Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Amsoil21 on April 18, 2012, 02:12:23 PM
-
was it really as bad as it was in this game, yes its fast and rightly so but bloody hell what an animal it is.
what you guys think
-
I think they need to unperk it.
-
It was an animal. More power then the fuselage could really handle, even with the bigger tail surfaces. They really didnt solve that until the spit 22/24 and Spiteful and even then the only real solution was the counter rotating props.
Flying a 14 was not like flying a 5 or 9 as many veteran Merlin Spit drivers found out when introduced to the Griffon 14
-
Why does the larger Spitfire Mk XIV airframe with larger surface areas handle ~2000hp worse than the Bf109K-4?
-
(http://i1114.photobucket.com/albums/k526/rwrk2/popcorn.gif)
-
Based on what I read it was the same as in AH. But it's not bad in AH, just got to know how to fly it.
-
Why does the larger Spitfire Mk XIV airframe with larger surface areas handle ~2000hp worse than the Bf109K-4?
Does it?
-
well what i cant work out is that yes the engine chucks out major horses but even when throttled off or low it still moves around like its being pulled with strings away from where you want to go. i mean how can it be so so so much different from the other spits. especially when slow. is it much much heavier?
-
Does it?
To me, yes, the Bf109K-4 is clearly more docile.
-
... how can it be so so so much different from the other spits. especially when slow. is it much much heavier?
the engine is alot heavier, and thats a problem because its stuck right out at the front, so all the extra mass is about as far away from the centre of gravity as it can get.
this increases the pendulum effect (it has a higher polar moment of inertia), same reason that porsche 911s are notorious for wagging their tail. this is why the nose is so much bouncier than the merlin spits.
-
rt holmes :aok now that makes sence it sure has got a long nose. still amazing how different it is :) i guess ill have to keep flying it for a while and find out how to cope. :airplane:
-
If you are used to flying Spits the 14 is also tough just because it rotates the opposite direction so you tend to roll and turn the "wrong" way.
-
Been trying out the 14 a bit and to be honest it feels untouchable.
It does not have any quarks the 152 doesn't and really "feels" similar.
-
The XIV models the compromises the manufacturers had to address in order to achieve great speed and altitude.
It's the other planes in game that sometimes ignore the downside of the compromises.
-
the engine is alot heavier, and thats a problem because its stuck right out at the front, so all the extra mass is about as far away from the centre of gravity as it can get.
this increases the pendulum effect (it has a higher polar moment of inertia), same reason that porsche 911s are notorious for wagging their tail. this is why the nose is so much bouncier than the merlin spits.
Not just the engine alone, correct?
It was an animal. More power then the fuselage could really handle, even with the bigger tail surfaces. They really didnt solve that until the spit 22/24 and Spiteful and even then the only real solution was the counter rotating props.
Flying a 14 was not like flying a 5 or 9 as many veteran Merlin Spit drivers found out when introduced to the Griffon 14
Didn't they have to reinforce the airframe around the cowl/nose signifigantly?... like riveted steel beams and plates signifigant? I've always assumed it's also been inherantly more nose-heavy than other models (even with the upsized tail).
-
yup, they ballasted the tail (~150lb) to keep the CoG in the same place, as well as enlarging the fin and rudder.
I'm dubious that the real thing was as bouncy as ours is compared to the VIII though. testers reported that the elevators were much heavier, but just as effective giving it superior "maneuverability in turns" to the VIII at all alts.
-
Hmmm.... Griffon 65 81" Merlin 61 88"
Griffon is heavier though. The camshaft and magneto drives were placed into the propeller reduction gears reducing the overall length of the engine. The frontal area is larger but not the length.
-
Not just the engine alone, correct?
Not just the engine, but in relation to the engine everything else is insignificant.
-
I always have a joy when flying around in a spit14, above 20k it dominates the skies - under its simply a faster spit that can't turn as well.
The acceleration however is unmatched, and climb rate, however nothing beats a good sound pack and hearing that engine fire up to life.
-
The acceleration however is unmatched, and climb rate
Take both a 109K and a Spit 14 with 100% fuel and no DT and measure the time to climb from takeoff to 30k for both of them... ;)
-
interestingly the CofG is a fair bit further forward than the VIII too, even with the tail ballasted.
-
I always have a joy when flying around in a spit14, above 20k it dominates the skies - under its simply a faster spit that can't turn as well.
The acceleration however is unmatched, and climb rate, however nothing beats a good sound pack and hearing that engine fire up to life.
Somehow I think you are forgetting the Jugs (M and N) and the 152. Even in capable hands the Spit 14 is toast above 34k. Above 40k the 152 rules supreme to all except only the 163.
-
Somehow I think you are forgetting the Jugs (M and N) and the 152. Even in capable hands the Spit 14 is toast above 34k. Above 40k the 152 rules supreme to all except only the 163.
Not much fighting going on above 40K of course.
-
Am I being obtuse or wouldn't the centre of gravity have to be in approximately the same position as any other Spitfire, i.e. pretty well cock on the lift centre of the wings?
I thought the Mark XIV was based on the fuselage of the Mark VIII which was already structurally superior to the earlier Marks? I know that old Willy was quite clever with the design of the Bf109, specifically with the machined bulkheads which carried the stresses of the engine, wings and landing gear, but clearly Joseph Smith was similarly competent so I think it's a safe assumption that the Mark XIV could handle the structural loads associated with the additional power and weight.
What interests and has always confused me was the stability issue, especially using the Bf109 as a comparison:
I thought a larger polar moment of inertia translates to greater inertial stability, not less. I'm not knowledgeable enough about the minutiae of aircraft design to foresee a fundamental difference, but in other vehicles a larger, or in this case a longer, distribution of the mass about its centre of gravity tends to make a vehicle more docile and less inclined to change its direction quickly. Thus I would have assumed the the Mark XIV would bounce around less not more. Must be missing a vital piece of understanding :headscratch:
How can essentially the same change: i.e. adding a heavier and more powerful engine to an airframe designed for a lighter less powerful one, in the case of the Bf109 make its handling more docile, more controllable in a vertical stall and a more docile gun platform do the inverse in the Spitfire equivalent?
-
Remember that the tail area of Spits where enlarged all the time. The last models had a huge tail compared to Mk1. The introduction of bubble cockpit made the directional stability even worse and the rudder was further enlarged.
Maybe the huge wing section forward of control surfaces causes more imbalance than in other planes?
What about the tail? Griffon rotates in other direction than Merlins, was there a built in compensation in rudder assembly for Merlins which was the wrong way for Griffons?
-C+
-
Was it really as bad as it was in this game? Yes its fast, and rightly so; but bloody hell what an animal it is.
What you guys think
Right plane for the right job: above 23K (whenever the boost goes crazy -- 23 to 28K or there about. I've forgetting the exact band, but it's very easy to see and feel.).
As I recollect, the 14 was a buzz-bomb chaser. No?
Wrong plane for wrong job: turn fighting planes that want you close to their vest and/or can get a notch at 400 give or take a bit.
-
I am not sure about the rudder on the Spit, most of my stuff is on Axis stuff. On a later 109s, the rudder was airfoiled to give neutral trim at a certain speed. I have frankly never seen a US or Brit fighter with an airfoiled stab like that.
-
The Griffon spits were different animals than the Merlins. They are the same as much as the Tempest is the same as the Typhoon. In some other conditions, they would have gotten a new name, like the Tempest did.
As such, if one tries to fly them like a Merlin spit, he is doomed to a failure. They are pure energy fighters with all that entails and in particular, the sacrifice of maneuverability for speed and climb. The latter two are really demanding and every small improvement requires even more sacrifice of other qualities. In late WWII, speed and visibility were kings. The lowering of the fuselage to improve rear visibility cost in stability. Installing beastly engines into small frames ruined the fine balancing of the original designs, but the general agreement was that the gain was well worth the sacrifice - i.e., speed demons that handle like a unicycle and are very dangerous to fly. There simply was no time to design a new plane from scratch.
In AH, conditions are very different and so the preferences are different. When fighting on the ground, turning increases in importance, since dive is eliminated. Top speed is less important as the absolute difference in tops speeds is smaller down low and top speed is difficult to maintain without ability to dive and with the constant need for turning. This is why planes like N1K and spit16 and even the older turny burny planes are so successful in the arena. Send then to a scenario where engagements start at 30k and icons are short range and see what happens. The Merlin spits suffer greatly in large 15+k furballs vs. late LW rides. The Spit 14 more than closes the gap. At the time, it was considered a supreme fighter, even though pilots said the 9s and 5s were SO much nicer to fly.
-
Am I being obtuse or wouldn't the centre of gravity have to be in approximately the same position as any other Spitfire, i.e. pretty well cock on the lift centre of the wings?
Aircraft are more stable with the CG ahead of the CL.
-
Aircraft are more stable with the CG ahead of the CL.
In the case of the Mark XIV how much farther forward? Also if they fitted a counterbalance surely they could put the GofG accurately where they wanted it?
-
Am I being obtuse or wouldn't the centre of gravity have to be in approximately the same position as any other Spitfire, i.e. pretty well cock on the lift centre of the wings?
OK, I may be way off here but this is how I see it. CG should be in front of CL for stability, the further apart they are, the more stable (less twitchy/responsive).
The VIII and XIV are essentially the same airframe so we can assume that CL is in the same location relative to the datum point (D), which is also in the same place.
Despite the extra weight, the XIV has a lower static moment (relative to D) than the VIII, which means that the CG is further forward.
This should make it more stable in level flight, although requiring more elevator trim to keep it level, and heavier elevator input to deflect it (as reported in tests.)
The other factor is the distribution of the masses as I mentioned earlier. putting all the extra mass as far as possible from CG means that more force is required to pitch the aircraft (heavier elevators again.)
Spit VIII:
+----D----CG----CL----------------------
Spit XIV:
+----D--CG------CL----------------------
The net result should be an aircraft which is more stable, but which requires greater forces to deflect it.
I think ... :headscratch:
-
In the case of the Mark XIV how much farther forward? Also if they fitted a counterbalance surely they could put the GofG accurately where they wanted it?
I don't know the details for the Spitfire. One thing you want to keep in mind is that with a cambered wing the lift center moves forward as AOA increases so they are unlikely to be co-located in level flight where a pitch up would put the CG behind the CL. If the CG was within an acceptable range you likely wouldn't add weight and reduce performance if you didn't have to.
-
Spit VIII: 120gal, 4x .303, 2x 20mm.
Takeoff weight 7,780lb, moment +41,553 lb in
=> CG is 41,533/7,780 = 5.3" aft of D
Spit XIV: 110gal, 4x .303, 2x 20mm.
Takeoff weight 8,475lb, moment +30,699 lb in
=> CG is 30,699/8,475 = 3.6" aft of D
so CG is 1.7" further forward in the XIV. I cant imagine that this is enough to explain the vastly different handling characteristics, which is why I'm sticking with the idea of the location of the extra mass and the increased moment of inertia explaining it.
-
Wow, great explanations, much appreciated. This makes perfect sense as I understand the centre or pressure relative to the CofG business (que Bert's Cigar explanation in The World's Fastest Indian), however: assuming this could be adjusted through the use of tail mounted counterbalances did they simply get the position of the CofG wrong to cause the bouncing business? Again, sorry to bang on about this but the late model Bf109s seem much more longditudinally stable than the Mark XIV.
-
a 1.7" shift is not very much, I'm pretty sure you'd get that much just between full and empty fuel tanks. it must be down to the distribution of mass.
Thought experiment:
1. imagine you have a 1m long alloy rod with a 2kg weight in the middle. now hold it in the middle and rotate it.
2. now remove the 2kg weight from the middle, and put a 1kg weight on either end of the rod. again hold it in the middle and rotate it.
same mass, same CG, but it takes much more effort to rotate it, and when it gets going, lots more effort to stop it. this is what I reckon causes the bouncy nose.
-
Aha! But see that thinking experiment implies to me a less bouncy nose. Porsche 944!
-
Where is the datum on the spitfire? It's different for every plane.
-
Not much fighting going on above 40K of course.
Of course not... except when the 91st is in business. I guess you miss those nights. :devil
-
Am I being obtuse or wouldn't the centre of gravity have to be in approximately the same position as any other Spitfire, i.e. pretty well cock on the lift centre of the wings?
I thought the Mark XIV was based on the fuselage of the Mark VIII which was already structurally superior to the earlier Marks? I know that old Willy was quite clever with the design of the Bf109, specifically with the machined bulkheads which carried the stresses of the engine, wings and landing gear, but clearly Joseph Smith was similarly competent so I think it's a safe assumption that the Mark XIV could handle the structural loads associated with the additional power and weight.
What interests and has always confused me was the stability issue, especially using the Bf109 as a comparison:
I thought a larger polar moment of inertia translates to greater inertial stability, not less. I'm not knowledgeable enough about the minutiae of aircraft design to foresee a fundamental difference, but in other vehicles a larger, or in this case a longer, distribution of the mass about its centre of gravity tends to make a vehicle more docile and less inclined to change its direction quickly. Thus I would have assumed the the Mark XIV would bounce around less not more. Must be missing a vital piece of understanding :headscratch:
How can essentially the same change: i.e. adding a heavier and more powerful engine to an airframe designed for a lighter less powerful one, in the case of the Bf109 make its handling more docile, more controllable in a vertical stall and a more docile gun platform do the inverse in the Spitfire equivalent?
Did the MkI even have half the junk (by weight or count) behind the pilot than... oh lets just toss a IX in for comparison? I'm thinking oxygen, long-range radios, etc..
I would think the CoG could change as frequently as there were modifications.
-
Where is the datum on the spitfire? It's different for every plane.
(http://www.spitfireperformance.com/datum.gif)
also from http://www.spitfireperformance.com/rb141weights.html (http://www.spitfireperformance.com/rb141weights.html):
"Maximum permissible all-up (i.e. take-off) weight for all forms of flying...........8500 lb.
Permissible C.G. range for all forms of flying...........from 3.5 inches to 6.5 inches aft of datum point."
-
Aha! But see that thinking experiment implies to me a less bouncy nose. Porsche 944!
take your 944 and add 100kg of lead to the front and rear bumpers (and make the tyres 1/2" wider all round so it has the same grip). it will be more reluctant to turn in, and when you apply the power mid-corner and the back end steps out, it will be harder to catch :)
-
FWIW I'm not seeing any issues with the Spit 14 pitch or yaw stability. Any difference with the 109K4 is likely the difference in wing loading.
-
really? its definitely rather bouncy with small elevator inputs. I found the trick to stable gunnery is to keep it loaded, its solid as a rock then. that does restrict your options though.
-
It's a fast aircraft with a big wing. It's not bouncy it's responsive. :D
Trimming a little nose down is always a good idea for precise pitch control but I'm not seeing any restrictions other than letting off the pressure flying on the deck.
-
yea,, definitely bouncy though and not just sensitive.. i have flown it quite a bit now and have got into it a little better but its still throwing surprises at me.
-
damping is a good description, its like its underdamped compared to the VIII. that is, its very stable under constant pitch loads, but transitions result in a noticeable oscillation. the VIII just settles into the new loading quicker.
I used to fly the XIV a bit but it was extremely frustrating pulling into a shot then having to wait (a couple of tenths maybe) for it to settle before you can take the shot every time. sometimes you can adapt by starting a shot set up by unloading it first then progressively loading it into the shot, rather than pulling a constant amount, but it takes time and wonk work if the guy has SA ...
-
I believe pitch damping will give you a little "bounce" as the wing gains and loses a little AOA. Sorry I edited that again as you replied.
Your weight examples are appealing but I had second thoughts about them since ground based examples don't always translate well to aerodynamics. I'm sure you remember a similar example to explain turning in a 190. :D
I don't fly the Spits much so I'll defer to your experience. Just trying the 8 vs the 14 in the TA didn't show me any big differences.
-
I'm sure you remember a similar example to explain turning in a 190. :D
I did a couple of searches on WWII fighter CL, CG locations and the like, and to my amusement one name just kept on popping up in forum threads from all over the sim community. they usually went to 20 odd pages and ended up being locked after numerous contributers who have designed or flown warbirds gave up trying to explain the basics to this guy. :lol
-
Does it?
Yes, the K4 handles its horses better than the Spit 14, althought it still gets pulled around by the engine a fair bit.
But personally, I feel the main difference isn't in how much the engine pulls you around, but in how stable you are and in stalls. My guess.... its the high-alt wing.
-
Yes, the K4 handles its horses better than the Spit 14, althought it still gets pulled around by the engine a fair bit.
But personally, I feel the main difference isn't in how much the engine pulls you around, but in how stable you are and in stalls. My guess.... its the high-alt wing.
High alt wing? On what?
-
The spit 14.
If I understand it correctly (and it being a spitfire, its about 50/50 odds that I do), the Spitfire 14 has a redesigned high-alt wing, which resulted in poorer handling either at low alt or across the board (I've never taken a spit 14 up high, so I don't know).
-
The spit 14.
If I understand it correctly (and it being a spitfire, its about 50/50 odds that I do), the Spitfire 14 has a redesigned high-alt wing, which resulted in poorer handling either at low alt or across the board (I've never taken a spit 14 up high, so I don't know).
You may be thinking of the TA-152. A Spit 14 was used to test a laminar flow wing but it wasn't used on that model.
-
nope, exactly the same wing as the VIII. same plane really, apart from the engine, bigger tail and rudder and some tail ballast. :)
You may be thinking of the TA-152.
or the tempest vs typhoon maybe?
-
The TA-152 is the only one I can think of where the wing itself was designed for high altitude. I'm no expert though.
-
Gents,
The following popped up on the news today about the Spit XIV:
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012/04/19/buried-treasure-in-burma-squadron-lost-wwii-spitfires-to-be-exhumed/
In that the thread was on this airframe I thought there might be some interest .
Tull
:joystick:
Moriarty: suppose the bridge ain't there?
Oddball: [groans] Don't hit me with them negative waves so early in the morning. Think the bridge will be there and it will be there. It's a mother, beautiful bridge, and it's gonna be there. Ok?
-
take your 944 and add 100kg of lead to the front and rear bumpers (and make the tyres 1/2" wider all round so it has the same grip). it will be more reluctant to turn in, and when you apply the power mid-corner and the back end steps out, it will be harder to catch :)
No, I think it would be easier to catch because it would break away more slowly because you have increased the polar moment of inertia even further, thus the step out would be similar to the slower turn-in. But I think we are agreeing that you require more force in the first instance to go from rest to a change of the velocity vector. :headscratch:
We are essentially discussing Newton's laws of motion, but more specifically as you pointed out: we aren't so much interested in the rate of change of motion but rather the nature of the movement, i.e. the bouncing. Again wouldn't a larger wing dampen more quickly than a smaller wing :headscratch: :headscratch:
Any way I think of it the bouncing makes no sense. When you get to this point in your reasoning it usually indicates a missing piece of understanding. We need one of AH's aircraft dynamics experts to help.
-
The spit 14.
If I understand it correctly (and it being a spitfire, its about 50/50 odds that I do), the Spitfire 14 has a redesigned high-alt wing, which resulted in poorer handling either at low alt or across the board (I've never taken a spit 14 up high, so I don't know).
Nope, same Spitfire wing, initially the Universal Wing with the 2 20mm and 4 303s but mostly the E Wing with 2 20s and 2 50s. The only "high alt wing" for a Spit was when they added extended wing tips that could be found on the Spit VI and VIII which were designated for high alt. Some early VIII had them as well. But the XIV did not. Based on the VIII fuselage and Wing. Even the high alt Spits with extended tips had the same wing. There are photos of both VI and VII where they removed the extended wing tip and put on standard wing tips. VIIs got used for ground attack after D-Day for a bit and had standard tips.
One of the trade offs for more power was less docile handling. This applied to all fighters. The Mustang probably should have had it's tail enlarged when it got the Merlin. If you look at P40s they did extend the fuselage and tail as the engines got larger. The D9 did this as well with the fuselage extension and larger tail surfaces.
With the Spit the tail grew as the the Spit did. Standard rounded tail on the I, II, V, VI and early VII, VIII and IX. Larger pointed tail introduced on the first Griffon Spit, the XII. This was then fitted to most VII, VIII XVI and many IXs. Even larger tail on the XIV, XVIII and 21. Finally the really large tail on the 22 and 24.
-
... wouldn't a larger wing dampen more quickly than a smaller wing :headscratch: :headscratch:
yes it would, but the XIV has the same wing as the VIII, so the same amount of damping but for more mass = more bounce.
-
is this the thread about lowriders?
(http://www.amoeba.com/dynamic-images/blog/lowrider.jpg)
-
yes it would, but the XIV has the same wing as the VIII, so the same amount of damping but for more mass = more bounce.
I agree, but why doesn't the Bf109 suffer the same trait for a parallel development?
-
I know almost nothing about the 109s ... you'll have to ask a luftie.
btw I found the XIV's theme tune:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BonCLU297hM (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BonCLU297hM)
-
The difference between the Spit XIV and earlier models in terms of handling has little to do, in my opinion, with the shifting of the cg. It boils down to differences in wing-loading between the various models which all shared a common wing planform. Looking at three of the more well known Spitfire models shows that the differences in dry weight were stark:
Spit V..........5065 lbs.
Spit IX.........5610 lbs.
Spit XIV.......8385 lbs.
Thus, the Spit XIV is 2775 lbs. heavier than the Spit V. That's more than a ton and a half. If I'm doing the math correctly, that's a 60% increase in dry weight from 1941 to 1944. The Spit XIV gained quite a bit in speed and altitude performance but yielded much of its ballerina-like flying qualities. At low to medium speeds the Spit V and 109F would eat it alive.
-
Shuckins,
You sure those numbers are correct? Earlier in the thread it was stated that the Spitfire Mk XIV's maximum takeoff weight was 8,500lbs. If its dry weight was 8,385lbs that doesn't leave much margin for fuel, oil, crew, ammo or drop tanks, only 115lbs for all of that.
-
Karnak....you're correct. I've got books on this stuff at the house....but I was using an online source during a break at work...and I didn't notice that that source did not have a dry weight for the XIV. The figure I quoted for it I inadvertently pulled off of the line beside the one for dry weight, and thus erroneously used the loaded weight.
So...the actual figures should be:
Spit V..........5065 lbs.
Spit IX.........5610 lbs.
Spit XIV.......6600 lbs.
And the increase in dry weight from Spit V to Spit XIV should be 1535 lbs. That's 3/4s of a ton, or about a 25% increase.
-
I give up. Can't reason out why it would bounce. Don't have enough detailed knowledge. Yet.
-
I give up. Can't reason out why it would bounce. Don't have enough detailed knowledge. Yet.
Bigger tail, huge wing area is the reason it bounce around.
-
Bigger tail, huge wing area is the reason it bounce around.
That doesn't make sense. The horizontal stabilizes are the same as on the Mk VIII as are the wings.
Why to the Spitfire need significant increase in the size of the vertical stabilizer while the Bf109K-4 gets by fine on the same dinky little vertical stabilizer the Bf109E had?
-
Why does any aircraft "bounce"?
-
That doesn't make sense. The horizontal stabilizes are the same as on the Mk VIII as are the wings.
Why to the Spitfire need significant increase in the size of the vertical stabilizer while the Bf109K-4 gets by fine on the same dinky little vertical stabilizer the Bf109E had?
Is the nose longer on the spit14? Making the center of balance different from other spits?
-
Anyone tried some dead stick aerobatics to see if it "bounces" with the engine off. If it does then it has nothing to do with torque or HP, and is some sort of dynamic stability problem.
-
What do you think about this issue Karnak?
-
What do you think about this issue Karnak?
I'm not the one to ask, to be honest. I simply don't have the background in mathematics to really assist.
-
I agree, but why doesn't the Bf109 suffer the same trait for a parallel development?
Continuous evolution instead of revolution regarding the engine, the DB 605 delivered more mover but gained little weight and still turned in the same direction. CoG was not really changed much from G to K-Series.
-
Lusche, I tried what you said, however included drop tanks.
Spit14 -
15k 4 min
25k 7 min
30k 9 min
WEP 0-10k and 17-27k
Bf109K
15k 4 min
25k 7 min
30k 10 min
WEP 0-30k
I'd suggest that the Spit 14 would be superior from about 25k. Below that, its an even match up.
The 109K has full power to 22k and then the single stage supercharge struggles to provide enough boost.
The spit 14 has a supercharging issue between between 17k and 23k at normal boost. However above that, you have very good power through 30+k
-
Lusche, I tried what you said, however included drop tanks.
That's a somewhat unfair comparison. The small slipper DT on the spit brigns it toabout the 109's fuel endurance without DT, while adding DT to the 109 gives it a big increase in both endurance and drag.
See my chart on both 100% no DT in the "unperk 14" thread in Wishlist Forum.
-
That doesn't make sense. The horizontal stabilizes are the same as on the Mk VIII as are the wings.
Why to the Spitfire need significant increase in the size of the vertical stabilizer while the Bf109K-4 gets by fine on the same dinky little vertical stabilizer the Bf109E had?
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the late G-model and K-model 109s got a bigger vertical stab, along with the tall tailwheel.
-
Continuous evolution instead of revolution regarding the engine, the DB 605 delivered more mover but gained little weight and still turned in the same direction. CoG was not really changed much from G to K-Series.
Uups - should have read "delivered more power" (not mover).
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the late G-model and K-model 109s got a bigger vertical stab, along with the tall tailwheel.
Yes, that's right. Although the tailwheel in the 109K was retractable again.
-
Ok, slightly larger. Still, look at it compared to the tail on the Mk XIV, yet it is, on the same power, more stable.
-
Difficult to compare two completely different airframes and "diagnose" what makes them aerodynamically different without a wind tunnel. The 109's fuselage may add more stability than the Spitfire's at high speed. The increased (and reversed in the Spit's case) prop wash may affect the tail surfaces differently. The variables are endless.
-
Whats the complaint here Karnak? do you think that the 109K is too docile compared to what it was historicaly? Do you think the Spit 14 is too quirky, or are you just perplexed as to what made the Spit 14 such a brute to fly?
-
No complaint. Inquiring about why the difference is there.
-
Not sure if anyone could pinpoint it exactly. Might be some strange occurence, like how early P-38's center of lift would move towards the tail at high speeds.
-
how on earth did this turn into a 109 discussion? :headscratch:
-
:rolleyes:
-
how on earth did this turn into a 109 discussion? :headscratch:
You must be new to the forums. :lol