Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Anaxogoras on October 27, 2009, 06:28:57 PM
-
Saw this linked over at the Il-2 forums. Nothing shocking or new, but I was surprised that he described the working of the slats as "smooth."
http://www.vintagewings.ca/page?a=1261&lang=en-CA (http://www.vintagewings.ca/page?a=1261&lang=en-CA)
-
Sure would be nice to see a photo op with both the Paul Allen 109E and the Russell Group 109E. Wasn't that long ago the thought of a 109E airborne was just a dream.
-
Cute! And can't wait for this one:
"Enemies no more. The Russell Group Spitfire closes in on the right wing of their Bf-109E. In a story coming out this winter, Rob relates his impressions after flying both the Spitfire and the Messerschmitt back to back, hopping from one cockpit right into the next - something which has been rarely done if at all. "
-
Saw this linked over at the Il-2 forums. Nothing shocking or new, but I was surprised that he described the working of the slats as "smooth."
http://www.vintagewings.ca/page?a=1261&lang=en-CA (http://www.vintagewings.ca/page?a=1261&lang=en-CA)
Not hard to understand as it is not operated under combat conditions and kept in pristine condition.
from another board:
It is a BoB survivor flown at least once by Marseille
he had one confirmed kill over a Spit in it, crashed on the beach in Calais repaired and flown on the Russian front
it was recovered near Murmansk and restored
-
Nice find. I had never heard anything about the prop governor before--very interesting...
-
"I was surprised that he described the working of the slats as "smooth.""
Why? If maintained properly and if the plane is pulled gently in a stall they deploy smoothly and evenly. If you are in a turn or suddenly pull more AoA they may work unevenly or abruptly.
-C+
-
This shouldn't bother me but Hartmann never flew an E operationally,
-
"I was surprised that he described the working of the slats as "smooth.""
Why? If maintained properly and if the plane is pulled gently in a stall they deploy smoothly and evenly. If you are in a turn or suddenly pull more AoA they may work unevenly or abruptly.
-C+
I was surprised because in the other reading I've done I've heard of the slats actually scaring the pilot with a "bang!" as they opened or closed. In AH the slates are almost binary, either open or closed. It is impossible to get them to deploy smoothly.
-
I'm not sure if the deployment angle was changed to F model but I have understood that from F onwards the slats worked more smoothly even in maneuvers. Maybe it was not just that they became more easy to service but also that their operating conditions were slightly different too.
-C+
-
Excellent article, thanks for posting the link.
I was struck by the author's description of his landing approach:
"Extension of the flaps required about 30 quarter-turns of the flap wheel; a time-consuming process."
Certainly not the way we do it here!
- oldman (who has always been suspicious of the ease of dropping flaps in aeroplane computer games)
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0zPgZoxdOGk
Time code 0:45, slats opening on a Buchon (Spanish Merlin-powered 109).
-
Yup, we've already covered 109 flap deployment. Based on the mechanism, there's almost no way you'd be dropping flaps and raising them up, again and again, during combat.
-
Yup, we've already covered 109 flap deployment. Based on the mechanism, there's almost no way you'd be dropping flaps and raising them up, again and again, during combat.
If you want to get realistic, 99.99999999999999999999999% of all WW2 combat was with flaps firmly locked in the "up" position.
-
If you want to get realistic, 99.99999999999999999999999% of all WW2 combat was with flaps firmly locked in the "up" position.
Not much 'stick stirring' going on then either. :old:
-
indeed! Much less redout-inducing negative G "floppy fish" evasives... you tried that in real life you'd fall outa the sky and save the enemy some bullets.
-
Since we're hijacking the thread, I've talked to people who have experienced red-out, and besides the extreme pain associated with it, normal vision does not return for at least 30 seconds.
-
HTC needs to ramp up the ill effects a bit. Things like stick stirring, floppy-fish evasives, etc, need to be curtailed. Most planes couldn't fly upside down for more than 15 seconds before the engine was starved of oil (inline or radial, both suffered). In this game the most popular dweeby evasive is to roll inverted and push your nose up to climb while inverted, rolling left and right (while pushing the stick foward still) and/or other combinations.
In real life that plane would have plumetted downwards, and when they do it 5 feet off the deck (in AH I mean) it's even more ludicrous.
One guy in a 190 did it so long yesterday while I was sitting on his six he must have locked his controls up, and he couldn't recover (he crashed, as he was -- naturally -- on the deck), but 5 others did it with no ill effect in the same sortie.
IMO needs stricter airflow disruption and drag, loss of lift, and/or pilot fatigue and needs to kick in sooner when folks do that.
Perhaps anytime you jerk the stick from one extreme to the other your pilot gets tired, like the blackout system. You ride the black for a bit, and you're much more susceptible to a perma-blackout next time. Something like that, where the pilot gets tired when in neg-G, or when rolling repeatedly back and forth to both extremes while kicking rudder and pushing up or down. You only get "X" rapid moves in a short time frame, after which you become disoriented and black out or whatever.
-
Nah... The G forces experienced by our cartoon pilots is far less that those experienced by display pilots.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ft94cWjkaYI
-
The slat ghost is here again.
I sort of bear in mind what Rall said about them. While necessary for low speed, he hated them for hard maneuvers.
I even have it on tape, and if anyone of you can host it and link it, I'll email a clip for you.
He did get many kills though,,,
-
Rall didn't like them. Stigler did like them. Personal preference.
-
HTC needs to ramp up the ill effects a bit. Things like stick stirring, floppy-fish evasives, etc, need to be curtailed.
Im not sure how to impliment it, though... thats the issue. Ive got zero military hours, but even in a civilian aircraft, you have so much more sensory input that you can draw upon to determine limitations. Its the same problem as lacking the "seat of the pants" feel of a real car on a race track when playing a racing simulation.
That said - I wish I would have kept the film of what I saw a Pony do on Wednesday night.
Basic (and fun) furball, defending a base. I had a bunch of speed on the deck and came in behind a 51 which had dove from altitute to get a shot at another friendly.
I had much more E than he expected, I gather, so Im not sure if it was on purpose or a knee-jerk reaction, but he actually (somehow) twisted the plane around so that it was moving forward (and decelerating rapidly) with the dead-center bottom of the fuzelage pointing straight ahead. Like a flat spin in the horizontal.
He recovered from it but I couldnt help thinking that, IRL, the pilot would have been knocked out and the wings would have ripped right off.
-
I have seen stick-stirring to the point all I could do was laugh at the foolishness and the individual I am thinking of does this every time!
I think the cure would be a coded and self-induced 'green-gill effect' I mean who could stand to do that to themselves?
-
Back to the slats, I recall that Captain Eric 'Winkle' Brown RN test-flew both the Bf109E and G and was of the opinion that the slats opening asymetrically when in a turn caused the ailerons to snatch and throw off the aim so badly it was impossible to get off a decent shot. One reason why the 109 was better at BnZ perhaps?
On the physical problems of flying WW2 fighters to the limits, the Bf109 was never fitted with a rudder trimmer. It was necessary to apply moderate right rudder when climbing and considerable left rudder during a dive. At higher speeds, the force needed to hold left rudder quickly tired the pilot. This combined with a very heavy elevator to make pullouts at low altitude rather trickier than for the Spitfire.
:cool:
-
i would think that would depend on what speed they trimmed it for ...
it being a point interceptor and flying for an hour or two at a time i don't think it was the big deal some people make it out to be ...
if you want to know how a plane performed in combat the combat pilots are the opinions you should be most concerned with.
when you consider the enemy tester you quoted thought very highly of the fw190, yet many Luftwaffe pilots had a preference for the 109 i think you need to take mr. browns comments for what they are. he was a visitor in the plane. imo the plane that most of the highest scoring aces ever scored most of their kills in was obviously an excellent fighter, arguably the best ever. (yes you can say that about several)
+S+
t
Back to the slats, I recall that Captain Eric 'Winkle' Brown RN test-flew both the Bf109E and G and was of the opinion that the slats opening asymetrically when in a turn caused the ailerons to snatch and throw off the aim so badly it was impossible to get off a decent shot. One reason why the 109 was better at BnZ perhaps?
On the physical problems of flying WW2 fighters to the limits, the Bf109 was never fitted with a rudder trimmer. It was necessary to apply moderate right rudder when climbing and considerable left rudder during a dive. At higher speeds, the force needed to hold left rudder quickly tired the pilot. This combined with a very heavy elevator to make pullouts at low altitude rather trickier than for the Spitfire.
:cool:
-
I flew a Tomahawk that was badly out of rig on a 1.5 hour cross country once. It required constant right rudder input to keep the ball centered during straight and level flight. By the time I got to the destination, my right leg was numb from the effort, and that was on a Traumahawk. Don't marginalize that kind of stuff, because the fatigue factor is huge. Heck, the Reno Unlimited guys fly with constant rudder deflections and they all say it gets tiring. Those races only last a few minutes or so.
-
The great Winkle was a Fleet Air Arm fighter pilot long before he became one of the world's greatest test pilots. He holds the record for flying more different types of aircraft than anyone else in history, carried out the greatest number of deck landings (including the first by a pure jet) and at the end of WW2 was commander of the 'Rafwaffe' Enemy Aircraft Test Unit at Farnborough. I'm happy to benefit from his deep knowledge and clear writing, and have enjoyed the pleasure of his company at the odd air show. You're welcome to your opinion - but I value his opinion too. Of course the Bf109 was an excellent fighter, but it had its weaknesses; the slats and lack of a rudder trimmer being two of them and pertinent to this thread.
Cheers!
-
yea but the trim was set at the preference of the pilot, was it not presumably for the most comfortable state for the flight condition they would be in most of the time.
so unlike your tomahawk which was operating incorrectly most of the time wouldn't the rudder on a properly set 109 not need much attention.
i always heard the 109 had good rudder authority and few complaints about lack of in cockpit trim adjustability.
i think it was more of a "this is different, me no like" thing on the part of the tester than a real problem for the 109 pilots.
don't you think?
t
I flew a Tomahawk that was badly out of rig on a 1.5 hour cross country once. It required constant right rudder input to keep the ball centered during straight and level flight. By the time I got to the destination, my right leg was numb from the effort, and that was on a Traumahawk. Don't marginalize that kind of stuff, because the fatigue factor is huge. Heck, the Reno Unlimited guys fly with constant rudder deflections and they all say it gets tiring. Those races only last a few minutes or so.
i will look again but i don't remember a lot of "damn i wish i had rudder trim" statements in my recollection of 109 pilot accounts, i mean the plane was in service from the 30s to the 70s you would think a problem would have been addressed if it were a real problem.
just saying ...
t
The great Winkle was a Fleet Air Arm fighter pilot long before he became one of the world's greatest test pilots. He holds the record for flying more different types of aircraft than anyone else in history, carried out the greatest number of deck landings (including the first by a pure jet) and at the end of WW2 was commander of the 'Rafwaffe' Enemy Aircraft Test Unit at Farnborough. I'm happy to benefit from his deep knowledge and clear writing, and have enjoyed the pleasure of his company at the odd air show. You're welcome to your opinion - but I value his opinion too. Of course the Bf109 was an excellent fighter, but it had its weaknesses; the slats and lack of a rudder trimmer being two of them and pertinent to this thread.
Cheers!
-
Aileron snatching was a problem on the Emil, but was fixed on the Friedrich. In terms of production numbers, kills and as an ace maker the 109 is arguably the most successful combat aircraft of all time.
-
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Spitfire also lacked adjustable rudder trim from the cockpit. Both the 109 and the Spit lacked aileron trim, too. We are spoiled in AH and forget, or never even learn, what went into flying the aircraft.
so unlike your tomahawk which was operating incorrectly most of the time wouldn't the rudder on a properly set 109 not need much attention.
i always heard the 109 had good rudder authority and few complaints about lack of in cockpit trim adjustability.
i think it was more of a "this is different, me no like" thing on the part of the tester than a real problem for the 109 pilots.
don't you think?
The rudder and ailerons were adjusted on the ground for level flight at cruise speed. Throttle up and you will have to give right aileron input, and as speed increases input left rudder. Enter a slow climb and right rudder is required. You could simulate as much in AH by turning off automatic trim, and only adjusting elevator trim as you fly. It's nothing too terrible, but it is a hindrance.
Personally, I'd like to see automatic-trim disabled except for the TA.
-
"but it had its weaknesses; the slats and lack of a rudder trimmer being two of them and pertinent to this thread."
Actually, the slats were not a weakness but a strength that put it on par with other planes of the era in turning performance. As could be read from that late flight test you could fly the 109 with full elevator deflection. Try that in a plane without slats.
-C+
-
Personally, I'd like to see automatic-trim disabled except for the TA.
We'd all need to have some sort of force feedback joystick. As Stoney points out, holding rudder trim (or aileron or elevator, for that matter) over any period of time gets somewhat wearing and distracts from your attention, but you can feel it in the controls and, if you have a trim adjustment, you can trim it out. We can't really feel it in here, so any adjustment is going to be as abstract as the original out-of-trim condition.
- oldman
-
Abstract? If the plane is pitching up without input, trim down. If the ball isn't centered in level flight, trim the rudder. If the aircraft is rolling without input, trim the ailerons. There's nothing abstract about that.
If all aircraft had 3 axis trim, then I wouldn't think it was an issue. But since they didn't, we're degrading the advantage of 3 axis trim for the aircraft that had it. Axe the auto-level while we're at it.
Is this selective realism? Of course it is. Everything in a computer flight sim is going to be selective realism up to a point. What's at issue is what to decide is important to model and what is not.
-
Anax, I the Spitfire had a rudder trim, so did most of the other fighters. Hence the fact that allied pilots noted the absence of it!
Oh, and because the slats threw you of your aim is the exact reason Rall didn't like them. He however said that without them, the 109's landing speed would have been unacceptably high, so it was a matter of which is more important. Well, you don't get into combat if you cannot land. Well, once :D
I did ask him if he ever heard about them being wired in the shut position. He found it interesting, but hadn't heard about it.
-
BTW, I did some tight turns in a slatted aircraft once. It was delightful, but the nose was wobbling. So, a matter of choice I guess, buffeting or wobbling.
Rall however linked the flaw with a very rough turn, and I know he would normally try to keep his speed up. Makes me wonder if he could have ridden those turns without them. Anyway, if you went to far, you were not just off your aim, but the outboard wing would drop, leaving you with a more direct flight or even the other direction. Happened very quickly.
-
right, my point said better, just something you had to deal with, and got used to.
+S+
t
P.S. one conclusion we could draw, german pilots had nicer legs :aok
It's nothing too terrible, but it is a hindrance.
-
Disabling trim? Why?
Trim in AH is not the same as trim in the real plane. Trim in AH is minute inputs to the control surfaces themselves, NOT to their trim tabs. You see the stick move and the ailerons deflect when you trim your ailerons.
In real life there is no spring center, as with on our joysticks. You see you're rolling just a hair, deflect it a faction of an inch the other way, and viola, that's your new "center" point.
Stoney, I don't know personally what you went through with that rudder, but on 109s specifically, the pilots trained, kept in great shape (you read how many exercised in the down times to keep physically fit to pull more Gs, etc), and they were trained, and flew extensively, on these planes. I think they probably had a much easier time keeping their rudder centered than the average guy coming in from P51s or whatever (i.e. a US pilot testing captured LW gear).
-
Reading accounts of luftwaffe air battles there were several pilots that would be so fatigued they could not climb out of the cockpits. Of course they flew all day but so did some of the allies and I dont recall that same thing being reported.
-
Depends 'round which time frame I guess... Later in the war you had untrained kids flying those things. Definitely not the same kind of stamina as you find from the polished (well... more so...) units of 1940, 1941, 1942.
-
different kind of flying all day USAAF escorts flew to fight and flew back the to and back took up most of the day ...
109 guys flying combat sortie after combat sortie 1-3 hours at a time were bound to be more tired. the Luftwaffe in the conditions you describe were in combat most likely at least once every sortie USAAF guys often didn't engage at all ...
so i think it is more reflective of the mission type than the trim type.
+S+
t
Reading accounts of luftwaffe air battles there were several pilots that would be so fatigued they could not climb out of the cockpits. Of course they flew all day but so did some of the allies and I dont recall that same thing being reported.
-
Stoney, I don't know personally what you went through with that rudder, but on 109s specifically, the pilots trained, kept in great shape (you read how many exercised in the down times to keep physically fit to pull more Gs, etc), and they were trained, and flew extensively, on these planes. I think they probably had a much easier time keeping their rudder centered than the average guy coming in from P51s or whatever (i.e. a US pilot testing captured LW gear).
That flight was made while I was still in the Marine Corps, so I was still in decent shape. Certainly not impossible by any stretch, and I'm sure it was something they got used to, but added to their fatigue, no doubt. Doesn't mean the 109 sucked or anything, just pointing out the issue.
-
Depends 'round which time frame I guess... Later in the war you had untrained kids flying those things. Definitely not the same kind of stamina as you find from the polished (well... more so...) units of 1940, 1941, 1942.
I am talking about the luftwaffe 'heroes' like Hartmann who was often times so exhausted he was unconscious after landing a days worth of sorties. Thorsim has it wrong too and must be thinking of the more often reported missions from England. No I was talking about allied missions from Italy where Thunderbolts and A-36 Mustangs would take off and fly twelve miles to bomb German positions and then rtb for more ord. Some of those 'close support' squadrons (often flown even by British) flew as many times or more than the luftwaffe ever did and yes they slept soundly but they could at least climb from their planes. The 109 was poorly designed for control leverage and without trim controls they did exhaust their pilots.
-
the 190 didn't have them either, i just think it was a different approach, not any kind of poor design or lack of engineering sophistication ...
in any case the Luftwaffe seemed to struggle through ok anyway.
t
I am talking about the luftwaffe 'heroes' like Hartmann who was often times so exhausted he was unconscious after landing a days worth of sorties. Thorsim has it wrong too and must be thinking of the more often reported missions from England. No I was talking about allied missions from Italy where Thunderbolts and A-36 Mustangs would take off and fly twelve miles to bomb German positions and then rtb for more ord. Some of those 'close support' squadrons (often flown even by British) flew as many times or more than the luftwaffe ever did and yes they slept soundly but they could at least climb from their planes. The 109 was poorly designed for control leverage and without trim controls they did exhaust their pilots.
-
"Major Al Williams' Test Flight With Bf-109D
US Marine Corps Major Al Williams, Schneider Trophy competitor with his own Kirkham-Williams aircraft, Pulitzer winner from '23 and a head of the Gulf Oil Company's aviation department, had a chance to fly the latest aircraft in the German Luftwaffe's arsenal, Messerchmitt 109 D in summer 1938. Major Williams' view on the capability of the fighter gives an interesting view on the usual commentary about flying and the capabilities of the Bf 109 fighter."
http://www.virtualpilots.fi/hist/WW2History-109Dtestflight1938.html
-
Good post Die Hard. Thanks for sharing the great link.
-
"The take-off was normal, and I estimated that the ground run was fully one-half the distance used by the Hawker Hurricane and about one-fourth the distance used by the Supermarine Spitfire."
Must have been a helicopter :t
-
"Must have been a helicopter"
Must been them useless slats that enabled it to do such? :t
Well, D had a Jumo. In 109E the DB added nearly 200kg of weight so I guess it would affect the responsiviness quite a bit. Also the view outside was probably much better in D than in later versions with armoured windscreen and thicker frames.
-C+
-
For posterity, it sure would be better if test pilots just said "it took 1,500 feet to takeoff" instead of comparitive statements like that.
-
nevermind.
-
nevermind.
What? Its annecdotal comments like that the get us all clawing at each other most of the time.
-
Skip like it ...
http://www.skipholm.com/willy-messerschmitt.htm
-
"The take-off was normal, and I estimated that the ground run was fully one-half the distance used by the Hawker Hurricane and about one-fourth the distance used by the Supermarine Spitfire."
Must have been a helicopter :t
Spitfires and Hurris don't use flaps on take off. Williams used 15 degrees of flaps on take off in the 109D.
-
"The guns on this ship - five of them, all hunched on the fuselage"
On a Bf109D? Wonder what else he made up? :headscratch:
-
I agree stoney. My original comment wasn't about your post.
-
1/4 th of a Spitfire takeoff is just about nothing. And sounds a bit silly with an aircraft with a higher wingloading, it may be very close or maybe in the 109D's favour though, but much less power instead.
Anyway, for the horsepower, the Spit did haul more than the 109, so the anecdote sort of ... falls.
FYI, Spitfires did take off from HMS Eagle, butt full of fuel with an extra tank for a 600 miles flight. The HMS Eagle was only 200 metres long, and with a pointy front. Of course you have wind and cruising speed playing with this, but 1/4 th....it's a joke.
The article also features a part from Lindberg, and he was very much of a fan of all the Germans did at the time.
I could type up Jeffrey Quill's part meeting Lindberg before the war, as well as Gunther Rall's account of the 109D in the cockpit, etc. Plenty of anecdotes that completely oppose the one posted.
Oh, PS:
Taking off short from the HMS Eagle was none with a little bit of flaps on the Spitfire. Not possible? Guess how it was done :devil :neener:
-
"The guns on this ship - five of them, all hunched on the fuselage"
On a Bf109D? Wonder what else he made up? :headscratch:
Two in the cowl and three in the engine. They suffered from vibration problems, so they later dropped the engine guns.
-
The spitfire did not have a better wing loading in 1938. The 109 Dora was very much the lighter of the two and had similar power loading. With flaps and slats the 109's take off run would be considerably shorter. Perhaps not a quarter of the spit's, but that was a subjective observation not a scientific measurement.
-
Since you are using the Dora to support your position I am going to point out that later models (by the time of Hartmann) were not only heavier but also had more power so the trim 'window' would have been much narrower and control forces even higher.
-
"Two in the cowl and three in the engine. They suffered from vibration problems, so they later dropped the engine guns."
Really? The literature on the Bf109D that I've read (The Augsburg Eagle by William Green) states that it was Jumo-engined and carried the same armament as the Bf109C, a total of four guns, i.e. two 7.9 MG17 machine guns mounted in the fuselage and one 7.9 MG17 mounted in each wing. Every photo I've ever seen of the Bf109D shows this armament. I'd be interested to know the source of your information (other than the flight test already quoted) so I can check it out and add to my knowledge.
The Daimler-Benz engine fitted to the Bf109E permitted the mounting of a cannon that could fire through the prop hub but it wasn't a success. The two MG FF 20mm cannon carried by the Bf109E were mounted one in each wing. The 'open-nose' prop spinner was retained because Messerschmitt had already manufactured hundreds of them and led to the assumption that the standard 'Emil' carried three cannon - which it didn't.
:cool:
-
Sometimes they put a 7mm in the hub for a total of 5.
Maybe he means "close in" because the spitfire's guns were waaaay out towards the wingtips, scattered.
I agree that was a relatively inaccurate statement.
-
possibly the interviewer got confused with the armament between the 110 and the 109 ???
-
Since you are using the Dora to support your position I am going to point out that later models (by the time of Hartmann) were not only heavier but also had more power so the trim 'window' would have been much narrower and control forces even higher.
My position? What may that be?
-
Interesting discussion regarding the slats. The A4 had similar aerodynamic leading edge slats and few ever said they'd get rid of them and they added much more than they took away although they required some special techniques at times.
Assuming the tracks were cleaned and properly aligned the slats rolled in and out during approach/takeoff fairly smoothly and evenly. High G maneuvering and especially rolling pulls were different. Snatch on a lot of G quickly at the right speeds and the slats would snap out hard enough to make you wonder, especially if one came out first and caused you to snap roll. The biggest problem was lining up for a gun shot. You start an easy pull to bring the pipper ahead of the target and all of a sudden the slats would pop and the nose would pitch then you back off on the pull to bring the pipper back down and the slats would pop in again and drive your nose low. The trick was to unload for a second and then pull harder so that your pull would get the slats out first while maintaining sufficient AOA (G loading) to keep them out as you lined up and fired. Not as hard as it sounds and it only happened in a certain speed range. The worst thing the slats would do is asymetrically deploy, especially during a rolling pull. The slat on the outside of the roll would deploy first which could cause a departure. That's ok though, you learned to roll then pull. It is interesting though that the Blues bolted their slats up so they could be smoother and more precise but then they weren't trying to out turn anyone.
-
What? Its annecdotal comments like that the get us all clawing at each other most of the time.
Very true... This statement in the piece is ridiculous: "I found this trigger sensitive to the touch and extremely light, later ascertaining that a pressure of 3 milligrams was required to close the circuit and actuate the guns."
3 milligrams??? A sheet of toilet tissue weighs more than 3 milligrams. 3/1000ths of a gram?? Ludicrous statement. Such a remark casts doubt on the entire story.
My regards,
Widewing
-
possibly the interviewer got confused with the armament between the 110 and the 109 ???
There's several issues with that story.... Which is why you often have to take anecdotal evidence with a grain of salt.
My regards,
Widewing
-
The 109D will have to be a lot lighter for a short field hop, - only has 700 ps.
However I am not so sure how much power could be applied on takeoff.
I have seen very many Spitfires taking off, and if they gave some throttle they were up after a very short ground roll. The first time I saw one, he opened up quite well, was up in a whiff and carried on straight into a loop.
So, the 1/4th of that and with only 700 ps instead of 1050 sort of rang my alarm. The fanboy alarm ;)
-
Says the Spitfire fanboy. ;)
-
"The take-off was normal, and I estimated that the ground run was fully one-half the distance used by the Hawker Hurricane and about one-fourth the distance used by the Supermarine Spitfire."
Must have been a helicopter :t
I think this is a misunderstanding.
I rather assume: one-half=1 1/2 and one-fourth=1 1/4
Otherwise the takeoff distance of a Spitfire would be the double of the Hurricane's...
-
The Hurricane AFAIK needed less than the Spitty. Not much of a difference though.
One-halfwould in my understanding be half, - 50% while one-fourth the distance would be 25%.
And you don't have to be a Spitfire fanboy to see that this claim is way off. :eek:
As for Linbergh, he popped in for a Spitfire check after being in Germany in 1939. He had been there as Göring's guest, with all the red carpets ready, so it must have been like stepping back to the mediavals to see the scruffy WWI hangars at Eastleigh in comparison with some brand new facilities in Germany. To Jeffrey Quill, Lindberg seemed to show a condescending interest in the Spitfire, presumably based on the accommodation. Quill does not mention a test flight at all.
-
That's what I mean. If the takeoff for the 109 is 150% of the Hurri and 125% of the Spitfire the Hurri is a little better than the Spitfire. Makes sense like this.
-
125% is less than 150%.
:old:
-
:)
Hurricane
=====.=====.=====.=====.
Spitfire
=====.=====.=====.=====.====
109 (150% of Hurricane, 125% of Spitfire)
=====.=====.=====.=====.=====.=====.
-
If you want to get realistic, 99.99999999999999999999999% of all WW2 combat was with flaps firmly locked in the "up" position.
That number is enough to be stating that no N1K1 or N1K2 ever saw combat.
In short, you're making things up and stating them as fact again.
-
The 109D will have to be a lot lighter for a short field hop, - only has 700 ps.
The only Spitfire Major Williams could have compared the 109D to in the summer of 1938 was the early Mk I, powered by the 1,030 hp Merlin Mk II driving a two-blade wooden fixed-pitch prop. That fixed-pitch prop was designed for high-speed and would waste a lot of the engine power at low speed/take off. The 109D had a variable-pitch two-blade metal propeller of American Hamilton Standard design, built under license by the German firm VDM. Even if we discount the differences in propeller efficiency at take off the power loading of the two aircraft is very similar: Spitfire Mk. I: 4,810 lbs, 1,030 hp, 0.21 hp/lb. Bf 109D: 3,522 lbs, 700 hp, 0.20 hp/lb. Wing loading: Spitfire: 242 sq ft wing area, 19.8 lb/sq ft. Bf 109D: 174 sq ft wing area, 20.2 lb/sq ft.
With the 109 using 15 degrees of flaps (with drooping ailerons), leading edge slats and a Hamilton Standard variable pitch propeller, its take off run would be considerably shorter than that of the Spitfire Mk.I Major Williams could have compared it to in the summer of 1938.
I'm not sure, but I don't think a U.S. Marine Corps Major would be a 109 "fanboy"... Unless there was good reason to be one.
-
Oh... and the Merlin II/III only had 880 hp at take off. 1,030 hp at full pressure height (12,250 ft). The Jumo 210 had 681 hp at take off. 690 hp at first supercharger speed (4,920 ft) and 671 hp at second supercharger speed (12,140 ft).
The weight difference between the two engines is considerable: Merlin II: 1,375 lbs. Jumo 210G: 974 lbs. That weight difference of 400 lbs alone makes up one third of the weight difference between the Bf 109D and Spitfire Mk.I.
-
Now that was at least something. Was digging in my pile and could not find the specifications of the 109D. Did find a description of flying the 109D (mainly take off) as well as a lot of the Spit.
The account comes from Rall.
What he points out is that the UC is too narrow to support the power you have (already with the 109D!), so take-off accidents are not unique to students, but also take place in the operable squadrons, this becoming more marked with the 109E. The 109 is no calm wagon horse he sais, it's a nervous racehorse. And the prop, - you have to be fast to modify the settings, or you will crash on the other side of the field. That indicates a different setting for takeoff.
So there is nothing to choose from in regards of wingloading. Power is slightly in the favour of the Spitfire, and possibly more if the 109D cannot apply what it has, Thrust might even be in the favour of the 109D, and slats and flaps are. But a quarter of the roll, - I seriously doubt so. Not even sure it would be shorter at all.
Oh, fanboys? Lindbergh was. At that time, the USA had mixed feelings about Germany, and Göring really knew how to roll the red carpet :D
Oh, the Merlin while being heavier, has less weight behind each hp. But the Jumo is more favourable at SL.
As a sidenote, if HTC adds more into the early planeset, the 109D is perhaps a must?
-
-
The 109D saw only limited service during the war and would not add anything appreciable to the plane set.
-
Only AFTER PZL-11, I-116, P-36, D-520 and such...
Would be a nifty opponent for the B-239, I-16 and perhaps Hurry-I.
-
Agreed. While an interesting plane, it still remains only as a curiosity with E series being the version that saw "actual" heavy use. I'd rather see E-1 or E-3 if these ever came under consideration.
Calm down Angus, I don't believe all that was said in the report either. I'm sure the plane was very impressive at its time but add year or even a half and it would seem quite average. To understand his views how he saw the 109 you'd need to know what else he compared it to. E.g. what were the American contemporaries at that time and their performance.
Good info on engines DieHard, thx.
-C+
-
That is a good point, - about the Americans I mean.
While they seem to have flown both the Spit and Hurry prototypes, which would be the U.S. monoplane counterparts?
P-36? Seversky? Was Brewster about?
Anyway, t'was nice to have the Hp at SL. I never found that, nor do I seem to have it in the books. And the whole 109 volumes are a big chunk for me to buy ;)
-
The account comes from Rall.
What he points out is that the UC is too narrow to support the power you have (already with the 109D!), so take-off accidents are not unique to students...
Quiz: Which of the two aircraft had the widest landing gear?
Hint: It's not the Spitfire.
As a sidenote, if HTC adds more into the early planeset, the 109D is perhaps a must?
It would be pretty pointless. It only saw very limited action in the early months of WWII during the Polish campaign. By the time of the Battle of France it had been replaced by the E.
-
On the T/O issue:
RAF tests state that the early Spitfire with wooden fixed pitch prop had a 420 yard T/O run. Later two pitch metal units were 320 yards, and T/O with Rotol CSPs were 195-225 yards (or about 45-55% of that with the fixed prop).
Early Hurricane tests show a 265 yard T/O run. Not sure what prop this is, but test was Apr-1936, so I'd geusstimate a wooden fixed pitch unit.
So, if Major Williams is correct, the 109D had a T/O run of somewhere around 105-132.5 yards. Not impossible, but unlikely.
-
I guess that clears it up.
-
From 'Myths of the Battle of Britain' by Major D. P. Tidy:
"The initial acceleration of the Bf 109E was good, and there was no tendency to swing or bucket. When the throttle was opened the stick had to be held hard forward, but when the tail came up, it could be eased back. So long as no effort was made to pull the aircraft off quickly the take-off was easy and straightforward, the run remarkably short, and the initial rate of climb very good. The Bf 109 was definitely superior in these respects to Spitfires and Hurricanes with two-pitch airscrews."
Mind you, that's the E model.
-
Also from Major Tidy:
"...originally the Spitfire was designed for a Rotol constant-speed propeller which, owing to development troubles, had not evolved by 1938, and so the Spitfire came into service with fixed-pitch wooden propeller. The design of fixed-pitch propeller for an aeroplane with a speed range from stalling at about 70 mph (112 km/h) to 361 mph (579 km/h) at top speed, was an almost impossible compromise and, with the top speed optimized, take-off was correspondingly poor — in fact, it was terrible. So bad, in fact, that Spitfires could at first only be operated from Duxford and Catterick, both of which had good open approaches in both directions and which were Fighter Command’s biggest airfields."
-
So in other words, the original article about the 109D may not have been the huge exaggeration some were saying it must be. In fact, it sounds like an accurate description vs a Spitfire with a fixed pitch propeller. Good work Die Hard.
-
Thanks. It never ceases to amaze me how some individuals can so easily dismiss the first hand accounts of highly experienced aviators. Even calling them "fanboys". The undeserving victim this time was a world famous (at the time) military aviator with his own Schneider Trophy air racing team and a Pulitzer winner. As always these individuals are only showing their own ignorance, but it does get annoying at times.
-
Done some more digging:
T/O distances for Bf-109G6 trop, w/ 20 degrees flap:
3360 kg: 455/440 m (0.9 m/sec, 1.9 m/sec wind)
3340 kg: 457/431 m (0, 2.3 m/sec wind)
3320 kg: 411 m (2.5 m/sec wind)
3300 kg: 399 m (2.6 m/sec wind)
3280 kg: 408 m (1.7 m/sec wind)
Normal loaded weight was 3,360 kg.
Figures with 40 degrees of flap are actually longer.
Weight obviously makes a major difference to T/O performance, but I’m not sure how well this new info would gel with the earlier comments on 109D T/O performance. Given that the 109G-6 had a power to weight ratio of about 0.44 PS/kg and the 109D had a power to weight ratio of 0.35 PS/kg, I wonder how much this affected the T/O distance?
(These are obviously rough figures using best available power, not necessarily T/O power)
Then again, the other major consideration to balance is the much lower wingloading of the 109D
Sidestepping a little, and the Gloster Gladiator had a T/O run of 165 m with 2 bladed fixed pitch wooden prop, and 150 m with three bladed prop (not sure if fixed, two pitch or CSP). Power to weight was 0.50 PS/kg (better than the 109G-6 :confused:).
Surely the less heavily wing-loaded biplane would get off the ground faster than a 109D?
-
It's irrelevant. The 109D had a short T/O run yes, perhaps even remarkably short, but the important fact is that the Spitfire had an amazingly long T/O run due to its propeller in 1938. The Hurricane also suffered from its fixed-pitch prop. Major Williams praise of the 109D's TO distance must be viewed in the correct context.
-
Thanks. It never ceases to amaze me how some individuals can so easily dismiss the first hand accounts of highly experienced aviators. Even calling them "fanboys". The undeserving victim this time was a world famous (at the time) military aviator with his own Schneider Trophy air racing team and a Pulitzer winner. As always these individuals are only showing their own ignorance, but it does get annoying at times.
In the absence of quantitative data, I think we would all be well served to question annecdotal statements such as those made by the good Major. Obviously, given the other research you presented, it casts his statement in the plausible category, but still its an ambiguous statement, especially considering the political environment that surrounded his and Lindhberg's trip to Germany. Robert Johnson said his P-47 could outclimb a Spit 9 too. Should we just accept that at face value?
-
I'm pretty sure a P-47 can out climb a Spit 9 under certain circumstances. Without knowing the context of Robert Johnson's comment it should be taken for what it is; an anecdote. It sure as hell shouldn't be used to discredit anything else he said.
-
I'm pretty sure a P-47 can out climb a Spit 9 under certain circumstances.
Therefore anecdotal evidence.
-
More data from the ME 109E Baubeschring: T/O run for the 109E (sub-type unidentified) was 300-320 m (~330-350 yards)
It's irrelevant. The 109D had a short T/O run yes, perhaps even remarkably short, but the important fact is that the Spitfire had an amazingly long T/O run due to its propeller in 1938.
It may well be irrelevant, but generally I find bringing facts into the discussion to be illuminating.
The RAF translation of the 109G-6 handbook gives a T/O run of approximately 400m. Would this also classify as an amazingly long T/O run, given the differences in aircraft over 4 years?
(Interestingly, the translation of the handbook also gives these values for turn times (which I had never seen before):
Turn time at speed
400 km/h 180 degrees circa 13 seconds
450 km/h 100 degrees circa 14 seconds)
All the primary materials can be found here: http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/other-mechanical-systems-tech/new-bf-109-manuals-thread-17837.html
-
Quiz: Which of the two aircraft had the widest landing gear?
Hint: It's not the Spitfire.
I know they'ra bout the same, but the 109 only gets that far by splaying it's legs :D
Quiz: What did the pilot in the first article say about it:
Hint:
"Both of the tires are mounted “crooked”, rolling with a camber angle of about 25°. Consequently both wheels want to turn inwards under the aeroplane. When the aeroplane is rolling with an equal download on both wheels, symmetry prevails; both wheels fight to a stand-off, and the aeroplane rolls straight. Now imagine that something causes the download on the wheels to momentarily become unequal. In that case the rolling friction of the tires becomes uneven and the turning tendency of the “heavy” tire asserts itself. What might do this? Well, crosswinds. Or torque from engine power. However, the most dangerous culprit is turning. With the aeroplane’s center of gravity situated high above the tires, a swerve will set loose large centrifugal forces that cause the aeroplane to try to roll over the tires. This is true of any aeroplane, but in this scenario the unusual camber of the Bf-109’s tires creates strong directional instability, requiring a different type of control strategy for take-offs and landings. Tight heading control or aggressive tracking of the runway centerline can set off abrupt directional divergence. "
-
I'd say that any fighter of that era is tricky to land if the width of the wheels is too small. The problem is not so pronounced in Spit due to softer shock absorbers and less camber but in general they both like a soft grass field more. Finnish pilots said that most of the problems with Bf109 landings they saw was due to concrete runways and too high speed. They saw that Bf109 could be brought down much more slowly and the handling was generally easier on sand or grass surfaces.
"Camber thrust" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camber_thrust.
Does the 109 suffer from camber thrust then? As I understand it the camber thrust would be a problem if the landing gear leg would be perpendicular to ground where the camber thrust would indeed force the wheels inwards due to negative camber, but for a 109 that would mean a significant nose down attitude as the landing gear legs are angled forward which causes toe-out that should negate the effects of camber thrust.
However what is not clear to me is that as seen from the underside of the aircraft when retracted the landing gear goes slightly backwards from where it is mounted but the tire remains somewhat straight, so does it have some amount of toe-in or out from that arrangement which again affects the path the tire tries to take in different angles of the thrustline.
-C+
-
It never ceases to amaze me how some individuals can so easily dismiss the first hand accounts of highly experienced aviators.
Agreed. Data produced by human test pilots is clearly valuable; anecdotal evidence is hardly useless simply because it's anecdotal.
- oldman
-
Agreed. Data produced by human test pilots is clearly valuable; anecdotal evidence is hardly useless simply because it's anecdotal.
- oldman
I said question it, not dismiss it out of hand.
-
...splaying it's legs :D
I think we can all agree that over the last 100 years of aviation history, there is no better method to win a pilot's heart...
:)
-
There's an obvious trend to adore the anecdotes of pilots who praised aircraft we like, and dismiss the anecdotes that praise aircraft we don't like. In the other direction, we dismiss negative anecdotes about our favorite aircraft, and amplify negative anecdotes about the aircraft we dislike. In psychology they call it selection bias.
For a game like AH, some of us have a clear preference for Spitfires, or P-51s, or 190s, etc. And these preferences muddy all of the discussions we see in the forums.
-
The splaying of legs yes, :devil
I drove a lot of old crappy cars in my hayday, so I was somewhat embarassed of not seeing the problem with the 109 gear setting. I took it as the other way around.
Try a car withthis setting :D
-
With what setting? Negative camber with toe-out? How did it feel? :confused:
-C+
-
Ordinary service to an aircraft, such as filling the gasoline tank, checking and replenishing the oil supply, and reloading ammunition belts, requires between ten and fifteen minutes. The new development, therefore, enables the Germans to change an engine while the rest of the service is going on. It's startling performance - namely, yanking one engine and replacing it with another, and turning it over to the pilot inside of 12 minutes.
This is mind-boggling from a serviceability perspective. Get an oil leak from a few bullets, land, go take a leak/dump, come back, and you've got not only a new load-out of ammo, but a new engine to boot in just 12 minutes.
I wonder what the service times were like for other WWII aircraft?
-
Dont worry about it in AH you get the same service in every plane in just 30 seconds. :old:
-
but not a new engine ...
gerrrrmannssssszzzz is kewel ...
Dont worry about it in AH you get the same service in every plane in just 30 seconds. :old:
-
Therefore anecdotal evidence.
Well hello there Captain Obvious.
Without knowing the context of Robert Johnson's comment it should be taken for what it is; an anecdote.
-
The RAF translation of the 109G-6 handbook gives a T/O run of approximately 400m. Would this also classify as an amazingly long T/O run, given the differences in aircraft over 4 years?
Given that the G-6 is more than twice the weight of the D with about the same wing area and less effective flaps, I'm not surprised. Wouldn't be surprised if the contemporary Spitfires had shorter T/O runs too. Without looking at hard data I would guesstimate 400 yards as "average" for 1943 Euro/US fighters.
-
I know they'ra bout the same, but the 109 only gets that far by splaying it's legs :D
Quiz: What did the pilot in the first article say about it:
Hint:
"Both of the tires are mounted “crooked”, rolling with a camber angle of about 25°...
They're not "crooked" when the plane is in a three-point configuration, only when the tail is high. The wheels are designed to be straight when the plane rests on all three wheels. That's why a 109 should always be three-pointed on landing, and as Major Williams says the tail should not be raised on take off either. The 109 should be allowed to take off on its own. Many of the greenhorns were afraid to fly slow enough to get the slats out on landing, thus landing on two wheels in a tail-high configuration; that's dangerous in a 109.
Here's a pretty much perfect take off and landing of a 109:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mzgYkfq9OVw&feature=related
You can see by the deflection of the elevators that he keeps the controls neutral and doesn't push the tail up at take off, but lets the plane fly off by itself thus unloading the main wheels before rotating. The landing is also as good as makes no difference: Perfect.
-
This is mind-boggling from a serviceability perspective. Get an oil leak from a few bullets, land, go take a leak/dump, come back, and you've got not only a new load-out of ammo, but a new engine to boot in just 12 minutes.
I wonder what the service times were like for other WWII aircraft?
Longer... However, the DB 605 (109G onwards) was only a 150 hour engine because it was made from crap (Germans lacked many important strategic resources at that point in the war). They needed to pull the engines on their planes a lot more often that what the Allies did, tough not as often as the Russians.
-
I recall Rall's comment on this. He flew a captured Mustang, that had quite a lot of hours on the clock and noted the propeller being practically unmoveable by hand. In the 109, he said, you could rotate with one hand after only about 10 hours of flying time.
So, the ease of the 109's installing-uninstalling was a marvel, and a necessary one.
-
This 12 minute engine change leaves a lot out of what was involved in the change. For example, was the prop on the new engine or was the prop from the old engine removed and installed on the new engine. Was all the coolant and oil lines and engine and prop controls connected?
-
I'd put a wild guess on the raw move, - i.e. the time to remove the "egg" and put another one in it's place, thereby work being done before and after.
AFAIK, the 109 would have been the fastest aircraft of WW2 to have that kind of operation. Wasn't the 190 pretty fast as well?
-
but not a new engine ...
gerrrrmannssssszzzz is kewel ...
For the purposes of AH it doesnt matter. In reality your fantasies about this 109 are oversexed. The plane truly sucked at high altitude which is why the K-14 was never developed further. In TRW the controls must move further in order to have the same influence/effect and the control forces increase with speed (and the airplanes speed will increase with altitude by necessity). While the 109 is fast and can still be flown at altitude the primary reason it was outmatched by the P-51 (for instance) was its handling in the higher altitudes. All the luftwhining in the world wont change that.
-
I dunno Challenge. I'd take a 109K-4 to a 30k dogfight any day over a P-51D. Are you sure you're not biased by a dislike of the 109 and a fondness for the P-51?
Or is what you're saying an argument that the aircraft are modeled incorrectly in AH? Because the 109K-4 certainly outperforms the P-51D at high altitude.
-
He sounds like a troll.
-
luftwhining ?????
-
Not being a luftwhiner, the late models of 109's were the best high alt fighters the Germans had in considerable numbers late in the war.
They lost their performance superiority to the RAF in 1942 (Spit IX) and restored it on to the par with the Allies in 1944.
Bear in mind, that when Rall was jostling with Zemke's pack in 1944, the P-47's were bounced by the 109's. The 109's were quite a bit higher.
Just my 5 cents.
-
Wouldn't mind having a G-14/AS in the game.
-
"Wasn't the 190 pretty fast as well?"
I'd think so. At least for bomber use the BMW 801 was, AFAIK, delivered as a complete power egg which could be plugged in as a complete package which contained even the cowlings.
-C+
-
So, in both cases, the main issue would be landing the entire "egg" where it gets bolted, and meanwhile the fuel, gauges, electrics and (in the case of the 109 but not the 190) - coolant lines.
Did they have hook mountings for the procedure?
-
The engine was bolted to the famous Messerschmitt A-frame at four points (two on each side).
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2610/3904437018_0be8ec9cb5.jpg)
All the wires and coolant lines were fitted with quick connections. The 109's tail was raised and supported on a stand to bring the nose level, and the engine was lifted with a tripod hoist and positioned before being bolted into place. I suppose replacing the engine itself could be done in 12 minutes, but the whole procedure including testing usually took about an hour. This was usually not done in the field btw, but at the Geschwader shops. This was Nachtarbeit - night work, when the pilots were sleeping. However in less civilized parts of the war like Africa and the Russian front the Geschwader shops were usually not more than a bunch of tents and the mechanics were working under an open sky.
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_CbwnjooteyI/SEgbaVAptnI/AAAAAAAAPLY/SNw8DBpZTWQ/s1600/Ground_crew_work_on_the_engine_of_a_Bf_109E_at_the_Svretv_Vrax_airstrip_at_the_Kresna_Pass_in_Bulgaria_in_1941.jpg)
-
One thing baffles me, since the procedure was so fast.
In Russia, the frost gave a heck of a problem, since the aircraft were not inside anything warmed up. So, in short, the lubrication (oil) would go overly thick. The mechanics tried to cope with this, either by tapping off the oil which means filling up before start (oil kept warm elsewhere, or warmed up), or running a fire under the engine, which did cause some trouble.
With such a quick installing and uninstalling, one wonders if it wouldn't have been smart to remove the engine over night and keeping it inside a warmed up space. Perhaps that was even done?
Anyway, the problem was solved, and now I will be evil and wait for somebody to say how :devil
-
Ok, "Kaltstart" i.e. 15% gasoline in engine oil which vaporized quite quickly when the engine was running. However, it was prohibited to put any load on the engine during warm-up or the engine would seize-up. Once Rudel was in such a hurry that he didn't have time to wait sufficiently and he ended up ditching a FW190 due to engine failure. :P
I'm not sure who invented this in the first place but I have read that Germans learned it from Russians.
-C+
-
I'm not sure who invented this in the first place but I have read that Germans learned it from Russians.
Henry Ford 1922 and William Parrish discovered how to recover the gasoline from oil and return it to the intake for combustion that same year.
-
Jesus Christ...
-
Ok, "Kaltstart" i.e. 15% gasoline in engine oil which vaporized quite quickly when the engine was running. However, it was prohibited to put any load on the engine during warm-up or the engine would seize-up. Once Rudel was in such a hurry that he didn't have time to wait sufficiently and he ended up ditching a FW190 due to engine failure. :P
I'm not sure who invented this in the first place but I have read that Germans learned it from Russians.
-C+
You're the boss ;)
Anyway, AFAIK it was learned from the Russians who kept flying when the Germans could not. Rall's unit in fact.
-
BTW the DB's joint to engine firewall looks something like a "ball joint" type which was used in other planes as well, e.g. in JU88 to hold the wings in the fuselage. I'll see if I have a picture of it somewhere.
-C+
-
Found a page where it is shown. Could be something like this also in 109's engine mount.
http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1940/1940%20-%202763.html
http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1940/1940%20-%202765.html
-C+