Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: STEELE on May 11, 2011, 09:12:18 PM
-
Here is one of many quotes about the 109 E's rate of roll:
inside cockpit of a Bf 109E Here is a detailed view of the cockpit area from slightly below. The mannequin is dressed up in the equipment of Luftwaffe fighter pilot. Though cramped, the 109E had superior climb and acceleration compared to other fighter planes of the era 1936 -1941. It also had a superior roll rate, which allowed it to get away from enemy fighters. The Spitfire could outturn it, but not out roll it.
:noid
-
Here is one of many quotes about the 109 E's rate of roll:
inside cockpit of a Bf 109E Here is a detailed view of the cockpit area from slightly below. The mannequin is dressed up in the equipment of Luftwaffe fighter pilot. Though cramped, the 109E had superior climb and acceleration compared to other fighter planes of the era 1936 -1941. It also had a superior roll rate, which allowed it to get away from enemy fighters. The Spitfire could outturn it, but not out roll it.
:noid
Ok. What is the source? Why did you post it here? Do you believe there is a discrepancy in the current roll rate of the 109E-4?
If you have not tried the 109E-4's roll rate vs a Spitfire Mk I... I highly suggest you do. Then report back. ;)
-
Oops, this is what I originally wanted to post: :uhoh
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit1vrs109e.html
RAE testing of the Emil vs Spit, scroll down to the Roll Rate section, theres a graph
Between 200-250 mph the Spit takes twice as long to bank 45 degrees!
1 second for the 109, 2 seconds for the Spit :)
-
Here is one of many quotes about the 109 E's rate of roll:
inside cockpit of a Bf 109E Here is a detailed view of the cockpit area from slightly below. The mannequin is dressed up in the equipment of Luftwaffe fighter pilot. Though cramped, the 109E had superior climb and acceleration compared to other fighter planes of the era 1936 -1941. It also had a superior roll rate, which allowed it to get away from enemy fighters. The Spitfire could outturn it, but not out roll it.
:noid
don't tell me you're starting to buy Schlowy4's assertion that the Bf 109E's flight model is busted because he claims the Bf 109E rolls slower than a B-17?
ack-ack
-
Nah, was just playing around in DA vs a Spit1, did some more tests just now, the 109E seems fairly close to the graph, the Spit seems to take 2 seconds to bank 90 degrees (instead of 45 degrees, like the RAE chart shows)
-
don't tell me you're starting to buy Schlowy4's assertion that the Bf 109E's flight model is busted because he claims the Bf 109E rolls slower than a B-17?
ack-ack
LOL, I remember that one. For about a hour on 200, that is all the bit@h about.
-
Both planes roll like a dora :P
Anyway its interesting, why the spit1 cant roll and why the basically simmilar spit5 can also why the Emil cant roll and why the Fritz with its extended windspan can.
-
The Spit I had fabric covered ailerons. The Spit V had metal covered. The metal ailerons were retrofitted to some Spitfire II as well. The metal ailerons help improved the roll rate.
-
Emil should be a bit better in roll to F, at least in slow speed. The F was better in design phase due to shorter wingspan and probably better designed ailerons but the rounded wing extensions took the ailerons out of their best effect area so the roll performance was actually slightly reduced compared to E. Individual test reports may have a different view to this, however.
-C+
-
I was under the impression that while the F had rounded tips, the span and area was shorter, thus less mass to move around. The rounded wing version (I thought) had better roll rate because of this and other physics effects at play.
'Course I never really looked into it to compare them much.
-
Didn't the guns/cannons move from the wing during the change from E's to F's? The F's moved the cannon mass to the centerline.
-
Dont the spit16 has 2 cannons and two MGs on the wings, and still can roll like crazy?
-
Dont the spit16 has 2 cannons and two MGs on the wings, and still can roll like crazy?
clipped wings :aok
-
Dont the spit16 has 2 cannons and two MGs on the wings, and still can roll like crazy?
2 totally different craft.
Comparing the 109E and the 109F is more logical, because one was based on the other, and for the most part the wings were very similar.
-
Dont the spit16 has 2 cannons and two MGs on the wings, and still can roll like crazy?
Have fun:
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/naca868-rollchart.jpg
-
ok ok im just saying that the sit had cannons on its wing, and with the clipped ings it yould roll like crazy. So it maybe doesnt count AS much.
The 109F has the same wingspan as the E with rounded endings, or larger wingspan, like they added the roundigs to the old, existing wing?
-
Less area, I believe slightly shorter.
-
Thanks. Interesting, the F can turn almost as good as the E with less wing area and more weight then.
Edit: got it... the F has those lil things on the leading edge of the wing what open at slow speeds to increase the wing area (damn i dont know its name). maybe those make the difference.
-
I've read the enhanced manuverability is rooted in that rounded wingtip. Less drag, more lift.
I don't know why, but I've heard it's based on the rounded tip, drag reduction across the frame, and the higher horsepower.
-
Edit: got it... the F has those lil things on the leading edge of the wing what open at slow speeds to increase the wing area (damn i dont know its name). maybe those make the difference.
Leading edge slats Debrody. But the Emil had those too.
-
Im outta ideas then... :uhoh
-
The 109 E has a different airfoil shape than the F-K models. the 109 e has a 2300 series airfoil while the F-K have a clark-Y airfoil.
-
The Spit I had fabric covered ailerons. The Spit V had metal covered. The metal ailerons were retrofitted to some Spitfire II as well. The metal ailerons help improved the roll rate.
I don't believe that metal ailerons could have helped the roll as much as it does in AH,
here's 3 good reasons: f4u1-1a-1d (all had fabric ailerons)
and they have always been known for excellent roll rate. OTOH, Spit IX were fitted with longer-span ailerons.
-
Don't the Corsairs have Flettner tabs though?
-
Oops, this is what I originally wanted to post: :uhoh
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit1vrs109e.html
RAE testing of the Emil vs Spit, scroll down to the Roll Rate section, theres a graph
Between 200-250 mph the Spit takes twice as long to bank 45 degrees!
1 second for the 109, 2 seconds for the Spit :)
While relatively indicative of performance, time to bank is not the same as steady state roll rate performance. You cant say the 109's steady state rate of roll is twice that of the Spitfire at 200 mph based off a time to bank 45 degrees.
There are all sorts of factors than can slow/aid the onset of a roll or contribute to a slow initial roll rate. Everything from the gearing of the control column, the type of aileron, type of aileron covering, tension/slack and stretch in the control wires, the state of airflow over the wing and aileron. I believe one of the great assets of the Fw 190s outstanding roll was that it used control rods instead of wires.
IIRC, there is a RAE/AFDU or NACA paper dealing with roll rate on the Spitfire that has some interesting graphs on the delay between control column movement, aileron movement and the actual initiation of the roll. Its been a while since I looked at it, but IIRC (again), there is up to 1/3rd of a second delay before roll onset at some speeds.
-
I don't believe that metal ailerons could have helped the roll as much as it does in AH,
here's 3 good reasons: f4u1-1a-1d (all had fabric ailerons)
and they have always been known for excellent roll rate. OTOH, Spit IX were fitted with longer-span ailerons.
Spit IX had the same size ailerons as the I, II, V, XII, XVI. The Spit VII, VIII, XIV has shorter span ailerons. There was a noticeable difference in the roll rate for the Spit when it got metal ailerons.
Classic story from "Wing Leader" by Johnnie Johnson talks about this when the Tangmere Wing Spit IIs started to get retrofitted with metal ailerons. They all didn't get the upgrade at once and during one particular 'break' in a fight, F/L Cocky Dundas admonished Wing Commander Bader with "We don't all have metal ailerons!" The unmodified Spit IIs were having a hard time keeping up.
The issue with the Spit fabric ailerons was they apparently 'ballooned' out a bit at times slowing the roll rate. This obviously didn't happen to Spits with metal ailerons.
-
While relatively indicative of performance, time to bank is not the same as steady state roll rate performance. You cant say the 109's steady state rate of roll is twice that of the Spitfire at 200 mph based off a time to bank 45 degrees.
Absolutely, thats all that I have been testing is time to bank 45 degrees, and time to bank 90 degrees. Any weight that's not centered in the fuselage will slow down time to bank, centrifugal forces and inertia are playing large roles. Wing tanks, weight of wing guns & ammo are both big factors. I can see how the metal ailerons of the Spit V would help roll rate at high speeds, but at normal speed I dont believe it could roll that much faster than the Spit Mk 1, like our version of the Spit V does.
-
Steele,
Look at the link I posted at the bottom of the first page. All your claim that metal ailerons couldn't have helped that much means is that the Spitfire I should roll better. Due to the NACA chart we have roll rates for metal aileroned Spitfires with full span and clipped wings.
-
Quoting Johnnie Johnson in his book "Wing Leader"
We thought the most important difference between the Spitfire 2 and Spitfire V was that the former was fitted with fabric ailerons while the latter had improved metal type. In the air the difference in performance was quite remarkable for the previous heavy stick pressures were greatly reduced and the rate of roll, at high speeds was more then doubled. In other words the lateral manoeverability of the Spitfire was improved tremendously with the introduction of metal ailerons."
-
I build plastic models as a hobby. Here are some shots I took comparing the wings from the 109 E4 vs, 109 G2 (F similair)
(http://i241.photobucket.com/albums/ff252/DropkickYankees/109wings002.jpg)
(http://i241.photobucket.com/albums/ff252/DropkickYankees/109wings001.jpg)
As you can see, the wingspan is nearly the same. Also notice that the alerions on the G wings are shorter vs. the E wing.
Not quite exact science, but a good visual aid.
-
I can see how the metal ailerons of the Spit V would help roll rate at high speeds, but at normal speed I dont believe it could roll that much faster than the Spit Mk 1, like our version of the Spit V does.
Supermarine conducted flight trial roll rate tests comparing Spitfires fitted with different types of ailerons. There is some evidence that the fabric ailerons became ineffective above 170 mph while the metal ailerons were most effective at 200 mph and less effective after that.
This is gratuitously stolen from an old ubi.com thread.
From "THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE SPITFIRE AND SEAFIRE", a Dec 1946 address to the Royal Aeronautical Society by J Smith.
---------------Test A-------Test B-------Test C
150 mph-------87-----------87-----------(b)
170mph--------93 (peak)----93-----------65
200 mph-------75----------105 (peak)----73
250 mph-------57-----------93-----------96
300 mph-------40-----------78----------118 (peak)
350 mph-------27-----------60-----------90
375 mph-------20-----------49-----------75
400 mph-------(a)----------40-----------70
Note: values are drawn from a graph by eye, so may differ by a degree or two from actual number.
Test A: Mk V Spitfire w/ fabric-covered Frise type ailerons.
Test B: Mk V Spitfire w/ metal-covered Frise type ailerons.
Test C: Mk 21 Spitfire w/ "plain ailerons w/ tabs".
Between 200 and 250 mph, the metal ailerons are anywhere from 40% to 65% faster in terms of steady-state roll.
-
Supermarine conducted flight trial roll rate tests comparing Spitfires fitted with different types of ailerons. There is some evidence that the fabric ailerons became ineffective above 170 mph while the metal ailerons were most effective at 200 mph and less effective after that.
Between 200 and 250 mph, the metal ailerons are anywhere from 40% to 65% faster in terms of steady-state roll.
(good find, that chart) By steady-state roll, do you mean a continuous; say, 360 degree or so roll?