Jul 43...Mk V....BL389...Pilot thrown from aircraft in dive.
Jan 43...Mk IX...BS251...Structural failure in dive.
May 43...Mk IX...BS385...Structural failure in dive.
Aug 43...Mk IX...BS441...Disintegrated in dive.
Oct 46...Mk IX...PL387...Disintegrated in dive.
Jan 48...Mk XVI..SL724...Crashed after recovery from dive.
Sep 48...Mk XVI..TD119...Crashed after recovery from dive.
Aug 42...Mk I....N3284...Broke up in flight.
Aug 41...Mk I....N3286...Broke up in flight.
Sep 40...Mk I....P9546...Structural failure in flight.
May 42...Mk I....P9309...Lost wing in flight.
Apr 43...Mk I....X4234...Lost wing in spin.
Sep 42...Mk I....P9322...Broke up in flight.
Aug 43...Mk I....R6706...Aileron failure which led to crash.
Jan 43...Mk I....X4854...Starboard wing broke off in flight.
Nov 40...Mk II...P7593...Stbd wing and tail broke off in flight.
Dec 41...Mk II...P8183...Port wing broke off in flight.
Jun 42...Mk II...P8644...Starboard wing broke off in flight.
May 41...Mk II...N8245...Structural failure in flight.
Feb 44...Mk II...P7911...Flap failure which led to crash.
Sep 42...Mk V....AD555...Flap failure which led to crash.
Mar 44...Mk V....BL303...Flap failure which led to crash.
Dec 41...Mk V....BL407...Structural failure suspected.
Jun 42...Mk V....AB172...Structural failure in flight.
Mar 43...Mk V....AA970...Structural failure in flight.
Jun 43...Mk V....BL290...Port wing broke off in flight.
May 43...Mk V....BR627...Port wing failed in spin.
Oct 41...Mk IV...AA801...Structural failure in flight.
Feb 43...Mk IX...BS404...Structural failure in spin.
Feb 45...Mk IX...MH349...Wing failed during aerobatics.(pg.318)
Sep 46...Mk IX...MJ843...Port wing, tailplane broke off in loop.
Apr 43...Mk V....EP335...Wings, fuselage, tail, damaged in dive.(pg.63)
Jul 42...Mk VI...AB200...Wings buckled in dive at 450mph IAS.
Apr 44...Mk IX...MA308...Wings severely buckled around cannons.(pg.63)
Feb 44...Mk XI...EN409...Many wing rivets failed in dive.(pg.389)
Apr 44...Mk XI...EN409...Prop/gear broke off at 427mph IAS.(pg.389,399)
Nov 44...Mk IX...MH692...Tail section damaged in dive.(pg.318)
One has to be really bind to go by such small details, but some people manage to.
This alone, and the data about the tailplane failures show how many more Spits were lost in structural failure accidents, than is willing to be admitted by Spit fans like Berkshirehunt. Simply for these people reality does not exist, the Spit was best in everything, no problems at all. Routinely I can see statements from a certain Spit fan that the Spitfire would not overheat at all, or the new one, which seems to be it would left anything behind in a dive. I guess in BS-hunt`s dreamland, the 'safest fighter of all times' line, is also added.
I say it`s their choice what they want to believe in. This crap, or the historical reality, which sadly also includes years of investigation why structural failures occur, banning of dive bombing sorties, buckling wings in dive bombings and so on. I guess no fighter was free from structural defects, but it`s historical combat report hardly makes the Spit to be on the safe, or tough airframe side. Oddly enough, at the same time, quite a few restrictions were imposed on it - only small sized bombs could be carried, 'heavy bombload' (=less than 500kg..) missions were to be only flown from well prepeared smooth runways, carrier-borne versions virtually managed to knock themselves out with a hughe number of landing gear and airframe failures during landings etc. But reality never bothered dreamers too much.
-
You are not ignored because of your NAZI Germany is uber BS you continually try to push on everyone.
Still with that reading disability Barbi? Seems so. Re-read what was written several times more so you do not continue to embarrass yourself.
"Out of a total of 121 serious or major accidents to Spifires reported to us (so Barbi notices) between the begining of 1941 and the end of the war"
Now where does it say Only 121 accidents involving the Spitfire during the war?? Improve you reading skills Barbi
You are an expert at blending truth with outright lies. But what else is expected from an ambulance chaser. :) These are grouped with politicians and bankers.
Does not tail failure not fall in the category 'structual failure'? BH in his post, list 46.:eek:
Your outright hatred for the Spitfire truely clouds your judgement, that is if you were really capable of any judgement.
Are you sure you are not describing your atitude towards the Messicrap;) 109 in the last 2 paragraphs?
-
Originally posted by MiloMorai
You are not ignored because of your NAZI Germany is uber BS you continually try to push on everyone.
Leave the politics out of this. And wipe the spittle from your face, while you're at it. :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by phookat
Leave the politics out of this. And wipe the spittle from your face, while you're at it. :rolleyes:
Nothing political at all. All that Nazi Germany produced during WW2, Barbi considers superior (uber) to what ever was produced by other countries.:) :p
If I had meant pre or post Nazi Germany, Nazi would not have been put in. :) Well might have said pre-nazi or post nazi.
That spittle I have to wipe off my face, is that the spittle Barbi adorned me with? Missed his personnel insults, did you? :rolleyes:
Have an nice day now.:)
-
Originally posted by VO101_Isegrim
I really don`t want to waste much time on a 3rd rate cretin that is generally ignored on all forums as a result of his behaviour.
I just wish to respond to the part where the blending of truth and lies began.
I hate to even step in this one, but your anti Spit bias is way too strong Ingrim.
You find the stats that fit what you want to believe and forget the ones that don't work.
None of the fighters of WW2 were without failings. But as the Spit and 109 were in production from before the war to the end, I'd suggest that in itself that speaks to the strength and quality of the aircraft.
That either could compete with the best of the rest at the end, also speaks to this.
We did the Spits carry bombs thread already and I posted numerous photos of Spits carrying 1000 pounds of bombs from rough airfields. That's old news.
So you go and take whatever German kite you like and enjoy it, but give the Spit was a worthless piece of crap aircraft line a rest will ya. It gets old.
You can enjoy the history of all aircraft without having to take sides. As I've said before I'm a Spit fanatic from long before computer flight sims, but I like 109s as well. I don't have to take sides.
And quit biting on Milo's rants. He trolled you well this time
Dan/Slack
-
Guppy, what rant???
"Since Issy has tried to derail the 109 fuel thread with non-related subject matter, here is what was posted, by Berkshire Hunt, on the Ubi-Il-2 board."
This is a rant?
As for the 2cd post, I am not as diplomatic as you.;) I don't beat around the bush giving a spade some flowery name and even this post (2cd) I would not consider a rant.
-
Originally posted by MiloMorai
Guppy, what rant???
"Since Issy has tried to derail the 109 fuel thread with non-related subject matter, here is what was posted, by Berkshire Hunt, on the Ubi-Il-2 board."
This is a rant?
As for the 2cd post, I am not as diplomatic as you.;) I don't beat around the bush giving a spade some flowery name and even this post (2cd) I would not consider a rant.
OK Rant was maybe the wrong word :)
But you know as well as I that all you have to do is say "Spitfire" and Isegrim is going to get worked up.
Dan/Slack
-
Originally posted by Guppy35
OK Rant was maybe the wrong word :)
But you know as well as I that all you have to do is say "Spitfire" and Isegrim is going to get worked up.
Dan/Slack
Thats for sure he gets all worked up and goes on a rant.:D Like a bull seeing the red cape of the matador. Now if he sees Spitfire and my name together, he goes berserker.:D
-
Originally posted by MiloMorai
Nothing political at all. All that Nazi Germany produced during WW2, Barbi considers superior (uber) to what ever was produced by other countries.:) :p
I don't seen that here. Maybe there's some history, whatever. Mainly what I see here over the past few days is that you're getting owned. Piece of advice-- cool off, or let the other Spit guys speak in your stead.
-
5% of 109's were lost ONLY in takeoff/landing accidents.
That makes ummmm.....roughly 1500 aircraft...
+
Oh, how about giving Issy a ticket to Duxford, then he can watch Spitties while flying ;)
Not to mention doing impossible low level aerobatics......
-
Originally posted by Angus
5% of 109's were lost ONLY in takeoff/landing accidents.
That makes ummmm.....roughly 1500 aircraft...
[/b]
Is this counts as a lot, Angus? I doubt that. USAAF and RAF statistics show roughly half of the total losses are made up by accidents.
The British lost some 1900-odd fighters during the Battle of Britain, but only some 950 or so were lost in combat. The rest was written down in accidents, of which I have no doubt the vast majority were take-off/landing ones, considering that`s the most risky manouver for any plane to perform.
You know I really wonder how many Spitties were lost in landings. That 5% figure, wherever it comes from (as there`s no definietive source for this anywhere), doesn`t seem to be anything special to me. Luckily enough, the 109 had much wider undercarriage than the Spit, you know that. ;)
Oh, how about giving Issy a ticket to Duxford, then he can watch Spitties while flying ;)
Not to mention doing impossible low level aerobatics......
[/b]
I think this is a very constructive idea. :D
-
"109 had much wider undercarriage than the Spit, you know that."
Doesn't look that way to me, but I'll measure it next time I see them ;)
Look very similar really....
-
Track width, 2.0-2.1m on Bf 109F-K.
Was about 1.6m on the Spitty IIRC.
Anyway, 'wide' is a bit of an odd wording in both cases. ;)
BTW, I don`t know what manouvers the Spitty could perform at low level, but surely not the ones that Messerscmitt`s 105 can. ;)
-
phookat, better improve your history. Oh, and get some reading glasses.:p ;)
............
Angus, Issy said the truth about the 109s track, it was slightly wider. But, what hurt the 109 was its l/g geometry. Once the 109 touched down, the toe-in, if only one wheel was in contact, would cause a ground loop if the pilot was not very quick, and even then, could still be in 'trouble'. If the ground loop was violent enough the 109 could turn 'turtle'' trapping the pilot in the cockpit. A damaged, inverted a/c is not a nice place to be trapped with a fuel tank just above.
The Spitfire's track was closer to 1.8m, not 1.6m.
I would like to know what this (quote) "Messerscmitt`s 105" is.
Now phookat, notice how Issy puts up some numbers for RAF fighter losses (total - all causes) during BoB but fails to give us what the LW fighter losses (total - all causes) were during BoB for comparison. He includes all fighters, but this thread is about Spitfires (and now 109s). Just another case of his attempting mis-direction and skewing facts in trying to prove how uber Germany was.
-
Well, the 109 has its UC mounted on the Fuselage while the Spitty has them on the wings, so the 109 spreads them to get them as far out as possible. Clever.
But the 109K has a wider UC than most of them right?
Anyway, I have it straight from an old German Ace who flew 109's as well as testing several allied types, that the Landing of the Allied types were very pleasant, and the Cockpit of the 109 was the worst of them all, even worse than the Spitty....
Ground looping in the 109 would BTW normally kill the pilot.
The low level aerobatics I refer to I have seen. Spitty taking off going straight into a loop, and also very high loops ("0" shaped) with recovery right above the ground, consequtively. Never seen any warbird do that at all in that manner, and following the pattern would even be a tough one for a normal aerobatics plane (well, a lighter one, the acceleration in the dive was quite impressive)
Strange....
-
Oh, what's a 105 and what's a phookat???
-
Hmm, I am moderator on the forum of my favourite band. Not really comparable to this of course, but things get out of hand there too sometimes.
If this kind of thing would happen there, this thread would be deleted and the 'gentlemen' who insult each other here would be banned indefinitely.
I love the game, I love WWII aviation, heck I even love to read old documents about it! I love the Spitfire and the 109, both excellent examples of their kind with a very long and distinguished service record from long before until even longer after the war. This both makes them contenders for greatest fighter of all time, and speaks volumes about how good they both were.
Come one guys, act mature and state publicly that both the 109 and Spit were excellent aircraft and both had weaknesses. You both want one of them so DESPERATELY to be the best that it is not slightly amusing anymore, it's downright obsessive, sick even.
In general the 109 and the Spitfire were always competitive with each other, right though the war. Both parties continuously tried to wring the best out of them with refinements on all fronts. Sure, some were better than others but in AH at least they are all pretty well matched.
I have seen Spits fly and saw many 109's as well 'in the flesh'. Can't it just be enough to admire the men who built, designed and flew them and take your hat off for those who died in them, whether their cause was wrong or right? Guess not
-
Originally posted by MiloMorai
Now phookat, notice how Issy puts up some numbers for RAF fighter losses (total - all causes) during BoB but fails to give us what the LW fighter losses (total - all causes) were during BoB for comparison. He includes all fighters, but this thread is about Spitfires (and now 109s). Just another case of his attempting mis-direction and skewing facts in trying to prove how uber Germany was.
No, it's not. I don't know where you're getting this stuff. Mr. Angus didn't bring up the Spit figures either, gee I guess he must be a real scumbag. Why not just ask nicely for the figures, if you don't have them yourself? You would have more credibility, and then some kind of meaningful discussion might take place.
Angus-- it's a toejamit.
-
Now where does it say Only 121 accidents involving the Spitfire during the war??
[/b]
Milo
In the nature of my work I tend to concentrate on an aircraft's failings and ignore its good points; but how safe was the Spitfire? I think the figures speak for themselves; a total of more than 22,000 were built, and we were called in on only 130 occasions- and in not all of those was the Spitfire at fault. If one considers that she was not a simple trainer built for ease of handling, there can be no doubt that the Spifire was a remarkably safe little aircraft."
To summarise:
There were 121 Spitfire crash investigations between 1941 and May 1945 involving serious structural failure:
22 aileron instability
46 pilot overstressed airframe
20 pilot error in cloud
13 misuse of oxygen system- pilot error
3 pilot blacked out
17 engine failure/fire
(22,000 produced)
I shall refrain from calculating percentages to show what an incredibly low percentage of Spitfires were destroyed by structural failure/ engine failure for the reason outlined by Mr Newton. Nevertheless, there is absolutely nothing here to suggest that the Spitfire had some kind of endemic weakness.
They guy you quoted is clearly implying that since they only investigated 121 instances that it proves
what an incredibly low percentage of Spitfires were destroyed by structural failure/ engine failure
So you may not like Isegrim but he called you correctly on this one.
-
When the accident happened over the channel, was this guy called and dived to the wreck some doozen yards below the water?
Was he always called to every accident? Where did they know whether it was a structural failure? Only if it could be observed, correct?
To be called to 121 accidents doesn´t mean that only 121 true accidents happened.
And when for moral reasons no accelorator indicator were installed, you can be sure that they tried to keep the accidents as much secret as possible.
niklas
-
I do not see the accidents caused by c of g instability. They were not that many, and the Supermarine works got on the matter very quickly so that may explain it.
The cure came rather quickly, the mechanical one that is, and the dynamic one came almost instantly, i.e. how to react once the thing started happening.
Now my landing/takeoff accident count was more of a teaser for Barbi, just couldn't resist :D
I have no figures for Spitfires in that category. However, some pilots were surprized to find out that once one got the hang of it, the Spitty was easier to land than i.e. some trainers used before, for example the Harvard!
Getting back to the topic of structural failiure, the Spitty was however an amazing aircraft and could handle quite a lot of pressure. The wing, which would be the first thing to break, was still a very strong unit, and flexible (before eventually breaking) as well.
-
Someone here said the Spit's wings had a 10G breaking point. The 109 was designed to survive 12G's ... of course it's a lot easier for the Spit to achieve 10G's than for a 109 to achieve 12.
-
I have read one account of a 109E breaking both wings while recovering from a dive in which a Spitty was following and recovered from.
The 109's were 2, the other one compressed and hit the sea.
Early Spits up to Mk V had 10G as listed. Later designs were a good bit stronger. Not that it mattered much though.
I am reading up on sustainable G loads now (without loosing alt), I'll give you a little text on it later.
(Interesting stuff alarm!!!!)
-
Early 109Es had a problem with wing breakage in high-speed dives, but the problem was soon fixed.
-
Sustainable G loads is not the problem, it's the instantaneous loads that kill inexperienced pilots.
-
We did the Spits carry bombs thread already and I posted numerous photos of Spits carrying 1000 pounds of bombs from rough airfields. That's old news.
Could you name that thread :) ?
-
Originally posted by VooDoo
Could you name that thread :) ?
Was this one:
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=105441&highlight=Spitfire
I had the images in the photo hanger but moved em out to save space as I was using up my allotted amount. I'll be happy to post em here again if that will help. You can see the posts where I quote the Spit drivers on carrying that weight in bombs and where I had the photos in there.
Dan/Slack
Heck with it. Reloaded them to picture hanger. here they be.
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/169_1090652232_bombfireix.jpg)
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/169_1090652259_bombfireix2.jpg)
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/169_1090652284_bombfireix3.jpg)
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/169_1090652305_bomfireix4.jpg)
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/169_1090652323_74sqdnlfixerockets.jpg)
-
Thanks alot ! And I have a 1 more question in that thread.
-
Too bad none of these pictures shows rough airfields. Read the Spitty 9 manual, Spittys are forbidden to use that 1000lbs loadout from anywhere else than well prepeared hard surface fields. Moreover, they were forbidden to land with that weight, max. extra load to land with was one 500lbs bomb, or equivalnt.
FYI, 109s did reguarly carried out missions with 1100lbs external load from Norway down to South Africa.
Ie. 1x300lit DT + 2x20mm gunpods was very common thing to be seen on 109s. The DT should weigt ~250 kg, the gunpods weighted 235kg, loaded.
Or, in case of (armed) recce G-4s, 2x300lit DT was carried under the wings, again 500kg, no restrictions of from where to take off or how to land.
The G-2/R1 config, 1x500kg, plus two DTs. That`s 2000lbs, even though it was experimental only.
And it tells a lot about the strenght of the wing on 109, that the diving limitations were exactly the same with the 517lbs weighting gunpods under the wings as clean (527mph IAS).
Can we see a reference to that 10 G max. load factor of the Spit?
-
The mention of the 10G limit was in the first post in this thread.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
The mention of the 10G limit was in the first post in this thread.
Ah, I see. Appearantly that 10G is kindofa 'breaking point' for the airframe, not a 'safe' load factor. It seemed awfully high to be of the latter kind.
What I know for 109s, there was some testing of that, I think HoHun posted the details a while ago.
-
The 109s could take 12Gs before breaking.
-
Two Spitfire wing were tested, one failed at 12.3 G, one at 13 G. Spitfire The History, p57
-
Flying Limitations of the Spitfire IX (from Pilot's Notes)
Maximum speeds in m.p.h I.A.S.
Diving (without external stores), corresponding to a Mach No. of -85:
Between S.L. and 20,000 ft. -450
20,000 and 25,000 ft. -430
25,000 and 30,000 ft. -390
30,000 and 35,000 ft. -340
Above ..................35,000 ft. -310
Flying Limitations of the Me 109 G (From Technical Instructions of the Generalluftzeugmeister, Berlin, 28th August 1942.)
Reference Me 109 - wing breakages. Owing to continually recurring accidents caused by wing breakages in Me 109 aircraft attention is drawn to the following:
.......(1) The maximum permissible indicated airspeeds in the different heights are not being observed and are widely exceeded. On the basis of evidence which is now available the speed limitations ordered by teleprint message GL/6 No. 2428/41 of 10.6.41 are cancelled and replaced by the following data:
Up to 3 km (9,842 ft.) 750 km/h. (466 m.p.h.)
At 5 km (16,404 ft) 700 km/h. (435 m.p.h.)
At 7 km (22,965 ft) 575 km/h. (357 m.p.h.)
At 9 km (29,527 ft) 450 km/h. (280 m.p.h.)
At 11 km (36,089 ft) 400 km/h. (248 m.p.h.)
.......These limitations are valid for the time being for all building series including the Me 109 G. A corresponding notice is to be placed upon all air-speed indicators in aircraft.
.......(2) Yawing in a dive leads to high one-sided wing stresses which, under certain circumstances, the wing tip cannot support. When a yawing condition is recognised the dive is to be broken off without exercising force. In a flying condition of yawing and turning at the same time correction must be made with the rudder and not the ailerons. The condition of wing tips is to be examined and checked with TAGL. Bf 109 Nos. 5/41 and 436/41.
.......(3) Unintentional unlocking of the undercarriage in a dive leads also - especially if only one side unlocks - to high wing stresses. Observation and the carrying out of TAGL. No. 11/42 and the following numbers is, therefore specially important.
Note. Trouble has been experienced owing to undercarriage unlocking in a dive and a modification has been brought out to prevent this.
.......The dive speed limits listed above are also to be found in Vorläufige Fluggenehmigung BF 109 G-2 and G-6
Dive limitations from: Bf 109 G-2, G-4, G-6 Bedienungsvorschrift, June 1943 edition
.......Dive: Adjust trim in such a way that the airplane can be held in a dive. The elevator forces and tailplane loads become great at high speeds. The tailplane adjustment must work perfectly; otherwise shifting of the tailplane is possible.
Sturzflug: Trimming so einstellen daß das Flugzeug durch Drücken im Sturzflug gehalten werden kann. Die Höhenruderkräfte und Flossenbelastungen werden bei hoher Fahrt sehr groß. Hemmung der Flossen verstellung muß einwandfrei arbeiten; sonst ist Selbst verstellung der Flosse möglich.
.......Maximum diving speed 750 km/h. Hard aileron manipulation while diving leads to failure, particularly when pulling out. Höchstzulässige Sturzfluggeschwindigkeit 750 km/h. Harte querruder betätigung im Sturz und besonders beim Abfangen führt zum Bruch.
http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/spit9v109g.html
Mach .89 Spit (http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/SD%2011.jpg) Thanks Neil!
-
Dive speed table from the handbook:
It is the same table for all the FW's from the A-1 to the A-9 Jabo or Jager. There is a second table which reflects the same as the 109 depending on the AIRSPEED indicatior.
0-2 km - 850 kph
3 km - 800 kph
5 km - 700 kph
7 km - 600 kph
9 km - 500 kph
Below 5 KM ASL the FW-190 was faster in a dive up to a max of around 50 mph. At 29,527 feet the Spitfire Mk IX had a 30 mph speed advantage once it overcame the FW's initial dive acceleration.
Keep in mind too that the RLM left it up to the manufacturer to test dive speeds. Very few high speed trials were conducted. The 109 and the 110 are the only two Luftwaffe A/C I can say for sure had trials done. Both test pilots recieved 10000 Reichmarks for the test dives at a time when a loaf of bread cost .02 Pfenning.
Crumpp
Crumpp
-
109 F/G dive trials. Comparison of safe dive speed limits in 1943.
(http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/109/testdive_vs_divelimits.jpg)
The officially laid down dive limit could be exceeded by 200 km/h IAS in these tests w/o an damage to the aircraft.
Underlined by the combat experience of US pilot Robert C. Curtis :
"My flight chased 12 109s south of Vienna. They climbed and we followed, unable to close on them. At 38,000 feet I fired a long burst at one of them from at least a 1000 yards, and saw some strikes. It rolled over and dived and I followed but soon reached compressibility with severe buffeting of the tail and loss of elevator control. I slowed my plane and regained control, but the 109 got away.
On two other occasions ME 109s got away from me because the P 51d could not stay with them in a high-speed dive. At 525-550 mph the plane would start to porpoise uncontrollably and had to be slowed to regain control. The P 51 was redlined at 505 mph, meaning that this speed should not be exceeded. But when chasing 109s or 190s in a dive from 25-26,000 it often was exceeded, if you wanted to keep up with those enemy planes. The P 51b, and c, could stay with those planes in a dive. The P 51d had a thicker wing and a bubble canopy which changed the airflow and brought on compressibility at lower speeds"
Butch2k:
"109 wing torsion is similiar to what could be found in US fighter planes. No aileron reversal at high speed, which came as a suprise to US engineers in charge of evaluation the 109 aerodynamic properties."
Guppy35
"No question that the 2 250 pounders and 1 500 pounder was used extensively pre and post D-Day. 453 RAAF Squadron and 602 Squadrons were doing this pre-D-Day and many of the IX and XVI squadrons on the continent were flying ground support in this configuration.
One of the problems at the time was if the bomb did not seperate from the plane. Spits were losing wings that way. "
Bf 109 K dive limits from K-4 Handbuch.
(http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/109/109k4-divelimits.jpg)
Notice the the dive limits are the same, 527 mph, with underwing cannon gondolas weighting over 500 lbs, or clean.
For comparison, Spitfire Mk XIV maximum dive limits (w/o external stores) :
Between S.L. and 20,000 ft. - 470 mph
20,000 and 25,000 ft. - 430 mph
25,000 and 30,000 ft. - 390 mph
30,000 and 35,000 ft. - 340 mph
Banning of dive bombing operations on the Spitfire Mk VIII, due to structural weakness, 14th August 1945 :
"Signal T.783 from RAAFHQ advising due to defect reported from overseas spitfire Mk 8 a/c are not to be used on operations involving dive bombing or low attack."
http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/FvsF/7-diveprohibition.jpg
http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/FvsF/9-MkVIIIdive-restriction.jpg
-
I give. THe Spit was a lousy airplane, that every pilot who ever flew hated. It never shot down anything. It didn't accomplish one mission it ever set out to do.
It was weakly built with one of the worst engines ever made.
The Luftwaffe won the war without the loss of a single aircraft.
Happy now? :)
Dan/Slack
-
Never said the Spitty was a lousy plane, or a bad aircraft.
IMHO it`s the only thing ~equal/closest to the 109 in ETO.
Just for the record. Oh, and BTW, reverse your post and you got what Mr. Mike Williams is thinking/propagating with questionable means.
-
Originally posted by VO101_Isegrim
Never said the Spitty was a lousy plane, or a bad aircraft.
IMHO it`s the only thing ~equal/closest to the 109 in ETO.
Just for the record. Oh, and BTW, reverse your post and you got what Mr. Mike Williams is thinking/propagating with questionable means.
OK then get something straight. What they did with combat aircraft from both sides during the war often as routine exceeded the manuals.
Go check up on the bombers guys. They routinely took off far over max weight because the mission demanded it, and in wartime the risks involved in exceeding the manual were worth it.
As for Spits. You'll have to define a rough airfield for me then. Those Spits are operating from PSP fields, put up by the engineers on the continent. They were not concrete runways.
Keep in mind that because of that as the Spit IX/XVI was moved into the ground attack role, the wing was strengthened in particular because of the addition of the wing hard points. This was of course in the 44-45 time frame not 42-43
Clarifying it better. The strengthend wing was obviously the "E" Wing. As you can see in the photos, the Spits with the three bombs on seperate hardpoints are E wings.
The wing failures when bombs failed to come off, were pre D-Day with Spit IXs using Universal wings, as in those with the 2 20mm and 4 303s.
You don't see E Wing Spits until right after D-Day for the most part.
Dan/Slack
-
Originally posted by VO101_Isegrim
Never said the Spitty was a lousy plane, or a bad aircraft.
IMHO it`s the only thing ~equal/closest to the 109 in ETO.
Just for the record. Oh, and BTW, reverse your post and you got what Mr. Mike Williams is thinking/propagating with questionable means.
Forgot to reverse the post.
The Spitfire was a great airplane, that was loved by the pilots who flew it. It shot down a lot of enemy planes and accomplished the missions it set out to do.
It was well built, with one of the best engines ever made.
The Luftwaffe lost the war and all their aircraft.
What part of that statement isn't true? :)
Dan/Slack
-
Originally posted by Guppy35
Forgot to reverse the post.
The Spitfire was a great airplane, that was loved by the pilots who flew it. It shot down a lot of enemy planes and accomplished the missions it set out to do.
It was well built, with one of the best engines ever made.
The Luftwaffe lost the war and all their aircraft.
What part of that statement isn't true? :)
Dan/Slack
Nothing is wrong with that statement, it is true. So is this one:
The 109 was a great airplane, that was loved by the pilots who flew it. It shot down more planes than any other fighter in history.
It was well built, with one of the best engines ever made.
The Luftwaffe did not lose the war and all their aircraft because their aircraft were inferior.
-
The Luftwaffe lost the fight.
Not a quality issue though.
-
They didn't loose the fight to the Spitfire, that's for sure. LW pilots ran up huge kills against Spits. Both in the 109 and 190 over Western Europe and NA. Hell, look at Deippe where the allies had numbers over JG 2 and JG 26,
Here count umm up...
http://fw190.hobbyvista.com/dieppevictories.htm
If LW planes were deficient or bettered by Spit engineering then what does that say about the Spitfire pilots? If there aircraft was so good you think it would stand out. The 109 was more then a match for the Spitfire.
Priller shot down 69 Spitfires alone.
Here's a list of the top Spit killers:
http://www.luftwaffe.cz/spit.html
Germany lost the war but not at the exclusive hands of Spitfire pilots.
So yeah the LW lost. It took the combined strength of the VVS-RKKA and the USAAF to achieve this.
-
(http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/109/109k4-divelimits.jpg)
Is this IAS or TAS?
BTW,
The porposing issue with the P-51D was resolved by the use of a dorsal fin. The same occured in the P-47 when switching to the bubble canopy.
What is the critical mach of the 109K?
-
Pretty sure that is IAS. A 109F2 WrkN 9228 flown by Heinrich Beauvais reached 906 TAS which comes out to around 750 IAS (mach .80). Makes sense the 109K could outdive the 109F2.
Crumpp
-
As I understand the definition of critical mach varied. Critical mach is not the same as maxium achievable mach or as maximum tactical mach.
Just comparing factory limits can lead to inaccurrate conclusions.
Critical mach number of fighters like the P51, Spit, 109 and 190 was around .75, while it was around .70 for the P-47D and around .65 for the P-38.
Maximum achievable mach was about .73 for the P-47D (without dive flaps) and .79 for the 109.
Tango and Hohun discussed Critical Mach in several threads. The info in my reply comes from these threads.
-
The officially laid down dive limit could be exceeded by 200 km/h IAS in these tests w/o an damage to the aircraft.
I don't think it could Barbi. I believe you are confusing IAS with TAS.
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Nothing is wrong with that statement, it is true. So is this one:
The 109 was a great airplane, that was loved by the pilots who flew it. It shot down more planes than any other fighter in history.
It was well built, with one of the best engines ever made.
The Luftwaffe did not lose the war and all their aircraft because their aircraft were inferior.
And therin lies the seemingly unconquerable problem with these threads. Somehow, liking Spits for example, to some means that that person must hate 109s.
Having an interest in both is not impossible.
But again, somehow it becomes this big debate about which was better.
They both did their job, were respected by their foes, appreciated by their pilots and were well built with quality powerplants.
So there!
I like em both.
Dan/Slack
-
Originally posted by Wotan
They didn't loose the fight to the Spitfire, that's for sure. LW pilots ran up huge kills against Spits. Both in the 109 and 190 over Western Europe and NA. Hell, look at Deippe where the allies had numbers over JG 2 and JG 26,
Here count umm up...
http://fw190.hobbyvista.com/dieppevictories.htm
If LW planes were deficient or bettered by Spit engineering then what does that say about the Spitfire pilots? If there aircraft was so good you think it would stand out. The 109 was more then a match for the Spitfire.
Priller shot down 69 Spitfires alone.
Here's a list of the top Spit killers:
http://www.luftwaffe.cz/spit.html
Germany lost the war but not at the exclusive hands of Spitfire pilots.
So yeah the LW lost. It took the combined strength of the VVS-RKKA and the USAAF to achieve this.
Relax Wotan. No one said that the LW lost the war to the Spitfire alone. No one said that the 109 was a hunk of junk.
I merely responded to the statement isigrim made about reversing my original statement.
Jeez you guys. They were both good aircraft. Relax for heaven's sake. You'd think I'd insulted your mother.
Dan/Slack
-
Is this IAS or TAS?
Judging by the title it's IAS. However, 800 km/h IAS at 11 km is around mach 1.4, at a guess. (don't have the stuff to check it now)
-
No, 800 kmh is a little less than 0.8M. Kmh is easy that way. 1M is just over 1000 kmh (Edit: at 30,000 feet)
-
That Bf 109K dive chart is for "Fahtmesser höhenkompensiert" ie the speed meter had compensation for altitude. In practice this means that these values are not comparable with normal IAS values (except at sea level).
Regarding g limits, people are mixing things here quite badly. Most WWII fighters were originally designed for breaking load factors well over 10g and safe load factors were normally around 6-8g (depending on standard) at given weight. As an example the Mustang was originally designed for safe load factor 8g at weight 8000lbs with safety coefficien 1,5 ie the breaking load factor was 12g. At higher weight load factors are naturally lower; the weight of the Mustang (just like weight of the Spitfire and Bf 109) raised during production for various reasons, therefore safe load factor decraesed and but It should be noted that the planes rarely reached their safe limits in practice. In the case of the Bf 109 the airframe was strenghtened several times after last major redesign (Bf 109F) and same is certainly true for the Spitfire.
The dive limits had nothing directly to do with max loading factors. The main limit was critical mach number ie the mach number were the compressibility effects started (buffeting, porpoising, dutch roll or what ever). In the test conditions many planes certainly reached higher mach numbers, as an example that Bf 109 which reached mach 0,8 was not a standard plane but a Bf 109F/G hybrid with revised aileron throw and ejection seat. The test pilot, Lukas Schmid (see "Test Pilots" by Wolfgang Späte ), noted that without revised aileron throw he would have probaly died; the Bf 109 developed strong dutch roll motion above it's critical mach number which is about mach 0,76 according to German documentation and that fits also quite nicely to it's dive limits.
Regarding aileron reversal speeds, according to DVL tests the Bf 109F had aileron reversal speed about 1000km/h at 3km (about 620mph at 10k). As for comparison RAE tests give:
Fw 190 750mph
Mustang I 850mph
Mustang III 880mph
Spitfire V 580mph (standard wing)
Spitfire V 660mph (clipped wing)
Typhoon 740mph
gripen
-
The last major redesign of the 109 was the G, not the F. There were significant structural changes made, both to strengthen the airframe and to increase production.
-
Gripen,
Do you have a copy of these test? I would like to see them.
Thanks.
Crumpp
-
GScholz,
Main differences from the structural viewpoint between the Bf 109G and F were just thickness of the materials and reinforcements in the critical points (namely around wheels in the wings), the F-4 being closer the G-2 than F-2.
Crumpp,
The numbers are mostly from the RAE 1231, for the rest you should be just patient (or find them yourself).
gripen
-
Originally posted by Guppy35
Relax Wotan. No one said that the LW lost the war to the Spitfire alone. No one said that the 109 was a hunk of junk.
I merely responded to the statement isigrim made about reversing my original statement.
Jeez you guys. They were both good aircraft. Relax for heaven's sake. You'd think I'd insulted your mother.
Dan/Slack
You are the one that has taken up the "I am offended attitude".
I give. THe Spit was a lousy airplane, that every pilot who ever flew hated. It never shot down anything. It didn't accomplish one mission it ever set out to do.
It was weakly built with one of the worst engines ever made.
The Luftwaffe won the war without the loss of a single aircraft.
What’s this about?
Angus and you brought up "well the Luftwaffe lost the war" as apart of your argument on "how good" you think the Spitfire was. Why bother making such statements if you aren’t implying something?
In a thread about Spitfires if some resorts to "well the Luftwaffe lost the war" an easy, reasonable rebuttal is "well not to the Spitfire". If that bugs you why mention it at all?
-
The test pilot, Lukas Schmid (see "Test Pilots" by Wolfgang Späte ), noted that without revised aileron throw he would have probaly died; the Bf 109 developed strong dutch roll motion above it's critical mach number which is about mach 0,76 according to German documentation and that fits also quite nicely to it's dive limits.
Only on the last dive did Schmid lose the stick for a second. Yes in that instance the stops saved him from disaster. He tested the 109 from Jan to Mar. 1943. From 850-890 kph an "overbalance" developed according to the reports but it was not hard for the pilot to deal with it nor did it spell disaster for a "normal" 109.
Several sources list Mach .80 as the mach number of the 109. Including Schmid.
Your Post Gripen seemed somewhat misleading so I thought it needed some clarification.
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Wotan
You are the one that has taken up the "I am offended attitude".
What’s this about?
Angus and you brought up "well the Luftwaffe lost the war" as apart of your argument on "how good" you think the Spitfire was. Why bother making such statements if you aren’t implying something?
In a thread about Spitfires if some resorts to "well the Luftwaffe lost the war" an easy, reasonable rebuttal is "well not to the Spitfire". If that bugs you why mention it at all?
Go back, read it again, note smile at the end of the original "Spit was a lousy airplane" paragraph.
I was responding to isigrim. He then makes the comment about reversing that "Spit was a lousy airplane" paragraph so I did at which point my original "the Luftwaffe won the war without losing a single aircraft" became the Luftwaffe lost the war etc.
You seemed to take that very seriously, and you seem to take it as some sort of insult to the 109, at which point I then am asking why folks have to hate one of the two if they like the other. And then I said I liked both the Spit and the 109, that they were both good aircraft and both did their jobs well etc.
What part of that don't you get? And how does that make me offended by any of it.
To be honest I think it is rediculous how any Spit thread had to degenerate into how the LW aircraft were better, and any 109 thread has to become how the US or RAF aircraft were better.
So maybe you ought to turn of your LW sensitivity meter.
Dan/Slack
-
Crumpp,
This is pretty damn simple, Schmid reached mach 0,8 with a specially prepared plane and he had problems. For one reason or another you and Isegrim want to claim that speed as safe limit. Using same logic I could claim mach 0,86 as safe limit of the P-47 because an instrumented plane reached it without damage (according to documentation (http://mitglied.lycos.de/luftwaffe1/flight/compressibllity/flight_compress.html)).
gripen
-
Originally posted by Guppy35
Go back, read it again, note smile at the end of the original "Spit was a lousy airplane" paragraph.
I was responding to isigrim. He then makes the comment about reversing that "Spit was a lousy airplane" paragraph so I did at which point my original "the Luftwaffe won the war without losing a single aircraft" became the Luftwaffe lost the war etc.
[/b]
I would suggest you go back and reread what’s been written in the right order. It seems you are having trouble remembering the thread.
The only recent reply before your reply I quoted below was in reply to Vodoo.
I give. THe Spit was a lousy airplane, that every pilot who ever flew hated. It never shot down anything. It didn't accomplish one mission it ever set out to do.
There is no smiley face at the end of that paragraph. This was a reply before Isegrim said anything about "reversing" your post. Check it yourself. In another reply Angus "parroted" right along with you "the LW lost".
You seemed to take that very seriously, and you seem to take it as some sort of insult to the 109, at which point I then am asking why folks have to hate one of the two if they like the other. And then I said I liked both the Spit and the 109, that they were both good aircraft and both did their jobs well etc.
What part of that don't you get? And how does that make me offended by any of it.
[/b]
Who said anything about being "offended"? That is all in your head. I simply responded to Angus and your red herring point that the "LW lost". These are points brought up by the both of you in the context of this "Spitfire thread".
My reply was the LW lost but not because of the Spitfire. That seemed to have gotten your panties bunched.
To be honest I think it is rediculous how any Spit thread had to degenerate into how the LW aircraft were better, and any 109 thread has to become how the US or RAF aircraft were better.
So maybe you ought to turn of your LW sensitivity meter.
Dan/Slack
You brought up "war winning". One can make a reasonable assumption in the context of this thread that you are implying that the Spitfire was a major player in defeating the LW. After all this thread is about Spits, right?
The author of this thread started a thread about the greatness of all things Spit to bait Isegrim. Take that up with them.
If threads like these are so ridiculous then why feed them with remarks about "war winning"? You should have held to your first instinct and let the two ying yang twins have at it.
-
Originally posted by Wotan
I would suggest you go back and reread what’s been written in the right order. It seems you are having trouble remembering the thread.
The only recent reply before your reply I quoted below was in reply to Vodoo.
There is no smiley face at the end of that paragraph. This was a reply before Isegrim said anything about "reversing" your post. Check it yourself. In another reply Angus "parroted" right along with you "the LW lost".
[/b]
Who said anything about being "offended"? That is all in your head. I simply responded to Angus and your red herring point that the "LW lost". These are points brought up by the both of you in the context of this "Spitfire thread".
My reply was the LW lost but not because of the Spitfire. That seemed to have gotten your panties bunched.
You brought up "war winning". One can make a reasonable assumption in the context of this thread that you are implying that the Spitfire was a major player in defeating the LW. After all this thread is about Spits, right?
The author of this thread started a thread about the greatness of all things Spit to bait Isegrim. Take that up with them.
If threads like these are so ridiculous then why feed them with remarks about "war winning"? You should have held to your first instinct and let the two ying yang twins have at it. [/B]
OK go back, read again. Both the original and the reversed had smiles at the end. The only winning comment I made was about the LW winning the war in the first paragraph. I then reversed it in response to isigrim.
You will also note I did comment early to Milo and isigrim about the trolling because they do mess up any discussions with their back and forth.
As for the Spit winning the war, the only one making that connection was you in your comment
"Germany lost the war but not at the exclusive hands of Spitfire pilots.
So yeah the LW lost. It took the combined strength of the VVS-RKKA and the USAAF to achieve this."
Show me where anyone said the Spitfire won the war?
So in terms of reading into things and getting 'panties bunched" it would appear that falls in your court does it not?
Dan/Slack
-
1 more time. Let's see if you can follow along...
Both you and Angus stated the lw lost (you through sarcasm). In fact my reply directly followed Angus' "the lw lost". This thread is about Spitfires... (why would one bring up war winning when the subject is Spitfires?)
One can make a reasonable assumption in the context of this thread that you are implying that the Spitfire was a major player in defeating the LW. After all this thread is about Spits, right?
and another...
I simply responded to Angus and your red herring point that the "LW lost". These are points brought up by the both of you in the context of this "Spitfire thread".
My reply was the LW lost but not because of the Spitfire. That seemed to have gotten your panties bunched.
Any other nonsense that you try to wrap into it is on you.
As for where, when, how or whatever use your find for a "smiley face" dont expect me to figure out what it means when you have trouble yourself.
-
Crumpp,
This is pretty damn simple, Schmid reached mach 0,8 with a specially prepared plane and he had problems. For one reason or another you and Isegrim want to claim that speed as safe limit. Using same logic I could claim mach 0,86 as safe limit of the P-47 because an instrumented plane reached it without damage (according to documentation).
gripen
Yes his plane was especially prepared but no more so than any allied test A/C used for similar purposes. Except for the fact the allies didn't have ejection seat technology. Did it REALLY make that much of difference? Do you have the weight of the modifications?
Drop your condescending tone. I have been nothing but respectful to you. My post was not an attack. If you want to be jerk then I simply will not reply or bother discussing anything with you.
Since you claim to have the repot then you can read EXACTLY what I posted. I am not claiming anything that is not a FACT.
FACT: The dive speeds are posted in the Pilots manual and HAVE been posted.
FACT: ANY airplane can exceed it posted limitations.
FACT: Those posted limitations for the 109 where exceeded both by the test pilots AND pilots in Combat.
FACT: To present a one incident as a re-occurring problem misrepresents the situation.
FACT: Schmid went to Mach .80 and conducted the dives over several months.
I for one am for using ONLY the information in the pilots manual AND for making that the HARD limits.
So lets discuss the +25 lbs boost on the Spitfire MkIX. In the test it ran for an hour and ten minutes. The manual says it can only go for 5 min. I am fine with using the pilots manual for A/C specs. As long as the standard is the same across the board.
Crumpp
-
Crumpp,
I have not complained about your dive speed comparisons with manual values. At least I understand Schmid's story so that it was high risk testing on the edge. The Dutch roll problem is presented on several sources so it certainly was common (see "Test Pilots", MW's page above and Finnish documentation also claim this problem) or why did they restrict aileron movement in those tests?
gripen
-
why did they restrict aileron movement in those tests?
You are correct. It was never in dispute that the High speed trials were dangerous. Hence the big money rewards to the Test Pilots. The data is not based on one dive.
It was High Speed testing and took the plane to the edge of it's performance. The 906kph TAS Schmid went to was the culmination of 2 months of testing. The aileron reversal occurred between 850-890Kph. Schmid's test, including the exact stick movements needed to recover a 109 from a dive to those speeds are listed in the book "Messerschmitt Bf-109F-K Development, Testing, Production" by Willy Radinger and Wolfgang Otto beginning on page 14.
There were multiple test dives conducted and only in one did he lose the stick. When the plane reached the critical speeds the ailerons would snatch when they reversed. If you were not ready for it then the stick could be yanked right from your hand. This would be catastrophic without the stops. The stops were only placed ailerons to assist the pilot in regaining the stick.
This did not mean a 109 not equipped with the stops could not have made the dive. It just would have been more dangerous. I suspect that many of the accidents the Luftwaffe experienced (22 in one month) that lead to the Dive Trials were caused by the pilot losing the stick when the ailerons reversed.
Crumpp
-
lets get this thing down to basics...
while being a lover of the 109 i got admit it wasn't a war winner after 1939..it could never touch the spit. in as far as reliability, manoverability, every step the poor old germans took to improve it, the brits came back one better.. you can love the 109 but the spit was by far the better beast..
The spits served long after the war, while the 109s became bean cans.. a fitting end i feel..
history don't lie....propergander dose..
-
lets get this thing down to basics...
Actually, there are quit a bit of myths out there about the 109. One of them being it was a poor performer. Its engine was just as powerful as the latest allied fighters. It was constructed of advanced alloys. Its climb was better than any other fighter and its level speed was better than most. If fighter development is tracked the variants of the 109 stacked up performance wise with the best the allies had.
The myth it was obsolete performance wise stems from the Bf-109G6 when it first appeared in 1943. It was heavier and the performance actually dropped compared to the G2. The allies captured several examples and tested them. Thus began the myth.
This performance drop occurred because the armament of the G6 was increased and it was never originally designed for the extra weight.
By late 1943 the G6/AS and MW boost systems came out which increased the G6 speed 50 kph faster. Early 1944 the DB605 was adopted in the 109G10 and K4. These planes were easily on par with the best the allies had. Fortunately, Germany's Military situation was to the point there were very few well trained pilots left that could handle the thoroughbred the 109 had developed into.
The 109 was an advanced aircraft and could handle the best the allies had in the air.
The 109 was also obsolete for the Luftwaffe. They needed an easy to fly aircraft that could dominate allied fighter performance. Not a hard to fly one with some real advantages.
Crumpp
-
You will also note I did comment early to Milo and isigrim about the trolling because they do mess up any discussions with their back and forth.
Isn't that the truth!
Crumpp
-
Crumpp said THIS of the 109:
"Its engine was just as powerful as the latest allied fighters. It was constructed of advanced alloys. Its climb was better than any other fighter and its level speed was better than most. If fighter development is tracked the variants of the 109 stacked up performance wise with the best the allies had. "
IMHO pretty good Crumpp.
Okay MINOR deflections:
1. Engines had problems late war because of lack of some alloys. Nothing to do with anything but warfare cirkumstances.
2. Its climb at times sometimes got matched and even bettered by the Spitty. But usually the 109 was a climbing champion.
3. It's level speed already got matched in 1940 by some Spit variants. But none the less, the 109 was always one of the fastest. Best years: 1939, 1941, 1942. Tough times with the P51 once it appeared.
4. Some of the very best 109 advantages still are not mentioned. Those include easy manufacture and ease of maintainance, especially in the field. Such as cleverly designed undercarriage mounted on the fuselage so the wings could be unmounted seperatly etc. Would be nice to know of more of those, I am sure there are yet some.
Now what just bothered me and Guppy I guess, was just Barbi.
Just keep bumping into Barbi about subjects like whether the RAF won the BoB, or whether the allies won air supremacy over europe, or whether the allied bombing campaign yealded anything or whether the LW always had unlimited fuel, or whether the allies were generally behind in any aspect of technological advance, etc, etc.
Maybe it's just me
:D
-
1. Engines had problems late war because of lack of some alloys. Nothing to do with anything but warfare cirkumstances.
That is the only one I disagree with. The Germans made substitutions for more readily available resources but rarely at the expense of gross performance. The allies did the same thing.
whether the LW always had unlimited fuel
The Luftwaffe's fuel shortages were catastrophic. There were times on the western front OXES were used to pull the planes from their revetments to the takeoff point and back.
whether the allies were generally behind in any aspect of technological advance, etc, etc.
Some areas the Allies were ahead and some the Axis. Mostly though people confuse different with better or worse. Take power boost systems. The methods were different but accomplished essentially the same thing. In Oxygen delivery systems, which are a very overlooked aspect of High Altitude combat, the Germans were ahead. In strategic bombers and parachute materials the allies were ahead. You could go on and on.
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Wotan
1 more time. Let's see if you can follow along...
Both you and Angus stated the lw lost (you through sarcasm). In fact my reply directly followed Angus' "the lw lost". This thread is about Spitfires... (why would one bring up war winning when the subject is Spitfires?)
and another...
Any other nonsense that you try to wrap into it is on you.
As for where, when, how or whatever use your find for a "smiley face" dont expect me to figure out what it means when you have trouble yourself.
Ok for the sake of clarification. I have a long standing interest in Spitfire history that goes back far beyond flight sims. I can claim some Spitfire pilot vets as friends.
I also love the 109, in particular the Emil. Don't know why, I just do. I guess it's because the two planes share a common history in that they were there in the beginning and at the end.
Neither won the war, or lost the war. They both played their part. I'm sorry for the misunderstanding if you felt like I overreacted or somehow slandered the 109, the LW or what have you.
That was not my intent.
I do get tired of any thread concerning those aircraft having to turn into just what this one did, and apparently I played my part.
It is not impossible for both the 109 and the Spit to have been great aircraft. They are not mutually exclusive.
For fun I do aircraft profiles. Spits, 109Es, Mustangs, Hurris and Jugs so far.
Enjoy some 109Es. I imagine the 109 experts can ID the units without my having to list them
Dan/Slack
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/169_1090816396_109e4jg53.jpg)
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/169_1090816421_109e7jg54redone.jpg)
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/169_1090816449_109e7jg26med.jpg)
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/169_1090816480_109e7troplastupdate.jpg)
-
Originally posted by SELECTOR
The spits served long after the war, while the 109s became bean cans.. a fitting end i feel..
history don't lie....propergander dose..
Then stop propagandizing.
Spanish 109 versions were still in production in 1956 and many air forces operated 109s in the 1950s.
The rest of your post is equally ignorant.
-
Guppy, pretty damn cool profiles ! May I ask how are you shading drop tanks ?
PS Sorry for offtop :).
-
Hi Gripen: “the Bf 109 developed strong dutch roll motion above it's critical mach number which is about mach 0,76 according to German documentation and that fits also quite nicely to it's dive limits.”
I have a report by Gen. Kaithel (sic) drawing on TAGL II Bf 109, A.1, Nr 1 lfd. 675/43 and the experiences of the Rechlin’s Beauvais wherein flight characteristics and limits of the 109 are described: In the fighters at present in service, difficulties (compressibility) appear above all in the behavior of the elevators (...) at M = .76 . The behavior of the 109 around its high axis deserves special attention. With a free rudder the 109, particularly with blister armament and chiefly at great altitudes in high speed dives, tends to swing like a pendulum around its high axis, combined with a rolling movement. The only correct thing to do is to counter this movement with the rudder (not with the ailerons). On account of this peculiarity, trifles such as, for example inconvenient position of the pedal and in particular incompletely trimmed ailerons and rudder ruin the feel of the aircraft to uselessness.
-
Guppy, some of the Luftluvers have no sense of humour.;)
Now phookat, a little history on Barbarossa Isegrim (Barbi)/V0101 Isegrim (Issy)/Kurfurst. In my first post to him, I questioned him, politely, on what he had posted in a thread on the old OnWar forum. His reply was very obnoxious and adversarial, tearing a strip off me, left, right, up, down and sideways. He is like this with anyone who disagrees with him. I do not say someone is having wet dreams, made references to the anus or insinuated that someone was a pedophile, unlike Issy.
Read Angus' post, last paragraph.
Like Guppy and some others here, I have a great interest in ALL WW2 a/c (Fw/Ta, Tempest, F4U being of special interest) without playing favourites. The problem is that some are just to fanatical about their favourite a/c (ie. the Luftluvers).
Never said the Spitty was a lousy plane, or a bad aircraft.
That is not how you come across, knocking it and any other Allied a/c whenever you can. I have nothing against the 109 neither:) but you put it on a pedestal, Issy, twisting and manipulating facts to the 109s advantage. It had its good points and bad points. The problem is you will not admit to any of its bad points.
.........
Now with that out of the way. These dive tests in the 109, did they have mutli comb pitots tubes or was just the a/c's single pitot tube used to give the speeds?
...........
Crumpp, I have seen pics of OXEN pulling a/c but never any pics of OXES pulling a/c.
-
Now phookat, a little history on Barbarossa Isegrim (Barbi)/V0101 Isegrim (Issy)/Kurfurst. In my first post to him, I questioned him, politely, on what he had posted in a thread on the old OnWar forum. His reply was very obnoxious and adversarial, tearing a strip off me, left, right, up, down and sideways. He is like this with anyone who disagrees with him. I do not say someone is having wet dreams, made references to the anus or insinuated that someone was a pedophile, unlike Issy.
Don't Push BS on folks, You are nasty from the start with everyone who is even percieved as disagreeing with you. Barbi is the same way. Your also willing to bend the facts to win whatever percieved personal vendetta is against you.
EXAMPLE:
Crumpp, I have seen pics of OXEN pulling a/c but never any pics of OXES pulling a/c.
I was in a hurry.....EXCUSE me but spelling mistakes happen.
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by VooDoo
Guppy, pretty damn cool profiles ! May I ask how are you shading drop tanks ?
PS Sorry for offtop :).
I start em in Adobe Illustrator, then export to photoshop for the shading etc.
That seems to be the best way to get it done for me anyway :)
Dan/Slack
-
Your excused Crumpp for the spelling mistake, but just had to point it out since you think you are so perfect.:):)
That is no BS about Issy.
..................
Now can we get back to the thread's subject?
-
Originally posted by mw
I have a report by Gen. Kaithel (sic) drawing on TAGL II Bf 109, A.1, Nr 1 lfd. 675/43 and the experiences of the Rechlin’s Beauvais wherein flight characteristics and limits of the 109 are described: In the fighters at present in service, difficulties (compressibility) appear above all in the behavior of the elevators (...) at M = .76 . The behavior of the 109 around its high axis deserves special attention. With a free rudder the 109, particularly with blister armament and chiefly at great altitudes in high speed dives, tends to swing like a pendulum around its high axis, combined with a rolling movement. The only correct thing to do is to counter this movement with the rudder (not with the ailerons). On account of this peculiarity, trifles such as, for example inconvenient position of the pedal and in particular incompletely trimmed ailerons and rudder ruin the feel of the aircraft to uselessness.
Must be a very interesting report. Especially the part that complaining about 'incompletely trimmed ailerons and rudder', considering no Bf 109 types were equipped with aileron or rudder trim.
Oops, Mike, you made a mistake while making up that one. Appearantly you are so busy trying to prove what a unworthy piece of crap the whole 109 series were (and Guppy, why do we never see you complaining about that ? So don`t preach me about me trying to prove the Spit was something of a POS, `cos that I never did propagate, unlike that MW guy on his site about the 109 which doesn`t seem to bother you at all. I do feel though the Spit is massively overrated and overhyped, credited with many things it never truely earned. Best in everything, as in MikyWorld or in a tiny bit less extreme case, NashwanWorld ), you forgot to take care of such tiny details while forging the stuff you need in your little crusade. :D
BTW, the phenomenon you are describing is simple compressibilty, encountered by all figthers of WW2 roughly above .75 Mach. Similiar warnings of how to correct with controls can be found in Spitfire or Mustang flight manuals, so attempting describing it as 'special problem' of the 109 that made it 'useless' (yeah of course Mike, keep on dreaming) is simply a pathetic move. Not to mention that this was the very reason 109s introduced enlarged tail units in `43, to increase controlabilty at high speeds those new 109Gs were capable of (not in your world of course:), as the older F series tail unit was not designed for those.
-
Originally posted by Guppy35
Ok for the sake of clarification. I have a long standing interest in Spitfire history that goes back far beyond flight sims. I can claim some Spitfire pilot vets as friends.
I also love the 109, in particular the Emil. Don't know why, I just do. I guess it's because the two planes share a common history in that they were there in the beginning and at the end.
Neither won the war, or lost the war. They both played their part. I'm sorry for the misunderstanding if you felt like I overreacted or somehow slandered the 109, the LW or what have you.
That was not my intent.
I do get tired of any thread concerning those aircraft having to turn into just what this one did, and apparently I played my part.
It is not impossible for both the 109 and the Spit to have been great aircraft. They are not mutually exclusive.
For fun I do aircraft profiles. Spits, 109Es, Mustangs, Hurris and Jugs so far.
Enjoy some 109Es. I imagine the 109 experts can ID the units without my having to list them
I guess there is some communication issue I am missing. I simply replied to the point about "war winning" made by you and Angus in the context of the thread.
You took that as me feeling "insulted". I have explained in detail several times my reply yet you seem not to read it.
Read my original reply to "war winning" and the one above it. You will see that there's a straight line from the one point to another.
Correcting and or clarifying a point made in the context of the thread doesn’t equate to a response to some perceived insult.
I am completely indifferent to you personally and have no interest in the aircraft you like or hate. Its irrelevant to the point I replied to, which was “the LW lost” as it relates to the Spitfire and the subject of this thread.
-
Originally posted by Wotan
I guess there is some communication issue I am missing. I simply replied to the point about "war winning" made by you and Angus in the context of the thread.
You took that as me feeling "insulted". I have explained in detail several times my reply yet you seem not to read it.
Read my original reply to "war winning" and the one above it. You will see that there's a straight line from the one point to another.
Correcting and or clarifying a point made in the context of the thread doesn’t equate to a response to some perceived insult.
I am completely indifferent to you personally and have no interest in the aircraft you like or hate. Its irrelevant to the point I replied to, which was “the LW lost” as it relates to the Spitfire and the subject of this thread.
Yes Wotan, we clearly are suffering a communication problem. What you percieve me saying and what I was saying are two different things and we are going to have to disagree on what the message was.
You aren't going to convince me that I said something different than what I said, and I won't convince you either. So it goes.
My apologies for my apparently poor communications skills.
Dan/Slack
-
Originally posted by VO101_Isegrim
Must be a very interesting report. Especially the part that complaining about 'incompletely trimmed ailerons and rudder', considering no Bf 109 types were equipped with aileron or rudder trim.
Oops, Mike, you made a mistake while making up that one. :D
Was not the 109 fitted with trim tabs that were adjustable when on the ground?:rolleyes: These were set for a certain speed so would be 'incompletely trimmed' when above that speed.:eek:
-
Originally posted by MiloMorai
He is like this with anyone who disagrees with him. I do not say someone is having wet dreams, made references to the anus or insinuated that someone was a pedophile, unlike Issy.
....and yada-yada-yada. :D
Milo, you have been repeating this 'called someone pedophile' accusation countless times in these boards.
Every time you did I asked : where?
You can never answer that part. But keep repeating the same. For any intelligent person, that makes the issue clear.
Similiarly, you keep telling people like they were 4-year old ones, as a single authority, what I think, what I said, what are my interest (nazi germany part and the rest of the garbage.) Let me tell u a little secret: since on all boards you are busy with this pathetic behaviour (=your life), you always succeed to gain a level of 'credibility' for yourself, that hardly makes me concerned about it.
To me, quite clearly, you must have a rather pathetic civil life. Probably no friends at all, your life circulating about desperately trying to make me feel discomfortful on some inet forums, with lowly tricks as seen above, trying to get attention from others by posting troll threads and flamebaits. That`s your version of human relations.
For those who had seen your behaviour here or on other boards, it`s must be obvious by now why this temptation is so important for you, you got owned every time, and instead the aim of making me looking ridiculus, you only succeed in getting more and more isolated. It is growing with every single one of your failures, or cases when you are finally been banned from discussion boards as a result of your behaviour. That makes you feel even more itching for revenge, and there`s the diabolic circle you cannot escape from.
I guess we may disagree in many things with the other forum members, Nashwan and the like. One area we most possibly agree is you: just about everybody in this thread argues about everything, expect one : my description of you as a 3rd rate cretin. As the Romans said a long ago : Silence is not neccesarily mean agreement, but surely not means disagreement. :cool: Think about that now, try to change it that and have a life.
-
Originally posted by Angus
Now what just bothered me and Guppy I guess, was just Barbi.
Just keep bumping into Barbi about subjects like whether the RAF won the BoB, or whether the allies won air supremacy over europe, or whether the allied bombing campaign yealded anything or whether the LW always had unlimited fuel, or whether the allies were generally behind in any aspect of technological advance, etc, etc.
Maybe it's just me
:D [/B]
Yeah, maybe it`s just a case of you cannot see anything else when it`s a case of detail disagreement, and the actual statements of others who disagree with gets distorited into surrealities in your mind.
-
Is that a self-description you just posted Barbi?
No proof because the Mods deleted several pages of the tread which had your gutter rants in.
-
No proof because the Mods deleted several pages of the tread which had your gutter rants in.
U-hum. And it disappeared without a trace. No URL of course. Mysterious. I mean, several pages which contained nothing else but, what was that, anus reference, gut rant, pedophile calling and sorry if I left out something that I alone posted. And you expect people to believe that.
You are a waste of time, LOL.
-
The 109 won its last fights with the Spitfire. Israeli Avia S 199 (Jumo 211 powered 109G) vs. Egyptian Spit IX and XIV in 1948. :D
-
Originally posted by GScholz
The 109 won its last fights with the Spitfire. Israeli Avia S 199 (Jumo 211 powered 109G) vs. Egyptian Spit IX and XIV in 1948. :D
No Egyptian XIVs. They did have IXs. I think it's also fair to suggest that pilot skill might have had a bit to do with that :)
Dan/Slack
-
Yep, 'war is not about who`s right, it`s about who is left'.
109s left in service until 1967 IIRC, after some 30 years of service. Spits retired in the mid-50s I think. :D
I think what makes the 109 such a red carpet in the Spitdweeb eyes is that it took both the firsts and lasts away from their birdie, and has such an irritating long list of records held in speed, number of kills made, number of planes produced, number of years served, number of aces made, and number of countries it was employed by. :p
But hey, why is it so humilating to be the 2nd best in such a company? ;)
-
Originally posted by VO101_Isegrim
Yep, 'war is not about who`s right, it`s about who is left'.
109s left in service until 1967 IIRC, after some 30 years of service. Spits retired in the mid-50s I think. :D
I think what makes the 109 such a red carpet in the Spitdweeb eyes is that it took both the firsts and lasts away from their birdie, and has such an irritating long list of records held in speed, number of kills made, number of planes produced, number of years served, number of aces made, and number of countries it was employed by. :p
But hey, why is it so humilating to be the 2nd best in such a company? ;)
None of that matters to me.
That such things are what bind you doesn't make your projections true.
-
Hi Milo: "Was not the 109 fitted with trim tabs that were adjustable when on the ground? These were set for a certain speed so would be 'incompletely trimmed' when above that speed. "
You're quite right. A smoother summary of that passage is this one from British Intelligence:
(http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/repnr2282.jpg)
-
You mean the Red Carpet thing? LOL, visit this site (http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/spittest.html) , you will see that the very existance of the 109 is unbearable, everyday pain for some guys. :D
I have absolutely no doubt what would be the first three numbers to erased and eternally banned from all historybooks in the world if that guy would be given a Magic Eraser with a world-wide effect. :D
-
Originally posted by VO101_Isegrim
Yep, 'war is not about who`s right, it`s about who is left'.
109s left in service until 1967 IIRC, after some 30 years of service. Spits retired in the mid-50s I think. :D
I think what makes the 109 such a red carpet in the Spitdweeb eyes is that it took both the firsts and lasts away from their birdie, and has such an irritating long list of records held in speed, number of kills made, number of planes produced, number of years served, number of aces made, and number of countries it was employed by. :p
But hey, why is it so humilating to be the 2nd best in such a company? ;)
LOL Merlin engined HA1112s in Spain still flying in the 60s speaks more to Spain's lack of a modern air force then to the '109''
Syrians were still using Spit's as fighter trainers into the 60s as well.
And since it was Mustangs and Corsairs that were the last Piston engined fighters to see combat, the 109 and Spit don't place on that list.
As for countries it was operated by. Off the top for the 109 I come up with:
Germany, Italy, Romania, Hungary, Bulgaria,Finland, Czecheslovakia, Isreal, Spain, Switzerland. Who am I missing? One source I have says Japan recieved 2. I guess that counts. (edited to add Yugoslavia and apparenly Russia got 5 109Es before the war too)
For the Spits off the top:
UK, Australia, Canada, South Africa, USA, Isreal, Egypt, Syria, Turkey, New Zealand, Burma, Holland, Belgium, France, Norway, Sweden, Argentina, Ireland, Czecheslovakia, Greece, Portugal, USSR.
Last shots fired in anger for the Spit were with the Burmese AF in 55-56. The 109 would have been the Isreali Avias in 48-49 correct?
As far as last air to air kills by both. Wouldn't those have been Isreali Spits and Avia's downing Egyptian Spits in the same time frame?
As for speed records. Are you really going to lump the "109R' into the 109 line? :)
Talk about a propoganda coup.
How bout we accept the fact that both the 109 and Spitfire were great aircraft that served from before the war to well afterwards with numerous air forces of the world, while setting the standards by which other piston engined fighters were measured.
That work OK?
Dan/Slack
-
Hi Milo: "Was not the 109 fitted with trim tabs that were adjustable when on the ground? These were set for a certain speed so would be 'incompletely trimmed' when above that speed. "
109 trim tabs:- (fixed to ailerons & elevators, none on rudder)
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/71_1090868029_cimg0396.jpg)
-
Elevators were fully trimmed, fixed tabs on ailerons, no rudder trim on most 109s (some versions had fixed tabs).
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Elevators were fully trimmed, fixed tabs on ailerons, no rudder trim on most 109s (some versions had fixed tabs).
fully trimmed? on that 109G-2 they are same as those on ailerons.
-
The entire horizontal stabilizer was moved by the trim-wheel in the cockpit.
-
Originally posted by VO101_Isegrim
You mean the Red Carpet thing? LOL, visit this site (http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/spittest.html) , you will see that the very existance of the 109 is unbearable, everyday pain for some guys. :D
I have absolutely no doubt what would be the first three numbers to erased and eternally banned from all historybooks in the world if that guy would be given a Magic Eraser with a world-wide effect. :D
Barbi,
Comments like this really make it seem as though you are sliding into delusional, tinfoil hat style, paranoia.
-
Karnak,
calling me 'Barbi' actually makes me think you share some of Milo`s intellectual defiencies.
As for 'paranoia', I was putting it, in a possibly polite manner, the amount of bias and partisan mindset of that mentioned site. If you don`t get what that meant, here`s it straighforward : Mike Williams at that site is doing a propaganda work with manipulation and selective qouting from certain documents, the agenda being quite clear. You won`t find a single good sentence about the 109 there, but you will find roll test where the 'inconvinient' parts are cut off, you will find 1940 trials betwee n the Spit and 109, with only the negative parts taken out of context from the full, multiple-page report, and the positive parts being ignored and unquoted. So when talking about bias, this site is a good place to get first hand examples.
Well if you mentioned paranoia, it`s really not me who`s spending hours and hours to build a site of lies, whenever something good comes about a plane, try to distort it with the abovementioned tricks. Appearantly, it`s not me who cannot put up with the facts, or that both the 109s and Spit were good planes, but the guy who spend his days and night writing articles to his site which kinda say one of them is complete sucker, the other is the best prop fighter ever. You and Guppy had to knock on an other door, when it comes to bias and paranoia I am afraid.
-
It's like any fan site. The data is selected to make the plane look the best. Plenty of folks do it, whether it is a 109, Spitfire, 190, P38, or any other fighter. Nobody selects data that says, "My plane sucks" to post on the Internet.
My views on Luftwaffe-Allied A/C History.
I am sure everyone is familiar with the "Pendulum Theory" of historical study.
Right After World War II, Historians saw the high kill scores the Luftwaffe produced. Many incorrectly concluded that the Luftwaffe must have had "super" planes. The Myth of Luftwaffe technical superiority was born.
Then in the Pendulum began to swing. In the Mid-50's some Historians began to say "The Luftwaffe actually had Inferior Aircraft" and isn't it amazing they scored so high. Until finally, Historians concluded that in fact Luftwaffe Aircraft were inferior and couldn't stand up one on one with Allied contemporaries.
The issue pretty much laid dead until the early 1990's. I think flight simulations had a lot to do with the reexamination of this part of History. Now, with the declassification and public access to documentation previously out of reach, the pendulum is moving again toward a more balanced view. There are quite a few new sources of information, INCLUDING, archaeological evidence.
Crumpp
-
Very much agree. I would add, that the Inet probably added a lot more than anything else. It brought people, and experts together. Formerly it was a hard process for experts, working thousends of miles away, sharing their knowladge, the way was exhanging mails and bumping into each other in airshows and such. Pretty complicated. But now with emails people far far away can share the fruits of their research for the better of all. aviation Forums, and sim communities had there share in that, too.
The historical technical advantage in air war had a zig-zag nature, one side getting the upper and then loosing it again. Sometimes it was not even that easy to decide over which newest upgrade done by one side offered the greater advantage, as the until then parellel developments took a whole different path, each offering it`s own advantages and disadvantages. The fight for the technical advantage in the air war was a decisive one, and not only waging on the drawing boards and minds of engineers, but also in the workshops : any technological leap worth only as much as it could feel it`s presence on the battlefield itself: that means it had to appear in numbers, and had to be free of defects that would limit it`s usefullness in operational use. In the recent years, so much of hard evidence showed up, that I think will change even the common view very quickly to a more balanced one free of extemities (a minority would always remain though). Simply because the massive weight of facts emerging up, and available to all.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
Barbi,
Comments like this really make it seem as though you are sliding into delusional, tinfoil hat style, paranoia.
You hit nail on the head, Karnak. His post to you supports this. :aok Will be interesting, if and when, he finally gets his 109 site up and running if he can leave out his anti-British bias.
Barbi is a legit nick for him, from the old OnWar forums. Some very well informed people, who are not intellectually deficent called him Barbi as well there. When OnWar folded, they formed http://www.1jma.dk/default.asp
Here is a thread which shows his twisted views of WW2. http://www.1jma.dk/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=1859&whichpage=5&SearchTerms=concentration,camps
-
Discussion getting to be productive, time to put it on a sidetrack, eh ? lololol
-
You hit nail on the head, Karnak. His post to you supports this. Will be interesting, if and when, he finally gets his 109 site up and running if he can leave out his anti-British bias.
Why do you even need to pipe up? Karnak can handle himself. BOTH you and Barbi need to find your own thread. Your infighting ruins any discussion.
Barbi does make some borderline delusional comments and SO do you. Your constantly nipping at his heals like a lapdog in heat. People can read and they can think for themselves.
Crumpp
-
To be honest I think it is rediculous how any Spit thread had to degenerate into how the LW aircraft were better, and any 109 thread has to become how the US or RAF aircraft were better.
That is the truth. 3/4 of this Thread has been good. I've learned a few things. The other 1/4 is crap.
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by mw
Hi Gripen: “the Bf 109 developed strong dutch roll motion above it's critical mach number which is about mach 0,76 according to German documentation and that fits also quite nicely to it's dive limits.”
I have a report by Gen. Kaithel (sic) drawing on TAGL II Bf 109, A.1, Nr 1 lfd. 675/43 and the experiences of the Rechlin’s Beauvais wherein flight characteristics and limits of the 109 are described: In the fighters at present in service, difficulties (compressibility) appear above all in the behavior of the elevators (...) at M = .76 . The behavior of the 109 around its high axis deserves special attention. With a free rudder the 109, particularly with blister armament and chiefly at great altitudes in high speed dives, tends to swing like a pendulum around its high axis, combined with a rolling movement. The only correct thing to do is to counter this movement with the rudder (not with the ailerons). On account of this peculiarity, trifles such as, for example inconvenient position of the pedal and in particular incompletely trimmed ailerons and rudder ruin the feel of the aircraft to uselessness.
Hi mw, these instructions are very similar as in the Finnish documentation; lateral oscilations must be countered with rudder only, using ailerons would cause increasing oscilations. In addition documentaion instructs pilots to trim the plane to need a bit push to keep it in dive, if the needed push force starts to decrease then the speed should be decreased or increasing dive tendency will follow.
gripen
-
Hi Gripen: That's very interesting. Wish I could read Finnish ;) Heck, I wasn't sure what a Dutch roll was. I thought that the pendulum motion combined with the roll described in the report might be the Dutch roll you mentioned.
"using ailerons would cause increasing oscilations." Ahh, that's logical. I was thinking that instruction was because the ailerons might fail if used in a dive, (Harte querruder betätigung im Sturz und besonders beim Abfangen führt zum Bruch.)
.
-
Crumpp, you have had your share threads degenerate because of you, ie. the LW destroyed thread for one.:) Stop calling the other kettle black. Yes you have had your share of some of that 1/4 in this thread.
Tell Barbi to stop making his slanderous posts and then I won't have to comment.:) See the 1st line in his first post in this thread. If he had conducted himself in a civil manner from the start(Onwar), all would be fine.:) He is not just adversarial with just me or have you not noticed?
...........................
Now it is nice to see some intelligence shown in the 2 posts on WW2 a/c. Time will tell if what he says is a snow job, or he can live up to.
Something for you to file away. The P-51 pilot was not to use trim to pull out of a high speed dive. He was to gently pull back on the stick.
-
Gripen and mw,
Didn't they increase the height of the 109 tail as a result of Schimd's dives. I want to say it was either 135mm or 138mm. Don't rember and don't have time to look it up.
This was done to make the 109 easier to recover.
Does anyone know if the G6 and G10 in AH have the "tall" tails?
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
Gripen and mw,
Didn't they increase the height of the 109 tail as a result of Schimd's dives. I want to say it was either 135mm or 138mm. Don't rember and don't have time to look it up.
Crumpp
IIRC it was increased as you say. Increasing the vertical tail surface area increases wheatercock stability. This in turn decreases the adverse yawing movements which result in assymetric loads on the fuselage. That`s why HARD aileron (or hard rudder inputs) movements are generally not advised during dives, ie. they come with a yawing movement, which loads the tail greatly on one side and it may break. But if you increase the tail area, stability is better, and less aileron deflection is sufficient for the same rate of roll obtained, therefore there`s even a reduction of aileron forces at high speeds and increase roll rates.
This 135mm bigger tail unit become serialized on the 109G series.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
The entire horizontal stabilizer was moved by the trim-wheel in the cockpit.
ahh i see! thanks! it has a fixed rudder trim tab too
-
Did the rudder trim enter with the 109F?
-
Originally posted by Angus
Did the rudder trim enter with the 109F?
No Bf 109 had cocpit-adjustable rudder (or aileron) trim, however all had ground-adjustable trim tabs on all control surfaces. Flettner-tabs were introduced with the tall tails for the rudder in 1943, but this was to lighten control forces at high speeds.
There was no elevator trim either, but the whole tail incidence could be set from the cocpit with that trimwheel, on all combat versions. In fact, this was much better in view of compressibilty control problems, since the while horizontal plane was effected, not just to elevator area.
-
The 109 the Brits captured (1940) did not, as far as I know, have any kind of rudder trim. I've heard that from some other source, but it may have been the same aircraft. Hence the question
:confused:
-
So, when was the entry of rudder trimmed 109's?
-
Originally posted by Angus
So, when was the entry of rudder trimmed 109's?
You are asking about pilot rudder trim > they never did. All they got was the Flettner tab so the pilot did not get a 'fat leg' as he did on earlier versions.
-
Ah, misread Isengrims informations, sorry.
(it was a "no" instead of "the")
The downside of fast reading :(
-
Getting back to the original topic of airframe strength.
The Spitfire (Mk V) airframes that broke due to enormous G loads caused by instability were fully strong.
The G loads they were exposed to would have broken ANY WW2 Fighter, many of them quicker. It has been said that the loads may also have killed the pilot.
-
"The G loads they were exposed to would have broken ANY WW2 Fighter, many of them quicker"
I'm quite sure you are right, Angus.
The Spitfire had a very strong main spar runing through the fuselage from wing to wing and it was made of square pipes inside the other which made it very durable. I know no other a/c which had a similar separate main spar in the wing.
Correction: there was a picture of a XIV showing the bolts of the main spar so I had bad info on that. So it didn't run through the fuselage but it was of very durable design anyway.
-C+