Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: RichardDarkwood on March 04, 2014, 08:53:32 AM
-
I just watched a video on this.
Skip Holm says a Bf-109 - f model will out turn a spit.
Keep in mind skip fly's both aircraft
Your thoughts
-
Video link?
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TFl8X4y9-94&feature=youtube_gdata_player
-
The 109f out turns spit8 and even the mighty 16.
109F under the right hands can easily down a spitfire.
-
The 109f out turns spit8 and even the mighty 16.
109F under the right hands can easily down a spitfire.
I have been flying 109f for about 2months now and at the beginning it was lil bit diff. get used to but once you get the grab of it and watch enough latrobe movies you ll see that what Joachim said above is 120% true.
-
The 109f out turns spit8 and even the mighty 16.
109F under the right hands can easily down a spitfire.
Agreed. 109F is a nasty little bugger but in my experience only the very good pilots know and use it with any regularity. When I see a K4 in the LWMA I don't give it much thought other than keeping an eye on it i.e. so many fly the K4 you really won't know how good the person is until you observe them for a bit or during the first pass / merge. On the other hand, when I see a 109F I pay a bit more attention....almost always the pilot is above average (if not great) in the ACM / skill department.
-
They're talking about the 109G in the video and the first guy says that some Spitfires turn better and some don't. Skip Holm says The Spit9 out turns the 109G.
-
Yup that video sure was packed with objective factual material :rofl
-
'Wath Latrobe videos' sounds to me like pr0n :D
-
He's right. A 109 will out turn and out climb a P51. Sorry higheye, it's the truth :D .
Spit vs 109 IS very very close, and he's right about a Spit 5 might out turn a 109G, but not a 109F. Of course the Spit 5 and 109F are very closely matched so it's not going to be a cake walk for the 109F like when it fights against any other spit. The only model the 109F can't out turn is the Spit 1, but it doesn't need to since it out performs the Spit 1 in all other categories. :)
109F is just simply the greatest dogfighter! It can out turn most other planes and the ones it can't out turn, it can out perform. :devil
-
Well said
-
According to Mosq's turn data, with no flaps the SpitVIII has a somewhat smaller radius and a nearly 4 degree per second turn rate advantage, at 24.2 to 20.4.
With flaps out for both, the 109F takes the lead in turn radius and the rate becomes a virtual wash at around 20 degrees.
The Spit pilot should probably leave his flaps up in most circumstances.
-
If the 109f is willing to go full flaps it can out turn some of the spitfires. Even full flaps it doesn't out turn spitV.
https://onedrive.live.com/view.aspx?cid=4F7912F19B484B3B&resid=4F7912F19B484B3B%21761&app=WordPdf&authkey=%21AH41epN2ncdKKcg&wdo=1
-
He's right. A 109 will out turn and out climb a P51. Sorry higheye, it's the truth :D .
Spit vs 109 IS very very close, and he's right about a Spit 5 might out turn a 109G, but not a 109F. Of course the Spit 5 and 109F are very closely matched so it's not going to be a cake walk for the 109F like when it fights against any other spit. The only model the 109F can't out turn is the Spit 1, but it doesn't need to since it out performs the Spit 1 in all other categories. :)
109F is just simply the greatest dogfighter! It can out turn most other planes and the ones it can't out turn, it can out perform. :devil
It's only weaknesses are sub par firepower and average speed at most alts. The former limits those with average aim, the latter limits its usefulness if the opponent wont turn / play the 109F's game and is faster. It's still a fun plane tho'...
-
The reason it will is because the 109F is a beast.
Oops.... :confused:
Was I not supposed to talk about it Latrobe? :uhoh
:noid
-
I just watched a video on this.
Skip Holm says a Bf-109 - f model will out turn a spit.
Keep in mind skip fly's both aircraft
Your thoughts
Listen to the video closely. Skip never said that. The owner of the 109 said that.
-
Just finished Galland's book; The First and the Last. In a round about way, he states the 109-F was the best, most pure as a fighter, of the 109 series. He said starting with the G series the modifications always included a new "hump" taking away from the clean lines of the original design. I though it was interesting.
-
The 109f out turns spit8 and even the mighty 16.
109F under the right hands can easily down a spitfire.
Its your 109F outturning an above average Spitfire. My 109 had pretty hard difficulties when i was trying to hang with Spits.
-
Its your 109F outturning an above average Spitfire. My 109 had pretty hard difficulties when i was trying to hang with Spits.
Just have to do a couple field mods and your 109f will be just like mine. ;)
-
Just have to do a couple field mods and your 109f will be just like mine. ;)
Or do what I do. Wait for Jo to finish putting all the field mods on his 109 and then steal it. :devil
-
Yup that video sure was packed with objective factual material :rofl
Did you read the comments Richard ? The people on the Spit side gave sources for their information. Bellator and company gave none. I also find the comment that German AC fuel was all synthetic suspect. Texas fathead was a real jerk. I like how he would not give the data asked for, to identify the Mk. IX he supposedly flew. I have a question for all. Bellators claim that wartime comparative tests were unreliable seems fishy to me. Wasn't this data used to teach pilots how to beat the enemy machines ?
-
I have never flown a real 109 or spitfire,so I can only comment on ingame performance.
In AH the spit has a slight advantage until the speeds bleed down to just under 200mph,190 to be exact then the 109 can drop a notch of flaps and start to gain angles on the spit. This will continue down to about 150mph when the advantage strats to swing back to the spit,however the spit should be dead before this happens if the 109 driver has an idea of what they are doing.
Using Mosq's imfo doesnt tell all the tail because he doesnt test all the flap settings just all or nothing and that doesnt show where any advantages are gained with say 2 notches of flaps!
YMMV.
:salute
-
Agreed. 109F is a nasty little bugger but in my experience only the very good pilots know and use it with any regularity. When I see a K4 in the LWMA I don't give it much thought other than keeping an eye on it i.e. so many fly the K4 you really won't know how good the person is until you observe them for a bit or during the first pass / merge. On the other hand, when I see a 109F I pay a bit more attention....almost always the pilot is above average (if not great) in the ACM / skill department.
some one say taters? :O
-
some one say taters? :O
Only a danger if they hit something. I'm just saying the majority of K4 jockies I run across are average pilots....not that all of them are average. I find the opposite to be true with the 109F.
-
Eric Brown said that the 109F was the best fighter in the world when it first entered service. He was probably right. As for the G he said: "Longevity of service has never characterised the fighter. Indeed, until the last decade or so it was possible to count the years in the firstline lifespan of the average fighter aircraft on the fingers of one hand. Tending to prove the rule have been the few noteworthy exceptions to be found in the annals of fighter development, perhaps the most outstanding of these being Professor Willy Messerchmitt's Bf 109. There was, in fact, nothing mysterious about the Bf 109. It was simply a well-conceived, soundly designed fighter that maintained during maturity the success that attended its infancy... By the time the evolution of Willy Messerchmitt's basic design had reached the G-series, it was no longer a great fighter, but it was still a sound all-rounder and the Bf 109G had greater flexibility from some aspects than preceding sub-types."
-
. . ,190 to be exact then the 109 can drop a notch of flaps and start to gain angles on the spit.
To be precise. . . 109s don't have notches. I doubt very much 109 pilots ever used flaps in combat.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nocUM2otPUw
-
To be precise. . . 109s don't have notches. I doubt very much 109 pilots ever used flaps in combat.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nocUM2otPUw
You'll find an anecdote for just about anything. There was always the odd guy that used flaps, lowered gears, opened the bomb bay door, flashed the nav lights, opened the canopy and flapped his hands... etc, and they all will swear that this is what helped them win the fight. That does not mean that is was a normal thing to do or that it actually gave any benefit.
In AH the spit has a slight advantage until the speeds bleed down to just under 200mph,190 to be exact then the 109 can drop a notch of flaps and start to gain angles on the spit. This will continue down to about 150mph when the advantage strats to swing back to the spit,however the spit should be dead before this happens if the 109 driver has an idea of what they are doing.
Using Mosq's imfo doesnt tell all the tail because he doesnt test all the flap settings just all or nothing and that doesnt show where any advantages are gained with say 2 notches of flaps!
Mosq's turn performance lists are difficult to use because they only state the smallest radius and optimal turn rate, but for every plane this is achieved at different speeds. The even bigger problem is that turns in actual turn fights are almost never sustained turns.
-
A couple of quotes.
Me 109 F/G:
"- Did pilots like the slats on the wings of the 109?
Yes, pilots did like them, since it allowed them better positions in dogfights along with using the flaps. These slats would also deploy slightly when the a/c was reaching stall at higher altitudes showing the pilot how close they were to stalling.....this was also useful when you were drunk "
- Franz Stigler, German fighter ace. 28 victories. Interview of Franz Stigler.
Me 109 E:
"The Bf 109s also had leading edge slats. When the 109 was flown, advertently or inadvertently, too slow, the slats shot forward out of the wing, sometimes with a loud bang which could be heard above the noise of the engine. Many times the slats coming out frightenened young pilots when they flew the Bf 109 for the first time in combat. One often flew near the stalling speed in combat, not only when flying straight and level but especially when turning and climbing. Sometimes the slats would suddenly fly out with a bang as if one had been hit, especially when one had throttled back to bank steeply. Indeed many fresh young pilots thought they were pulling very tight turns even when the slats were still closed against the wing. For us, the more experienced pilots, real manoeuvring only started when the slats were out. For this reason it is possible to find pilots from that period (1940) who will tell you that the Spitfire turned better than the Bf 109. That is not true. I myself had many dogfights with Spitfires and I could always out-turn them.
One had to enter the turn correctly, then open up the engine. It was a matter of feel. When one noticed the speed becoming critical - the aircraft vibrated - one had to ease up a bit, then pull back again, so that in plan the best turn would have looked like an egg or a horizontal ellipse rather than a circle. In this way one could out-turn the Spitfire - and I shot down six of them doing it. This advantage to the Bf 109 soon changed when improved Spitfires were delivered."
- Erwin Leykauf, German fighter pilot, 33 victories. Source: Messerschmitt Bf109 ja Saksan Sotatalous by Hannu Valtonen; Hurricane & Messerschmitt, Chaz Bowyer and Armand Van Ishoven.
-
To be precise. . . 109s don't have notches. I doubt very much 109 pilots ever used flaps in combat.
Hans-Joachim Marseille.
-
Hans-Joachim Marseille.
What? Did he write about his flying the 109? He died in the war, so there's not much chance he did.
-
He didn't have to, others that flew with him, such as Neumann and Stigler reported it, and Emil Clade referenced Marseille chopping throttle and dropping flaps in luffberry's, and stating that no other pilot in the unit was able to perform these sort of manouvres :old:
-
Just have to do a couple field mods and your 109f will be just like mine. ;)
Oh boy, i used every possible hack i knew... :cry They even reported me for that :devil
-
Some people think it takes a great effort to lower the flaps in a 109.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qcMjhihuuX8
A "combat flaps" setting would require about one revolution of the wheel...
-
What? Did he write about his flying the 109? He died in the war, so there's not much chance he did.
He didn't have to, others that flew with him, such as Neumann and Stigler reported it, and Emil Clade referenced Marseille chopping throttle and dropping flaps in luffberry's, and stating that no other pilot in the unit was able to perform these sort of manouvres :old:
What he ^ said :old:
My take is that Marseille had the opposite approach to that pickdweeb Hartmann.
-
What he ^ said :old:
My take is that Marseille had the opposite approach to that pickdweeb Hartmann.
Do you really think that he might get it?
-
"out turn" is a rather vague statement, yes?
btw.... in the Spitfire family the Spit16 is the 2nd worst turner, only the Spit14 is worse. With that being said, it still out turns most planes in the game. Mind you half of the battle is the speed in which the turn is made. The La7 is prime example. Many planes can out turn it but the La7 is so powerful that it make make a wider turn and keep the same rate as a plane turning a tighter circle.
Regarding the 109F-4, I think it is the best knife fighter in AH's 109 family. Light, nimble, forgiving (for a 109), climbs very well, speed, etc, etc. It's draw backs are the loss of control at high speed and the lack of "1 punch" knockout firepower. The single 20mm and dual .30 cal MG's are not the poster child for bringing down enemy fighters. The center-line mounting is nice, but the rate lack of deliverable damage is evident. I think the planes armed with the quad .50 cals are a bigger threat in many cases. But otherwise, I think the 109F-4 is one of those hidden jewels in AH.
-
He didn't have to, others that flew with him, such as Neumann and Stigler reported it, and Emil Clade referenced Marseille chopping throttle and dropping flaps in luffberry's, and stating that no other pilot in the unit was able to perform these sort of manouvres :old:
It's a prolonged myth then. Probably it's been made worse by time and a lionization of people honoring a fallen comrade.
-
It's a prolonged myth then. Probably it's been made worse by time and a lionization of people honoring a fallen comrade.
That'll be it. Same as that Walter Mitty Bader. No legs eh? Cobblers
-
What? Did he write about his flying the 109? He died in the war, so there's not much chance he did.
Ten Fighter Boys by Wing Commander Athol Forbes DFC and Squadron Leader Hubert Allen DFC.
Ten RAF pilots, all writing about combat flying, all dead by wars end.
-
He didn't have to, others that flew with him, such as Neumann and Stigler reported it, and Emil Clade referenced Marseille chopping throttle and dropping flaps in luffberry's, and stating that no other pilot in the unit was able to perform these sort of manouvres :old:
For those interested, the book "The German Aces Speak" by Colin Heath features a chapter by Neumann in which he talks of Marseille's feats. Great book
-
For those interested, the book "The German Aces Speak" by Colin Heath features a chapter by Neumann in which he talks of Marseille's feats. Great book
+1 :aok
-
Some people think it takes a great effort to lower the flaps in a 109.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qcMjhihuuX8
A "combat flaps" setting would require about one revolution of the wheel...
You can only turn the wheel about a quarter revolution at a time.
Do you really think that he might get it?
Nope.
-
"out turn" is a rather vague statement, yes?
btw.... in the Spitfire family the Spit16 is the 2nd worst turner, only the Spit14 is worse.
false
-
false
Agreed.
Need to factor in the near-190 roll rate, improved engine power, etc. I suppose it might be marginally "worse" if you are considering it from a pure, flat turn perspective but adding those other factors in it becomes the most maneuverable of the Spits.
-
You can only turn the wheel about a quarter revolution at a time.
Yes, so a 109 pilot could lower "combat flaps" in about two seconds using only his left arm.
-
Yes, so a 109 pilot could lower "combat flaps" in about two seconds using only his left arm.
Depends on the definition of combat flaps. In your video I think it took 24 seconds to fully deploy, and that was engine off, still on the ground.
-
Agreed.
Need to factor in the near-190 roll rate, improved engine power, etc. I suppose it might be marginally "worse" if you are considering it from a pure, flat turn perspective but adding those other factors in it becomes the most maneuverable of the Spits.
The spit 8,9,16 all have basically the same turn rate and sustained turning circle, and they are all significantly better than the seafire. On the list spit8 is 21, spit16 is 22, spit9 is 23. But the seafire is 37 better than the la5(38), but worse than the la7(36). The spit14 comes in at a mind boggling 50, worse than the tempest. Which completely contradicts RAF tactical trial reports.
It seems that aircraft weight makes a HUGE difference, as evidenced by the seafire(37) vs the spitV(14) and by the 202(30) vs the 205(60).
-
To be precise. . . 109s don't have notches. I doubt very much 109 pilots ever used flaps in combat.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nocUM2otPUw
I take it you all have see this video, but in any case I posted again
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qcMjhihuuX8
The way I see it is that there is no chance of lowering these flaps during combat with high g stress (above 2g) with one hand having no throttle control at the same time. Most probably 109 pilots rarely used flaps in combat. You see they didnt have any HOTAS system in those days :D. What are we doing in AH is more like science-game fiction.
-
Are you Turkish or something? :lol J/K
Thanks for the link
-
Are you Turkish or something? :mad:
-
I read that Marseille used flaps during combat in the 109 but that he was the exception and it was not taught, recommended or designed to be used that way. There are thousands of things about the operation of our planes in-game that don't mirror reality. 109s without the ability to use flaps in combat would be boring. They seem to be a pretty even match for the opponents they came up against with how things work now.
-
Instead of hitting a key for flaps you should have to hold down a key. Just like we do for trim.
-
To be precise. . . 109s don't have notches. I doubt very much 109 pilots ever used flaps in combat.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nocUM2otPUw
Did you read my whole post or just cherry pick a part of it to start an arguement?
I said I never flew a real 109 or spit,yes I know the real 109's used a wheel assembly to deploy flaps but I also said I can only comment on ingame performance! And in AH the 109 has several notches of flaps you can deploy!
I also doubt that flaps were used to the extent we use them in AH,however that was real life and this is a game..... :rolleyes:
:salute
PS: do you care to dispute what I said?
-
Are you Turkish or something? :mad:
Indeed! (My great great grandfather was Greek, so I feel entitled to show my indignation as well! :aok )
-
Sometimes, my job requires me to sit between a Turk and a Greek in a NATO forum. Nothing stops NATO progress like the Turks and the Greeks. Trust me, I get it all too well.
I was just poking fun
-
Instead of hitting a key for flaps you should have to hold down a key. Just like we do for trim.
I totally concur
-
Depends on the definition of combat flaps. In your video I think it took 24 seconds to fully deploy, and that was engine off, still on the ground.
In the video he was leisurely turning the wheel using his fingertips. One revolution of the wheel should produce about 10 degrees of flaps.
-
Agreed.
Need to factor in the near-190 roll rate, improved engine power, etc. I suppose it might be marginally "worse" if you are considering it from a pure, flat turn perspective but adding those other factors in it becomes the most maneuverable of the Spits.
Engine in the Mk XVI is the same engine as in the Mk VIII.
-
Engine in the Mk XVI is the same engine as in the Mk VIII.
The full length wings of the VIII also give it close to a degree per second turn rate advantage over the XVI. Granted for most combat purposes the decided roll rate advantage is much more significant, but we're talking a knife fight here.
-
I totally concur
Sure, for 109s and those that function like it. Others like the Spitfire would just need to press the button.
-
It's pretty irrelevant really. Especially for people with proper programmable flightsim gear.
-
Sure, for 109s and those that function like it. Others like the Spitfire would just need to press the button.
+1
-
In the video he was leisurely turning the wheel using his fingertips. One revolution of the wheel should produce about 10 degrees of flaps.
If you watch the video closely his palm is on the circumference of the wheel and that's the affordance that control permits. You haven't specified your definition of 'easy' but this operation would require a lot more force in flight to overcome the air resistance. There will be considerable leverage advantage at the expense of long travel. So it might have been 'easy' in respect to force but it certainly isn't fast to deploy. Even though the gentleman in the video seems to have a 'contemporary build' shall we say, the limiting ergonomic factor is his elbow which cannot travel back any further because of the cockpit restrictions.
10° was not Hans-Joachim Marseille's definition of combat flaps (the term I've read for the setting he used was 'landing flaps' (full flaps I think)). I'm fairly sure not your definition either when flying the 109F in game?
Instead of hitting a key for flaps you should have to hold down a key. Just like we do for trim.
Analogue flaps would be a nicer idea (as a second option to what we have now), then for the 109, say, you could choose the degree you want precisely. The delay between what you've ordered and what you get could be modeled in.
Lot of variety in flaps, Spitfire flip switch two position, N1K auto combat flaps, etc.
-
One notch of flaps in-game is 10 degrees iirc. The combat flaps setting in the P-51 is also 10 degrees.
-
I made these pictures at RAF Duxford a while back:-
(http://i1114.photobucket.com/albums/k526/rwrk2/DSCF0876_zps52ecc253.jpg) (http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/rwrk2/media/DSCF0876_zps52ecc253.jpg.html)
(http://i1114.photobucket.com/albums/k526/rwrk2/DSCF0877_zpsb7eef970.jpg) (http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/rwrk2/media/DSCF0877_zpsb7eef970.jpg.html)
(http://i1114.photobucket.com/albums/k526/rwrk2/DSCF0878_zps8811ad1e.jpg) (http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/rwrk2/media/DSCF0878_zps8811ad1e.jpg.html)
There were also these lines on the canopy:
(http://i1114.photobucket.com/albums/k526/rwrk2/DSCF0882_zpsa5ddbeb3.jpg) (http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/rwrk2/media/DSCF0882_zpsa5ddbeb3.jpg.html)
For dive bombing?
-
Incidentally, feel free to use my pictures for whatever you want to do with them. Although I painstakingly arranged the photons individually myself, they are ©, ®, and ™ free and I will not charge you a penny if I found you have laminated them and hung them in your bathroom.
-
Interesting to see the use of the dive bombing horizon guide.
-
Very nice Shida. Thanks for sharing. :aok
-
Welcome. Have two or three more I'll share later but I must pop out now :bolt:
-
Its a "BEAST" alright but you better be a good shot. 1 20 and 2 machine guns in the nose. Try it and see. Oh yes I've out turned spits and even had them auger trying to keep up with my turning!
KIMOSABE
-
(http://i1114.photobucket.com/albums/k526/rwrk2/DSCF0865_zps75dac438.jpg) (http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/rwrk2/media/DSCF0865_zps75dac438.jpg.html)
(http://i1114.photobucket.com/albums/k526/rwrk2/DSCF0868_zps1a230ff0.jpg) (http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/rwrk2/media/DSCF0868_zps1a230ff0.jpg.html)
(http://i1114.photobucket.com/albums/k526/rwrk2/DSCF0870_zps0c68b04c.jpg) (http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/rwrk2/media/DSCF0870_zps0c68b04c.jpg.html)
(http://i1114.photobucket.com/albums/k526/rwrk2/DSCF0873_zps286abb09.jpg) (http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/rwrk2/media/DSCF0873_zps286abb09.jpg.html)
(http://i1114.photobucket.com/albums/k526/rwrk2/DSCF0874_zpsb0060032.jpg) (http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/rwrk2/media/DSCF0874_zpsb0060032.jpg.html)
(http://i1114.photobucket.com/albums/k526/rwrk2/DSCF0875_zps12c765ca.jpg) (http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/rwrk2/media/DSCF0875_zps12c765ca.jpg.html)
(http://i1114.photobucket.com/albums/k526/rwrk2/DSCF0881_zps813abb25.jpg) (http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/rwrk2/media/DSCF0881_zps813abb25.jpg.html)
(http://i1114.photobucket.com/albums/k526/rwrk2/DSCF0884_zps12fb2348.jpg) (http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/rwrk2/media/DSCF0884_zps12fb2348.jpg.html)
(http://i1114.photobucket.com/albums/k526/rwrk2/DSCF0885_zpsf758bad1.jpg) (http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/rwrk2/media/DSCF0885_zpsf758bad1.jpg.html)
(http://i1114.photobucket.com/albums/k526/rwrk2/DSCF0886_zpsf8e4eafa.jpg) (http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/rwrk2/media/DSCF0886_zpsf8e4eafa.jpg.html)
(http://i1114.photobucket.com/albums/k526/rwrk2/DSCF0887_zps19112298.jpg) (http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/rwrk2/media/DSCF0887_zps19112298.jpg.html)
G-2 Trop if I recall correctly. :salute
-
Who put the 109 here? its blocking the view to the Mosquito! :mad: :bhead
(http://i1114.photobucket.com/albums/k526/rwrk2/DSCF0873_zps286abb09.jpg)
-
(http://img411.imageshack.us/img411/3531/dscf0898w.jpg)
-
Who put the 109 here? its blocking the view to the Mosquito! :mad: :bhead
(http://i1114.photobucket.com/albums/k526/rwrk2/DSCF0873_zps286abb09.jpg)
Another one here for you Bozon:-
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,359866.0.html
-
The spit 8,9,16 all have basically the same turn rate and sustained turning circle, and they are all significantly better than the seafire. On the list spit8 is 21, spit16 is 22, spit9 is 23. But the seafire is 37 better than the la5(38), but worse than the la7(36). The spit14 comes in at a mind boggling 50, worse than the tempest. Which completely contradicts RAF tactical trial reports.
It seems that aircraft weight makes a HUGE difference, as evidenced by the seafire(37) vs the spitV(14) and by the 202(30) vs the 205(60).
Make that WEIGHT per unit Wing Area (wingloading).
For those who haven't seen it: radius(min) = 2*W/(A*rho*CL*sin(theta)
Of course, we're more interested in rate of turn - that''s how you get the angle on someone. IIRC, that'll be something like the radius (min) at corner speed. This last, and no - I didn't read every comment in the thread - seems to have been neglected in this discussion. However, it is critical and often explains these anecdotes we see coming in: "so-and-so <expletive compund word> out-turned mt A6M2 in an FW190 A-8! There's something wrong with the flight model! HiTECH is a fraud! Blah-blah-blah, other assorted distortions. NO. All the anecdote really implies is that the clown doesn't know how to fly his A6M2. That said, I understand the best speed for turning in the Franz is somewhere in the magical-feeling 250-325 range. I don't fly with my head down, but I try to cultivate a feel for that speed. I also not ethat I can't deploy flap at that speed so I kind of assume that, if I'm deploying flap, I'm desperate and off optimal.... Please correct me if I've gotten any of this wrong. I'm pretty busy and don't get to practice AH as much as I'd like and my Aero Engin schooling is long in the past.
-
There were also these lines on the canopy
For dive bombing?
Those are most likely horizon reference lines used during maneuvering. You see them quite often in high-performance aerobatic aircraft.
Notice the tips of the wing - those are sighting rods used for aerobatic maneuvering:
(http://www.air-races.com/images/PICT0920.JPG)
-
I made these pictures at RAF Duxford a while back:-
Nice pics, and thanks for posting! <S>
I think that those are from RAF Museum Hendon. Did you look there at the world's only remaining Typhoon?
-
Nice pics, and thanks for posting! <S>
I think that those are from RAF Museum Hendon. Did you look there at the world's only remaining Typhoon?
Yes they are Brooke. I think the Tiffie was hanging from the roof. Was a few years back. The Ki-100 has been moved to Cosford now. I saw it again when I photographed the second Mosquito.
:salute
-
I was amazed that there is only one Typhoon left in existence. That is very sad information.
<S> Tiffie!
(http://electraforge.com/brooke/misc/RAFMuseum/026_DSC5369.JPG)
and <S> to Wurz and SF3, whom I met at the Hendon museum! They are great guys, Wurz and SF3.
(http://electraforge.com/brooke/misc/RAFMuseum/018_DSC5307.JPG)
-
Did the RAF surplus out warplanes to the general population like the USA did in the post-war period?
I was amazed that there is only one Typhoon left in existence. That is very sad information.
<S> Tiffie!
(http://electraforge.com/brooke/misc/RAFMuseum/026_DSC5369.JPG)
and <S> to Wurz and SF3, whom I met at the Hendon museum! They are great guys, Wurz and SF3.
(http://electraforge.com/brooke/misc/RAFMuseum/018_DSC5307.JPG)
-
I was amazed that there is only one Typhoon left in existence. That is very sad information.
<S> Tiffie!
(http://electraforge.com/brooke/misc/RAFMuseum/026_DSC5369.JPG)
Now you come to mention it, yes the Tiffie was on the ground in another hall with a Napier Sabre on display next to it. It was a Tempest in the Bf109G-2 / Mosquito hall. It was suspended from cables high above all of the other aircraft. Looked to me like he was looking for a pick. :old:
-
One revolution of the wheel should produce about 10 degrees of flaps.
Actually it is two full revolutions per 10 degrees of flap.
Finnish test pilot Pekka Kokko mentions in his flight test report of the Bf109G-2 that "winding down the flaps takes a longish time (~25 seconds) and should therefore be started high enough and at sufficient distance from the airfield".
this operation would require a lot more force in flight to overcome the air resistance.
The gearing of the mechanism makes it very light, that's why it takes so many revolutions to get the flaps fully down so the force isn't an issue.
-
I was amazed that there is only one Typhoon left in existence. That is very sad information.
<S> Tiffie!
There is an early B series Typhoon in the French War Museum in Caen. It is suspended from the ceiling. It is not fully original...
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f5/Memorial_Avion.jpg)
Watch this video....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qexMo-2ZLos (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qexMo-2ZLos)
-
Actually it is two full revolutions per 10 degrees of flap.
Finnish test pilot Pekka Kokko mentions in his flight test report of the Bf109G-2 that "winding down the flaps takes a longish time (~25 seconds) and should therefore be started high enough and at sufficient distance from the airfield".
The gearing of the mechanism makes it very light, that's why it takes so many revolutions to get the flaps fully down so the force isn't an issue.
At two full revolutions for ten degrees I believe you. That was an assumption I made based on Mr. Scholz's revolutions. :salute
-
You haven't specified your definition of 'easy' but this operation would require a lot more force in flight to overcome the air resistance.
Missed that one...
Why do some people insist on thinking that? Flaps are not fundamentally different from any other control surface like the ailerons or elevator. Like other control surfaces they can be balanced internally or externally to equalize any aerodynamic force. The flaps only change the curvature of the wing, nothing more. In some older large aircraft the elevators weren't even connected to any controls... They were free-floating, but were controlled aerodynamically by servo tabs. The pilot moved the controls which moved the servo tab and then the servo tab moved the elevator, which was otherwise free-floating. Combined they change the curvature of the horizontal stabilizer changing how much lift it produces.
(http://static.rcgroups.net/forums/attachments/2/2/8/1/7/0/a6036934-105-Servo%20tabs.jpg?d=1376893204)
-
Watch this video....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qexMo-2ZLos (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qexMo-2ZLos)
Thanks! :aok
-
Why do some people insist on thinking that?
It was just based on your suggested very short flap wheel movement (implying that the force would go up). Some aircraft had heavy controls at speed because of short sticks and big surfaces.
...servo tab...
Yes I am familiar with those. The servo tab also has the advantage of leverage.
-
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f5/Memorial_Avion.jpg)
Bros like they hos.
-
There is an early B series Typhoon in the French War Museum in Caen. It is suspended from the ceiling. It is not fully original...
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f5/Memorial_Avion.jpg)
Watch this video....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qexMo-2ZLos (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qexMo-2ZLos)
WW - thanks for the link. New media for me
-
It was just based on your suggested very short flap wheel movement (implying that the force would go up). Some aircraft had heavy controls at speed because of short sticks and big surfaces.
Yes I am familiar with those. The servo tab also has the advantage of leverage.
Yes, but you are missing the essential point: Lowering flaps (or actuating any other control surface for that matter) does not in of itself create an aerodynamic force that counteracts it. All you are doing is increasing the curvature of the wing, and from that increased curvature you are increasing the angle of attack of the wing as well since the wing's chord line shifts with the lowering of the trailing edge. In the 109 this induces a nose down movement in the aircraft as the wing, now with its increased curvature, centers itself against the airflow.
(http://flysafe.raa.asn.au/groundschool/aileron2.gif)
The controls of many aircraft stiffen up at high speed because of shock waves forming over the control surfaces, usually bounced off of other parts of the aircraft. The P-38 suffered greatly from this due to its twin-boom tail. By design or luck, unlike many other WWII fighters the Spitfire was blessed with very light control forces even at extreme dive speeds. They were in fact considered dangerously light since pilots could easily over stress the aircraft.
-
Yes, but you are missing the essential point: Lowering flaps (or actuating any other control surface for that matter) does not in of itself create an aerodynamic force that counteracts it. All you are doing is increasing the curvature of the wing, and from that increased curvature you are increasing the angle of attack of the wing as well since the wing's chord line shifts with the lowering of the trailing edge. In the 109 this induces a nose down movement in the aircraft as the wing, now with its increased curvature, centers itself against the airflow.
(http://flysafe.raa.asn.au/groundschool/aileron2.gif)
The controls of many aircraft stiffen up at high speed because of shock waves forming over the control surfaces, usually bounced off of other parts of the aircraft. The P-38 suffered greatly from this due to its twin-boom tail. By design or luck, unlike many other WWII fighters the Spitfire was blessed with very light control forces even at extreme dive speeds. They were in fact considered dangerously light since pilots could easily over stress the aircraft.
But you still have to push the flaps against the initial resistance of the airstream (which wants to continue as it was doing) and / or overcome the inertia as a consequence of changing camber (plus the friction of the system) I think that's in accordance with what Newton said in his famous analysis combat aircraft: that that takes force. I was mainly responding to your comments about it being 'easy'. Either it's easy in terms of leverage which means it takes an awfully long time (confirmed by WMaker's comments), or it's quick and takes more force (often supplied in other aircraft by a power system).
I don't think what you are saying can be accurate otherwise the 109 wouldn't need the reduction box attached to the geared wheel but could have a simple handrake lever instead. Furthermore the N1K uses hydraulic pumps, the 190 reduction boxes driven by electric motors and the Spitfires a compressed air system. None of those would be fitted if they weren't needed. Right?
-
The controls of many aircraft stiffen up at high speed because of shock waves forming over the control surfaces, usually bounced off of other parts of the aircraft. The P-38 suffered greatly from this due to its twin-boom tail. By design or luck, unlike many other WWII fighters the Spitfire was blessed with very light control forces even at extreme dive speeds. They were in fact considered dangerously light since pilots could easily over stress the aircraft.
What about the Zero's ailerons which were proportionally large? I thought they got stiff because of that and not shock waves? Also didn't the 109 have a short stick and needed a lot of force at speeds approaching 400 m.p.h? Are we in shock wave territory already at that speed?
-
I don't think we are, generally, though I forget typical ratios of free stream to local peak velocities for some of these airfoils. Typically, when you look at the wing of something flying nearly Mach 1, you can actually see the pressure discontinuity at something like the peak local velocity point on t he upper wing surface. You get a pressure and density delta there and it causes a visual distortion.
Often, what will cause control in effectiveness is a wake/wash that takes the surface more or less out of the free stream. some of the high t-tail early DC jets had problems with high alpha because the wake of the separated flow off the wing would trap the tail in wash.
As for high loads at high speeds, I think a lot of it depends on the proportion of surface area ahead of and behind the axis of rotation. The former wants to cause divergence, the latter wants to align with free stream. In stability derivative terms, for those who remember, that last was called "weathercock effect".
-
The controls of many aircraft stiffen up at high speed because of shock waves forming over the control surfaces, usually bounced off of other parts of the aircraft. The P-38 suffered greatly from this due to its twin-boom tail. By design or luck, unlike many other WWII fighters the Spitfire was blessed with very light control forces even at extreme dive speeds. They were in fact considered dangerously light since pilots could easily over stress the aircraft.
Minor point, the P-38 did *not* suffer from the elevator becoming "stiff". Pilots could still move the P-38's elevator when compressed, it just didn't do much, as it was in turbulent air from above-mentioned shockwaves, and this phenomenon was tied to Mach, not IAS. By comparison, the 109's elevator could be very stiff at high IAS, but whatever deflection the pilot physically could put on the surface still worked at higher Mach than for the 38. A logical ramification of this is that high TAS becomes more problematic for the 38 and less problematic for the 109 as altitude increases.
-
The P-38 stick would be like set in concrete at first, then as the speed increased and the shock wave moved forward, away from the control surface, the controls would free up, but would still be useless since the airflow over them was disrupted. Same for the P-47, but its stick would first give the pilot a thorough beating as the buffeting over the control surfaces would fling the stick around violently.
In the 109 it was different. It was a "feature" (™ Microsoft) that became a flaw. The 109 was designed for max level speeds in the 300-350 mph range, and its controls were meticulously balanced and harmonized for that speed range so that no matter the speed the controls would generate the same amount of G-load for a given stick force. However, with the G model it was clear that the 109 had become too fast for its control setup, but nothing was done for various reasons. First the 109 was supposed to be replaced by the 209 and later 309, but these designs failed. Partly because they were overambitious, but also because they would require a complete retooling of the production lines. The German war situation did not allow any such delay in production, so the 109 soldiered on in 1944 with basically the same controls it had in 1939, but with ~100 mph more level speed and much greater dive speeds.
With the G-10 and K-4 they had to do something since the 109 was becoming almost unresponsive at max level speed. They tried to remedy the problem in a way that didn't impact production much; they added Flettner tabs (servo tabs) to the elevators, but in the field they discovered that they produced a force-reversal at certain speeds which was absolutely lethal. (The stick wanted to move to its extremes unless the pilot forced it to stay centered.) In the end the field mechanics just nailed the Flettner tabs rigid to the elevator and the pilots soldiered on with basically 1939 controls in a 450 mph plane.
In the Spitfire it was different. Its designers paid little or no attention to harmonization of the controls. This resulted in a much lamented control setup that had heavy aileron forces but very light elevator forces. It proved dangerously light in some cases. However, later in the war this proved a blessing since the Spitfire was much better able to handle the increases in speeds as engine technology improved without much redesigning. That is not to say the Spitfire didn't have its own vices... It suffered from aileron reversal at high dive speeds, which must have been quite something to experience for the first time... (The ailerons would literally produce the reverse effect of the control input!)
However, the flaps of the 109 did not suffer from excessive speeds. They were still mostly used at the low speeds they were designed for, and if we all can agree on a ~25 second time to deploy full 40 degrees of flaps in that video then 10 degrees should take 6 seconds. I'm sure a pilot could shave a second or two off of that if he put more effort into it. The mechanical advantage of the 109's jack screw system was also enough that some flaps could be deployed at almost any speed. Indeed one Finnish pilot used flaps to pull out of a near fatal 950 km/h (590 mph) dive. Though I would have had my mechanic check the flaps system thoroughly after something like this...
"The story of Valte Estama's 109 G-6 getting shot down by a Yak-6 was also an interesting one. Their flight of nine planes was doing high-altitude CAP at 7,000 meters (23,000'). (snip) So it happened that the devil fired at him. One cannon round hit his engine, spilling out oil that caught fire. Estama noticed that it wasn't fuel that leaked or burned, just oil. He pushed the nose of the plane and throttled up. His feet felt hot, but the fire was extinguished and there was no more smoke. The speedometer went over the top as the speed exceeded 950 km/h. The wings began to shake and Estama feared the fighter would come apart. He pulled the throttle back, but the stick was stiff and couldn't pull the plane out of the dive. Letting the flaps out little by little gradually lifted the nose. The plane leveled at 1,000 meters (3,300'). Clarification of the escape dive: "It didn't stay (vertical) otherwise, it had to be kept with the stabilizer. I trimmed it so the plane was certainly nose down. Once I felt it didn't burn anymore and there was no black smoke in the mirror, then I began to straighten it up, and it wouldn't obey. The stick was so stiff it was useless. So a nudge at a time, (then straightening off with trims). Then the wings came alive with the flutter effect, I was afraid it's coming apart and shut the throttle. Only then I began to level out. To a thousand meters. It was a long time - and the hard pull blacked me out."
Virtualpilots.fi - Edvald Estama, Finnish fighter pilot. Source: Recollections by Eino and Edvald Estama by Finnish Virtual Pilots Association.
-
<snip>
if we all can agree on a ~25 second time to deploy full 40 degrees of flaps in that video then 10 degrees should take 6 seconds.
We can't agree on 10° being the maximum you'd want to deploy in combat however.
So what's the conclusion about the force needed to deploy flaps?
-
Sure, but that's not what I meant by "combat flaps". I meant the 109 could deploy a similar amount of flaps to those Allied rides that got a "combat flaps" setting. P-51 and P-38 among others. At least in the 51 that's 10 degrees iirc. As for the force needed to deploy the flaps, as you said there's friction and also the initial drag resistance, but it doesn't amount to much given the mechanical advantage of the system. As Wmaker said, Finnish pilot Pekka Kokko noted it took about 25 second to deploy full flaps at approach speeds. That corresponds well to the video I posted.