Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Flyboy on August 20, 2003, 04:37:00 PM
-
is it me or the spit9 is superior to the 109f in all aspects?
im pretty sure the spit will out turn the 109 even when it uses flaps (1 or 2 notches)
did someone performed tests with those 2 planes?
-
Well, I have noticed that it works something like this:
When I fly the 109F, the SpitIX will out turn it every time.
When I fly the SpitIX, the 109F will out turn it every time.
However, it's not as bad as it seems. My inept gunnery skills, and fear of heights, more than make up for my inability to get the most out of my current plane choice, and continue to provide me with hours of exciting entertainment.:)
cheers
RTR
-
Spit IX utterly dominates the 109F, it is better in every aspect.
-
Which is as it should be.
Complaining that the Spitfire Mk IX is better than the Bf109F-4 is the same as complaining that the Spitfire Mk Vb is better than the Bf109E-4.
(The Bf109F-4 is faster on the deck than the Spitfire Mk IX)
-
Oh, I didn't say it was wrong, he asked and I answered.
-
I know Urchin.
I was just clarifying for other people who might not be as, er, balanced.
-
The 109F4 is slightly faster than the Spit IX under 20k (10mph). Above 20k the Spit IX is better in all aspects of performance. The 109F4 can turn with the Spit IX at medium speeds, and at very low speeds using flaps, but it is dangerous.
-
but only ace have chance to win this fight flying 109;)
ramzey
-
there are a few things a 109 f4 does better . they just did not model most of them.
-
Originally posted by lord dolf vader
there are a few things a 109 f4 does better . they just did not model most of them.
Like what?
-
Spits are modelled in AH with even higher maximum lift coefficient like 109, though they had thinner wings, outdated airfoil, washout (read: less lift outside), no slats, no usage of combat flaps (109E already could use 20° combat flaps up to 400km/h) and even weapons in the leading edges which destroy partially the airflow in a high AoA situation, being quite often the origin of a stall.
There exist even a NACA report that mentions the very low maximum lift coefficient of a spit, and this without weapons which distrurb the leading edge!
If theyīd model it correctly a 109F would turn with or maybe even into a spit9.
There exist also exact sources that a 109F/G will roll faster like a spit at higher speeds.
niklas
-
The 109 has a quite a bit higher wingloading than the Spit through all models. That quite much explains the turning thingie, also the very good turning abilities of the a6m, the Kate and the Val by the way.
However the 109 F is quite a nimble plane and it does have some edges on par or better than the Spit IX. The above mentioned speed on the deck, well, yes, our Spit is the High altitude version, but also initial acceleration and climb at low alt when one considers that the WEP on the 109 goes on a lot longer.
A good pilot in a 109F therefor does not necessarily have to be dead when he faces a Spit9, it all depends really.....
Oh, and the Slats are modelled in AH, but without their disadvatages, which was slamming in and out at bad moments, throwing off the pilot's aim. Famous German aces like Gunther Rall did not like them and even had them wired stuck!
-
That disadvantage is modelled Angus.
The 109F4 had a wing loading of 34.8 lb/sq feet while the Spit IX had a wing loading of 30.2 lb/sq feet. Not a big difference, and the 109F4 has leading edge slats.
-
GScholz: Are you sure that the slats snapping jolt is modelled in AH, or did you misread my text?
The wing loading thingie again anyway. The difference is always about 10-20%, unless of course you have a fully loaded Spitfire vs an empty 109. The Spit IX goes down to 23.lbs empty while the 109 stays at 29 or so. Flying with maximum allowable burden the SpitIX will take equal or more total wing loading than the 109F, a typical operational wing loading exceeds the maximum allowable wing loading of the 109F.
Span loading of the Spitfire is lower AND higher, empty to full 499-855 lbs/m against 522-681, and power loading tells the same story. 3.58-6.07 against the 109's 4.08-5.3
So, a Typically loaded Spitfire IX has lower wingloading, lower spanloading and lower powerloading vs. a typically loaded 109F. However, the Spitfire CAN be loaded heavier for each HP/Wing sq/Wing Sp and still flyable. Quite surprized me really when I found out.
Must be something about that wing........
-
Originally posted by Angus
The 109 has a quite a bit higher wingloading than the Spit through all models.
Wingarea alone doesnīt produce lift! The whole outer section of the spit was flying at very low AoA even close to a stall and did not produce much lift. It gave the spit the marvellous handling characteristics (ailerons still controlable close to a stall, or in case of the spit, even with inner section completly stalled) at these speeds on the other hand.
The spit reduced max. lift coefficient to achieve nice handling characteristics, The 109 increased lift (slats). At the end total lift was not much different, maybe even higher for the 109!
niklas
-
Someone might want to look into "Wep" duration on your 109F. Boost/rpm limitations might be an issue as well.
-
Well, as far as I can see, a Spitfire can be loaded higher than a 109, pro wing square, pro span and pro Horsepower. Calculate coefficiency at will, these are actual load numbers. So, wing area does seem to have something to do with it, especially if you state that the Spitfire wing design is out-dated.....
Lower wing loading also enables the aircraft to fly at a lower a of a, - very much noticed by the German two-war ace and commander Theo Osterkamp when he stated "The Spitfires flew more straight than our 109's".
Anyway, just tried out a fully loaded Spit IX vs a light 109F. The 109F out-turned the loaded Spitfire, and turned practically on par with it once the Spit had dropped the ordnance. So it seems that AH has this pretty well modelled, - praise HTC!
-
Originally posted by Angus
GScholz: Are you sure that the slats snapping jolt is modelled in AH, or did you misread my text?
Yes I think so. At slow and medium speeds the plane will suddenly increase AoA without any additional stick input while doing high G turns. At least that's my experience.
As for the 1941 model 109F4 vs. 1942 Spit IX comparison:
Normal loaded weight in AH:
109F4: 6393 lbs.
Spit IX: 7400 lbs.
Engine:
109F4, DB601E: 1350 hp, powerloading: 4.73 lbs/hp.
Spit IX, Merlin 61: 1565 hp, powerloading 4.72 lbs/hp
Internal fuel capacity:
109F4: 88 Imperial gallons / 643 lbs.
Spit IX: 92 Imperial gallons /672 lbs.
Wing loading with 100% internal fuel.
109F4: 34.8 lb/sq feet.
Spit IX: 30.2 lb/sq feet.
Wing loading empty.
109F4: 31.2 lb/sq feet.
Spit IX: 27.5 lb/sq feet.
Max. speed at SL (in AH):
109F4: 330 mph.
Spit IX: 320 mph.
Max. speed at 20k (in AH):
109F4: 390 mph.
Spit IX: 380-385 mph.
Climb rate at SL (in AH):
109F4: 3900 fps.
Spit IX: 3700 fps.
Climb rate at 20k (in AH):
109F4: 3200 fps.
Spit IX: 3200 fps.
Above 20k the Spit IX gains a significant speed and climb advantage over the 109F.
These two aircraft are pretty close in performance I'd say. Against the 1941 Spit V (AH) the 109F4 is clearly superior. :)
-
Originally posted by mw
Someone might want to look into "Wep" duration on your 109F. Boost/rpm limitations might be an issue as well.
Do you think it is modeled incorrectly? Any info to share on the subject?
-
Jolly good info GScholz.
Looking closely at my data I was using the data for a 109F2.
The 109F4 was probably the best 109 ever for the pure flying performance then, - awesome power there. Also the 109F2 holds a tad more fuel, however such a tiny difference that it may be equalled with a pilot with a bigger "bierbauch".
Will have a closer look at your data later (tied up in harvest), - lovely to get more data for more variants etc.
Must have a look at the slot-slamming effect, - yet another go in the TA I guess.
Never noticed it really, hovever the "snap" is quite well modelled IMHO, - I even use it in tight situations for a quick reversal, - just like some of the German aces say they did.
The WEP duration is a thing open to quite a debate. I remember reading a report of a Merlin engine being run at "Panic boost" for more than 30 minutes (the piot really panicked!) without any damage (it was opened up because of the incidence) while I have also heard from a 109 Pilot that he was unhappy about the DB engine Fatique after relativeely few hours on the clock.
Would be nice to get more info about this. Aside from RR and DB, the thing is just starting with the U.S. engines really......them Jugs could take a lot of pressure....
Well...gotta rush....
-
Originally posted by Angus
Oh, and the Slats are modelled in AH, but without their disadvatages, which was slamming in and out at bad moments, throwing off the pilot's aim. Famous German aces like Gunther Rall did not like them and even had them wired stuck!
From where have you read/how do you know that the slats are modelled?
-
Niklas,
Lift coefficient is lower?
Isn't that sort of after the fact?
The Spit V and IX had a lower stalling speed than the 109 of almost any varient if not all of them. If they had a lower Clmax what differance would it make? It's all after the fact. The stalling speed of these A/C are well documented.
In fact from an engineers point of view isn't a low stalling speed with a low clmax ideal? That would limit cdi as well.
As far as the leading edge slats go what was their effect on the stall. Everyone mentions them but nobody shows any documents diagraming the results. Wouldn't these slats raise drag (cdi) tremendously?
-
no 109F4 can turn with spit9 and even out turn if going fast enough. i dont ever use my peashooters. i just smack em with cannons. got to remeber 109F4 need 350 to 250 mph for best turn. once that is gone you are pretty much done.(im losing it i just though i was in 190A5 and saw a con to 3 oclock so i pressed 6:rolleyes: ) if i could get some to go to DA with me id film it. i almost never leave 109F4 without gondies. like extra ammo. 109F4 can and will out turn spit1 and spit14 though. but spit14 is a lawndart so no point. i find against spit5 you are pretty much helpless. btw i like to get to d500 and open fire. sometimes i keep tracers off.
skull12
-
Wmaker: HiTech (or was it Pyro) once said that in another thread. It's just the visual effect that's needed. Would be cool to see that, like in Il-2....;)
-
Originally posted by GScholz
As for the 1941 model 109F4 vs. 1942 Spit IX comparison:
Normal loaded weight in AH:
109F4: 6393 lbs.
Spit IX: 7400 lbs.
Engine:
109F4, DB601E: 1350 hp, powerloading: 4.73 lbs/hp.
Spit IX, Merlin 61: 1565 hp, powerloading 4.72 lbs/hp
Internal fuel capacity:
109F4: 88 Imperial gallons / 643 lbs.
Spit IX: 92 Imperial gallons /672 lbs.
Wing loading with 100% internal fuel.
109F4: 34.8 lb/sq feet.
Spit IX: 30.2 lb/sq feet.
Wing loading empty.
109F4: 31.2 lb/sq feet.
Spit IX: 27.5 lb/sq feet.
Max. speed at SL (in AH):
109F4: 330 mph.
Spit IX: 320 mph.
Max. speed at 20k (in AH):
109F4: 390 mph.
Spit IX: 380-385 mph.
Climb rate at SL (in AH):
109F4: 3900 fps.
Spit IX: 3700 fps.
Climb rate at 20k (in AH):
109F4: 3200 fps.
Spit IX: 3200 fps.
Above 20k the Spit IX gains a significant speed and climb advantage over the 109F.
These two aircraft are pretty close in performance I'd say. Against the 1941 Spit V (AH) the 109F4 is clearly superior. :)
thanks alot GScholz
i have 2 questions
are the speed and climb numbers are given when the planes use WEP?
and are the planes carry 100% fuel when those tests where performed?
again you guys are amazing, you are really walking libreries! (in the good way of it :D ) !
-
Originally posted by Agnus
Oh, and the Slats are modelled in AH, but without their disadvatages, which was slamming in and out at bad moments, throwing off the pilot's aim.
This could have been adressed by adjusting the slats. Germans knew how to do it. RAF could have informed themselves at Handley Page, but they did not do it. With the E series there was a minor problem that pilots could feel the opening on the stick. From the F on new slats mechanism were used and this problem was non-existent any more.
Originally posted by F4UDOA
Niklas,
Lift coefficient is lower?
Isn't that sort of after the fact?
The Spit V and IX had a lower stalling speed than the 109 of almost any varient if not all of them. If they had a lower Clmax what differance would it make? It's all after the fact. The stalling speed of these A/C are well documented.
In fact from an engineers point of view isn't a low stalling speed with a low clmax ideal? That would limit cdi as well.
As far as the leading edge slats go what was their effect on the stall. Everyone mentions them but nobody shows any documents diagraming the results. Wouldn't these slats raise drag (cdi) tremendously?
Do you know a stalling speed of a 109f with slats out and flaps out or in combat position? What stalling speed do you really know for the 109f anyway?
We donīt talk about landing speeds. The huge wingarea definitly produced a larger ground effect, so this would be a special situaion where a lot of wingare is helpful.
If i remember myself correctly, even a british pilot mentioned in a TV-documentation about the Spit that the 109 could turn tighter in the BoB.
In the Naca report the Spit has a max. Cl of only 1.2 or less in gliding, wind tunnel tests (also no engine on condition) of 109f show Cl of over 1.4 without slats or combat flaps.
What was the effect of slats? Usually wing tips stall first if you build a straight wing. Your airplane would get rapidly out of control when pilot looses aileron control. So you try to prevent the aileron section to stall first. You can do it by 2 ways:
- Washout, decreasing the AoA of the aileron section compared to the inner wing section. Thus, when inner wing section stalls, you still have control on the outer section. BUT when inner wing section is flying close to stall, at high AoA, the outer wing section flying at lower AoA is NOT producing much lift logically (The outer wing section of the Spitfire was thin anyway, 8% only)
- Slats, preventing the outer section to stall. This way the outer section can fly at the very same AoA as the inner section without stalling first. The whole wing is now producing maximum lift.
The Naca report clearly states that the marvellous slow speed handling of the Spitfire was achieved with sacrificing maximum lift coefficient. In a turn the outer section did not produce really much lift, a lot of wingare simply was wasted or invested in handling characteristics.
In AH you can fly at higher lift coefficients like a 109, this is ridicolous. But AH lives from Newbies too, and they need an uncomplicated aircraft for quick success.
Stalling speeds are given in IAS, this is not TAS. TAS depends also on tube design, itīs hard to know today what true stallings speeds have been. Furthermore speed indicator usually have a positive error at slow speeds.
The F1/F2 data sheets mentions takeoff with a fully loaded machine at 130km/h IAS, around 80mph - This is not a stalling speed of course, nor is a takeoff done with full flaps, maybe even no slats. However, it includes ground effect (probably).
The british test of the Emil speaks about approch speeds of 75mph with gear and flaps up, and 61mph down. This is lower than the stalling speeds of the SpitII (handbook).
niklas
-
Originally posted by Angus
Wmaker: HiTech (or was it Pyro) once said that in another thread. It's just the visual effect that's needed. Would be cool to see that, like in Il-2....;)
I really doubt it since here's what Pyro posted in the AH II forum. This is something that is going to be in AH II...
Originally posted by Pyro
Weve taken a pretty fresh look at the model mechanics and are going through the process of identifying inaccuracies and their causes and making appropriate changes. So this is a tremendous amount of revision along with some additions such as working slats.
I've heard references to this thread where Pyro has said slats are working for years now.
Funny I haven't found the thread itself...
-
This could have been adressed by adjusting the slats.
How do you adjust the slats?
They were spring loaded, and came out when air pressure dropped over the wing. If air pressure was lower over one wing than the other, the slats could deploy asymetrically.
If i remember myself correctly, even a british pilot mentioned in a TV-documentation about the Spit that the 109 could turn tighter in the BoB.
Which contradicts just about every other pilot account from the BoB.
The F1/F2 data sheets mentions takeoff with a fully loaded machine at 130km/h IAS, around 80mph - This is not a stalling speed of course, nor is a takeoff done with full flaps, maybe even no slats.
How is a takeoff done with no slats? The only way to stop the slats deploying is to wire them shut, or set them to deploy at such a low speed they almost never come out.
-
since english is not my primery language and im not very famillier with technical terms can you explain me what a "slat" is?
-
Originally posted by Nashwan
They were spring loaded...
From where have you got the idea that they were springloaded?
They simply have nothing to do with springs...
-
Originally posted by Nashwan
How do you adjust the slats?
They were spring loaded, and came out when air pressure dropped over the wing. If air pressure was lower over one wing than the other, the slats could deploy asymetrically.
Usually you move over this point so quickly that both slats deploy. An experienced pilot knew sooner or later when they will come out anyway and can even force the deployment with a quick pull on the stick. When there were huge differences in the deployment characteristics of both slats, then itīs another hint for bad adjustment.
Which contradicts just about every other pilot account from the BoB.
Those who got outturned by the 109 canīt report their experiences anymore.
How is a takeoff done with no slats? The only way to stop the slats deploying is to wire them shut, or set them to deploy at such a low speed they almost never come out.
Takeoff speed is low, and rolling angle is limited too. Iīm not sure whether theyīd come out for takeoff when theyīre closed before accelerating.
Slats:
109G-6R-.JPG
(http://mitglied.lycos.de/luftwaffe1/flugmechanik/109g-6r-.gif)
-
Usually you move over this point so quickly that both slats deploy. An experienced pilot knew sooner or later when they will come out anyway and can even force the deployment with a quick pull on the stick. When there were huge differences in the deployment characteristics of both slats, then itīs another hint for bad adjustment.
You can have asymetrical slat deployment during sideslip, and during rolling.
Those who got outturned by the 109 canīt report their experiences anymore.
So all pilots outturned by a 109 were shot down and killed?
From where have you got the idea that they were springloaded?
Sorry, it came out wrong. Sping loaded was supposed to be in inverteds, as part of a description of how they deploy. It got left in when the rest of the description was deleted.
-
Little verification please.
I think I recall the asymmetrical deployment was fixed after the G models.. does anyone know if this is true? if it was fixed to symmetrical deployment, how was that so? Did they wire the left and right slats to deploy at the same time if one would pop out?
...
Wmaker, I always thought the effective FM of the slats were modelled. I saw that thread, and I naturally figured that Pyro meant the visual models were going to be applied. But then again, as you said, I've never seen any direct mentions on this one from the developers myself. Anyone have the link..??
...
Flyboy, they are usually called "slats" or also "slots". These are stabilizer devices which deploy automatically on the leading edge of the wing when air pressure is low - Bf109s and Lavochkin series had them, I think.
-
niklas, notice in your photo the port slat is in the open position and is closed on the other wing.
I have seen other photos with them closed on the ground, as well as being open. There has to be some 'stickiness' ** for them to be closed when the a/c is not moving.
Now with the vibration of the engine and rolling over rough ground for take-off, any 'stickiness' in the slat operation would be overcome, causing the slats to open. That is until airspeed increased to such a speed as to close them.
imho;)
**: or friction
-
So why does a Spit IX fly with at least 2000 lbs more of a load than a 190F with only 100 extra Hp? Cl of lift or wing area or whatever, I'd like to see this explained.
Likewise, why does the Spit I equal the flying speed of the 109E at similar power output while being heavier?????????
-
Back on the original question, it depends on the Spit9 model. The MkIXF wasn`t a big performer, at low altitudes a 109F would climb faster and be somewhat speedier. At high altitudes, 20 000 ft and above
I`d believe the turning would favour the Mk9, and rolling, particularly at higher speeds the 109F, tough at low-medium speeds roll performance is rahter similiar. Handling favours the 109F, having much better harmonized controls, whereas a Spit pilot had to fly with his aileron controls being excessive, whereas the elevators was so light and touchy, that a mere 3/4 inch of pull could stall the plane...
Despite that, I`d say in the horizontal plane where Spit 9s had advantage, provided it has an experienced pilot who got used to the controls. Rookie vs. Rookie, a 109 pilot could win, his plane being more noobie-friendly than his opponents
It would be the vertical plane where the Mk9 would outclassed, all Spits had lousy dives and zoom climbs, whereas 109s excelled at those. So if the usual 109 tactics of boom and zooming is followed, he has little to worry, and he only takes risk if he engages the enemy in a turnfight, which favours the Spit pilot.
Of course comparing the 109F to a Mk9LF would give the latter advantage in speed and climb, altough relative dives and zooms would change little... but I feel a little stupid to compare the mid/late-1943 Spitfire MkIXLF with the late-1940 Bf 109Fs...
-
VO101_Isegrim,
Where do you get the data that the 109F would have the advantage in rolling?
Every test document I have ever seen indicates that once the Spitfire was given metal ailerons it out rolled the 109 at all speeds and by a good margin.
-
Angus, how is 7400lbs 2000lbs more than 6393lbs? check your math.
In addition the 109F-4s engine produced 1350hp max compared to the Spitfire F. IXs 1565hp max (Merlin 61).
-
Originally posted by Nashwan
You can have asymetrical slat deployment during sideslip, and during rolling.
So all pilots outturned by a 109 were shot down and killed?
If you add that little sideslip factor to your forward speed, thereīs not much difference in velocity vector. In the Emil test by the RAF they mentioned free and easy going slats, Nevertheless they did not come out in all manoevering test, even with sudden rudder hits and quick rolls. Aileron deployed below 120mph, a speed that is barely reached in manoevering flights.
The problem was the "stick snatching", but this was adressed with the improved design of the F.
If RAF would have accepted that Spit can be outturned by experienced pilots, it may have saved some of their pilot lifes.
Originally posted by MiloMorai
Now with the vibration of the engine and rolling over rough ground for take-off, any 'stickiness' in the slat operation would be overcome, causing the slats to open. That is until airspeed increased to such a speed as to close them.
During rolling, the AoA was rather low. You could even say it was zero. Unlike the 190 the 109 pilots rose the tail as quickly as possible. Sometimes even before rolling, just using slipstream. I once saw on TV how Beauvais pulled out the inner slot of the Me262 with his hands. He definitly had to use a bit force. But i donīt know it exactly.
Karnak, at higher speeds the 109 was definitly superior in rolling. The Spit had a rather low reversal speed of only less than 600mph. Furthermore the Naca result of the SpitV aileron test is significantly worse than that of the RAF (which is in the Naca comparison chart). The response time of a SpitV was very low, so for quick manoevers at medium speed the Spit an disadvantage. Huh, full stick deflection with 30lb stick force only below 110mph...and the force gradient was steep, 50lb wonīt improve it much... A little bit like a zero, large ailerons for good slow speed manoevering, but stick forces naturally were too high at medium and high speeds.
niklas
-
Originally posted by niklas
Karnak, at higher speeds the 109 was definitly superior in rolling. The Spit had a rather low reversal speed of only less than 600mph.
Low? I was under the impression that both the Spitfire and the 109 had dive limits of 470 mph (750 km/h).
Did the 109F improve the pilot's ability to exert leverage on the stick at high speed? The RAF's 109E test seemed to suggest that the 109 had problems with rolling at 400 mph, let alone 600.
-
Karnak: A&AEE found the 109F to roll better than the 109e and the Spit I with fabric covered ailerons, but not as good as a Spit V with metal covered ailerons. Later Spits had shortened span ailerons to increase high speed performance as well. It short, you're right.
Can someone time how long 109F4 has wep available? Is it longer than 3 minutes?
-
Can someone time how long 109F4 has wep available? Is it longer than 3 minutes?
if i remeber right it was 9 mins or was that the 190 but they are both around 9 mins
-
flyboy there is only 1 way to slove this. i would go DA and have someone record it. that would give us a solid answer.
-
wep/boost wasnt set on a timer.
The restrictions set to limit boost were mostly maintenance related. An eng wouldnt blow up or fail if you hit 3 min 1 sec.
So who cares? In ah like all these games each time you up a plane its factory mint condition. So if you ran 10 min overboost it may mean the eng gets rebuilt sooner. Again so what?
in AH all planes are similiar. AH spits run at high boost the entire time from take to flame in.
Some one post the pw test that ran for days at high boost with out fail.
-
"in AH all planes are similiar. "
Wrong: The Spits have wep limited to the time set forth in the pilot's notes - 5 minutes. Of course they could run much longer in real life and often did. Wep duration is modeled at 5 minutes if I'm not mistaken.
In real life 109f was limited to 3 minutes emergency. The sim models it significantly longer.
"So who cares?"
Obviously anyone such as yourself not interested in good fidelity wont.
-
Go back agw and whine about their 190a4.
The spit isnt limited to just 5 min. Its 5 min then 10 cool down then 5 min again forever. The 109 is 10 on 10 off forever. So what fidelity are you talking about?
The ah spit nine boost at 100% throttle is 15, 18 with wep.
You can ride at 15 all day long.
So who cares if its just the 109 your complaining about.
-
The spit isnt limited to just 5 min. Its 5 min then 10 cool down then 5 min again forever.
Which matches the real life limits. Many pilots exceeded that of course.
The 109 is 10 on 10 off forever.
I believe it should be 3 mins WEP on the 109F. Of course, many pilots would exceed that too, but the 109 is modelled with more than 3 times it's real WEP time, the Spit with it's actual WEP time.
The ah spit nine boost at 100% throttle is 15, 18 with wep
The AH Spit IX boost gauge is wrong. The Spit IX in AH couldn't use 18lbs boost, and it isn't modelled with 18lbs boost. The 15lbs figure, ie non WEP in AH, matches the "normal" 12lbs rating in British tests, which could be used for 60 mins in real life.
The AH 18lbs rating matches the real life 15lbs rating.
In other words, the AH boost gauge reads 3 lbs too high. When it shows 15lbs, it's actually 12lbs, and you should be able to maintain that for 1 hr. When it reads 18lbs, it's actually 15lbs, and that had an official time limit of 5 mins.
-
Originally posted by Guppy
Low? I was under the impression that both the Spitfire and the 109 had dive limits of 470 mph (750 km/h).
Did the 109F improve the pilot's ability to exert leverage on the stick at high speed? The RAF's 109E test seemed to suggest that the 109 had problems with rolling at 400 mph, let alone 600.
Aileron reversal speed has nothing to do with dive limits. Itīs more likely an indicator for wing stiffness, thus rolling velocity at high speeds. The higher the better of course.
Do you know what the same RAF test report in comparison to the spitfire?
"These tests showed that, although the Me109 (E) ailerons felt much heavier than those of the Spitfire at speeds between 300mph and 400mph, the aircraft could be made to bank at about the same rate as the Sptifire at these high airspeeds"
Then the famous conclusion, where most people donīt know the whole part:
"At 400mph a pilot, pushing the sideways with all his strength, can only apply 1/5 aileron, the time to bank being 4 secs. THE SPITFIRE IS AS BAD AS THE ME109 IN THIS RESPECT"
In AH the 109E rolls of course worse even at lower speeds, though there is this 45° banking chart out there from the RAF that clearly says that the 109E could bank 45° twice as fast as a SpitI at 200mph, becoming equal from 300-400mph. You know the bottom char of the following picture
(http://de.geocities.com/stefan_l_01/fzg/spitI_109E.gif)
And the upper chart in this picture should tell you also something about the spit aileron characteristics, it clearly states that the spit needed 60lb aileron force (!!) to achieve 1/5 aileron deflection at high speeds, while the 109E needed just a bit more than the half! So in your place i would stop those arrogant remarks about the Emil ailerons, because it was nothing unusual at this time, and the spit was way worse!!!!
AND THIS IS THE OPINION OF A RAF REPORT.
And thereīs also a rollrate chart for the Spit1 out there, see
(http://de.geocities.com/stefan_l_01/fzg/spitI_rollrate.gif)
Though itīs just for 30lb, itīs clearly to see that wingtwist or aileron twist limits very early the rollrate. AH rollrate for the SpitI is close to this chart, the problem is that the Emil is modelled even worse in AH while it should be superior from 150-300mph.
Btw, the Spitīs ailerons only felt light at moderate stick defelctions. For full deflection they became very quickly solid. Once more, with 30lb pounds stickforce full deflection for metal ailerons at a Spit V was only possible BELOW 110mph!!! At 130mph only half deflection was possible anymore with 30lb!
The report can be found
here (http://mitglied.lycos.de/luftwaffe1/aircraft/raf/spit_flying.pdf)
but you probably know it already
I know that the english enjoy smiling about germans and german equipment, unfortunatly even today where we try to build up a working EC , but in case of the Emil you should better be very silent, because the contemporary enemy, the SpitI, was even worse! But sadly, or "of course", not in AH.
niklas
-
Originally posted by niklas
Aileron reversal speed has nothing to do with dive limits. Itīs more likely an indicator for wing stiffness, thus rolling velocity at high speeds. The higher the better of course.
Okay. I was previously wondering why you brought up aileron behaviour at 600 mph for an aircraft with a much lower allowable speed; your point regarding the Spitfire's wing stiffness is understood and well taken.
As for the rest, yes, I do know that the Spitfire I/II was in many ways worse or no better than the 109E in roll. Karnak originally asked about data regarding the 109F vs. the Spitfire V with metal ailerons, and you replied that the 109F was definitely superior. The data I've seen indicated that the metal ailerons significantly improved the Spitfire's roll performance; I was wondering whether a comparable improvement had been made to the 109F, and in so doing brought up what seemed to me to be one of the E's bigger problems with high-speed roll (pilot ergonomics). You seem to have taken this as an insult to the 109. That was not my intention, and I apologise if I gave you such an impression; I would appreciate it if you would refrain from assuming arrogance and intent to denigrate the 109 on my part.
Since my last post, I've come across a brief excerpt from the British test of the 109F (I think it's the same one that mw brought up earlier), and quote part of it below:
"At high speed the ailerons are more effective than the fabric ailerons of the Spitfire, but are not as good as the metal ones."
(It should be noted, though, that the test did not include a direct fly-off between the two types, and there is no hard data accompanying the quote.)
-
Originally posted by Guppy
bigger problems with high-speed roll (pilot ergonomics).
109 aileron control is as bad as 109 elevator control at hi speeds, I suppose poor elevator control was also due pilot ergonomics ...
-
The AH Spit IX boost gauge is wrong. The Spit IX in AH couldn't use 18lbs boost, and it isn't modelled with 18lbs boost. The 15lbs figure, ie non WEP in AH, matches the "normal" 12lbs rating in British tests, which could be used for 60 mins in real life.
The AH 18lbs rating matches the real life 15lbs rating.
In other words, the AH boost gauge reads 3 lbs too high. When it shows 15lbs, it's actually 12lbs, and you should be able to maintain that for 1 hr. When it reads 18lbs, it's actually 15lbs, and that had an official time limit of 5 mins
You guys always coming with something in regards to the spit.
In the threads about the brit tests comparing the a4 and spit you guys always harp on the fact that the ah spit 9 is being run at higher boost so the thats why the data doesnt match. Now you come back with Ah guages are wrong :rolleyes:
Whatever gets you through.......
Over 20 min the spit will have been able to run 10 min of "wep" (5 on 10 off 5 on = 10 min wep) same as the the 109f.
-
It's the man, not the machine that's at issue.
Pointing to wingload, top speeds etc is bulls##t. It's ALWAYS the man, not the machine. Under-rated planes (Bf 109G-10/2) and the Fw series always have higher K/D ratios yet they are inferrior machines in dog fighting and turn capabilities.
I'd hate to run into guys like Urchin, Hazed, Batz, AGJV44, Wilbuz, Fester, Gman, Frency, or Kewessa in ANY plane let alone in an aircraft I think is superior to thiers. After the initial merge, you know how good that pilot is... usually case your ded. :D
If wingloading and corner rates ruled, explain this K/D ratio?
Fw 190D-9:1.63|Fw 190A-8:1.42|Fw 190A-5:1.40|Bf 109G-10:1.31|Nik-2:1.28|Bf 190G-2:1.16|Spit IX:1.15|La-7:1.14
-
Originally posted by niklas
Karnak, at higher speeds the 109 was definitly superior in rolling. The Spit had a rather low reversal speed of only less than 600mph. Furthermore the Naca result of the SpitV aileron test is significantly worse than that of the RAF (which is in the Naca comparison chart). The response time of a SpitV was very low, so for quick manoevers at medium speed the Spit an disadvantage. Huh, full stick deflection with 30lb stick force only below 110mph...and the force gradient was steep, 50lb wonīt improve it much... A little bit like a zero, large ailerons for good slow speed manoevering, but stick forces naturally were too high at medium and high speeds.
niklas
I'd like to see that. Every other document shows otherwise, or did the NACA test use an early Mk V with cloth ailerons? I know we were sent a Spitfire Mk V pretty quick.
Also keep in mind that the maximum lateral stick force a 109 pilot could exert was 40lbs due to the cramped cockpit. A Spitfire pilot could exert more than 60lbs.
-
In the threads about the brit tests comparing the a4 and spit you guys always harp on the fact that the ah spit 9 is being run at higher boost so the thats why the data doesnt match.
Doesn't sound like any thread I've seen.
The British captured an A3. The Germans had already derated ALL their A3s, because of engine dificulties. It was originally designed to run at 1.42 ata, the Germans derated it to 1,35ata at lower RPM.
The RAF tested it at 1.42 ata.
The RAF compared it to a Spit F IX with Merlin 61, like we have in AH. The AH Spit IX shows 18lbs at WEP, whereas in real life the plane ran at 15lbs max (WEP). However, the AH Spit IX at 18lbs boost has the same performance as the real life Spit at 15lbs boost.
The AH Spit IX uses 15lbs as normal power, whereas in real life the Spit IX used 12lbs as normal power. However, the AH Spit at 15lbs matches the real performance figures at 12lbs boost.
I think you may be getting confused with the AH Spit V.
In the comparison with the 190, the RAF ran their Spit V at 9lbs boost climbing, (normal rating) and 12lbs boost for speed runs, which was the max WEP rating at the time of the test. The rating was later increased to 16lbs.
-
In case my pictures donīt show up in your browser, follow this link (i hate geocity)
http://de.geocities.com/stefan_l_01/fzg/
-
Originally posted by niklas
In case my pictures donīt show up in your browser, follow this link (i hate geocity)
http://de.geocities.com/stefan_l_01/fzg/
Spitfire Mk I tests are completely irrelevant to any Spitfire with metal ailerons.
Yes, the Bf109 (all versions) out rolls Spitfires with cloth ailerons, but that has never been the question in this thread.
Every test I have ever seen that compared a metal aileroned Spitfire with any Bf109 had the Spitfire showing a very substantially higher roll rate at all speeds.
(Those tests are interesting in relation to the Hurri in AH as it handily out rolls the Spitfire Mk I)
-
And if u want to wabble and roll.
Get a Focke Wulf.
Don't forget that Uberness was 99% propaganda too.
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
-
bah!
this thread has escalated in to total gibrish (as far as i understand it :D )
thanks for all the info guys, you can keep debating if you want since from time to time i can actually understand fragments of info :) and even that is interesting
skull, good idea but i kinda doubt we are in the same skill level (no offence) anyway we acn give it a go if you want
-
Well, quite often they mention the example of 1/5 aileron of a 109E. I just pointed out that this was an RAF test
a) for a 109E
b) the same Report states that the Spitfire I was as bad, or even worse, in any case rolled worse
The other Naca Report i linked to is clearly mentioning a Spit V with metal ailerons, check page 2 of the Report. Obviously you refuse to read it, maybe i should quote a little bit out of it:
"The forces required to obtain high rolling velocities in high speed flight were considered excessive. With a stick force of 30 pounds, full deflection of the ailerons could be obtained only at speeds LOWER THAN 110 mph. .... . A rolling velocity of about 59° per second could be obtained with 30pounds stick force at 230mph IAS.
The ailerons were relatively light for small deflecitons but the slope of the curve of stick force against deflection increased progressively with deflection, so that about five times as much force was required to fully deflect the ailerons as was needed to reach one-half of the maximum travel. ...
The pilot was able to exert a maximum of about 40 pounds on the stick. With this force, full deflection could be attained ONLY UP TO about 130mph. Beyound this speed, the rapid increase in stick force near maximum defleciton prevented full motion of the control stick. ...
The ailerons failed to meet the requirement of rerference 1, which states that a value of pb/2V of 0.07 should be reached with a stick force of 30 pounds at 0.8 of the maximum level-flight IAS, or about 230mph in this case."
I would accept the Naca as an independend institution. Donīt forget that the curve in the Naca comparison chart is based on RAF measurements, so itīt imo a bit optimistic, for some reasons...
niklas
-
Bah, here I go away for 3 days and the thread has turned into a 109E vs. Spit I roll rate debate ... why?!? There is a separate thread on that issue go here: http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=94348
This is a discussion about the Spit IX and the 109F4 as modelled in AH.
As for the data I presented; the engine hp and internal fuel capacity numbers are historical, the normal loaded weight and any other data marked with "in AH" are taken form HTC's own data posted on their hompage. The speed and climb figures are taken from HTC's charts and is probably incorrect to 1% or 2% (I doubt the 109F4 had a top speed at SL of exactly 330 mph, but they are reasonably accurate for this discussion. The power loading figures was calculated from hp and weight. The wing loading at 100% fuel was historical, the empty figures was calculated by subtracting the fuel weight from the normal loaded weight and applying the percentage change to the historical numbers.
I can only guess, but I believe HTC's charts were made with 100% fuel.
On leading edge slats; the slats were not augmented in any way with springs or hydraulics. Even at very low speeds (30mph for instance) the force of air would be sufficient to keep the slats closed, the speed has nothing to do with the deployment of slats. As AoA increases the angle of the onrushing air changes upward, and this is what deploys the slats. Underneath the slat there is a ... slat ;) a groove that allows the now upward facing wind to force the moving slat into forward position thereby creating a curved passage that leads the air around the leading edge of the wing.
(http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay/Theories_of_Flight/Devices/TH17G2.jpg)
Some planes have "fixed slats" called slots, basically just curved holes just behind the leading edge of the wing.
(http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay/Theories_of_Flight/Devices/TH17G3.jpg)
The 109F4 (and every other 109 except the Emil) has 10 minutes of WEP and 5 minutes cool down time modelled in AH. Whether this is historically correct I have no idea, but I suspect not considering the many different types of WEP used in WWII that are not modelled in AH. Most likely HTC has modelled WEP to "fit" the best they could with the historical evidence despite the limitations in the AH game engine.
In the Main Arena the Spit IX is clearly the better plane than any 109 because the MA does not promote team work much. The MA is filled with lone wolfs and the Spit with its great turning ability and great guns is a clear winner. However I once faced two 109's that did work together expertly, and those two wiped out our 5 strong flight ... repeatedly. They were always higher using their great climbing ability, they worked together against a single target and covered each others backs. It was disgusting (because they were Knits ;)), but impressive to se how these two just dominated 5 Rooks in mixed planes, shot us all down, and got away with it.
I have no doubt that if you get the best 12 109 drivers in AH give them some time to train together and set up a fight with the similarly trained best Spit drivers in AH, the 109's would prevail, and most likely dominate the fight entirely. 109F4 vs. Spit V, 109G2/6 vs. Spit IX and 109G10 vs. Spit XIV.
-
Niklas:
Can you scan and post that report you are referring to?
Hooligan
-
GScholz: wonderful data...keep it coming.
Anyway, this has in some way turned into a debate about the 109E and SpitI roll rate. Well, a good source on that is Jeffrey Quill, - Supermarine Test pilot and A BoB veteran who got to test a captured 109E.
He, already complaining about the bad rolling characteristics of the Spit I, found the 109E every bit as bad, if not worse than the Spit I.
Stick forces may have been even heavier in the Spit I than the 109E none the less (he did not mention that), - however the Spit stick and cockpit offered the chance to use quite some force, - pilots would place their elbow against the side and force the stick quite a bit with that leverage, - while the 109 pilot was very confined there. Nothing to do with design there, just luck/bad luck and side effect. Anyway, it stands out that their roll was marginally different and depending on pilots and more untill both converted to metal ailerons.
Now, someone asked me to check my maths about the Spit IX being up to a ton heavier operationally with a mere 100 hp above the 109F. Okay, I did, - data however is a 109F2, - BUT: Spit IX has the 9500 lbs vs. 7496, - makes 2004 lbs which is a tad less than 1000 kg's, none the less, the weight of a car.
The Hp from my source measure as 1565 hp vs 1475, so we have 90 hp to play with, so there you go, 2004 lbs for 90 Hp, - very close to a ton to 100 hp wouldn't you say! Sorry for levelling the data out anyway....
BTW, there is an undiscussed factor about turning ability. That would be the Center of Gravity, which can have a lot to do, and did so, markedly with the Spit V. It would not perhaps have a lot to do with a sustained turn, rather with a break turn from high speed towards the stall, but none the less a factor not to be ignored.........
Well, keep the ball rolling........:D
-
Originally posted by GScholz
On leading edge slats; the slats were not augmented in any way with springs or hydraulics. Even at very low speeds (30mph for instance) the force of air would be sufficient to keep the slats closed, the speed has nothing to do with the deployment of slats. As AoA increases the angle of the onrushing air changes upward, and this is what deploys the slats. Underneath the slat there is a ... slat ;) a groove that allows the now upward facing wind to force the moving slat into forward position thereby creating a curved passage that leads the air around the leading edge of the wing.
Not quite.
At any angle of attack, there is a stagnation point on the front of the airfoil -- the point at which airflow across the airfoil diverges. With common 'wing-shaped' (i.e., curved upper surface, flat lower surface) airfoils, the Coanda effect causes this point to be offset down from the foremost point on the airfoil even at a zero angle of attack (for symmetric airfoils, this point is at the foremost point at a zero angle of attack, which is part of the reason why symmetrical airfoils require a non-zero angle of attack to produce lift).
As the angle of attack of the airfoil increases, this stagnation point moves down onto the underside of the airfoil. As this occurs, the dynamic pressure of the air entrained along the forward surface of the wing decreases until the air pressure over the slat decreases to the point where it can no longer hold the slat down.
-
Thanks for telling the technical story that I just told in laymen terms.
-
I mentioned C of G earlier, and that may well influence turning quality, and explain things like the tales of Spitfire pilots that say it only took them 2-3 circles to out-turn the 109 (!)
C of G will move according to G load, and the Spit V was notoriously "well" balanced in that way. In a hard break turn the C of G would be able to move too far back, accelerating the plane into an ever tightening turn. It would happen very fast if one pulled too hard on the stick, which was very light BTW. The Plane could enter a total suicide turn that way, - G loads enough to sqash the Pilot and the Plane would disintergrate.
No pilots lived to tell the tale, until someone got suspicious in a tight turn, and quick enough to bunt, returning with a blue eye.
The problem was initially fixed by adding bob weights to the stick somehow, - increasing G's would make the elevator controls more heavy that way (multiplying the weights with the current G load). So, as light and nimble as the elevator controls of the Spit were, they got "balanced" that way.
Tried to take off in a home-mixed Gyrochopter the other day. It turned out to be somewhat wrongly fixed. The elevator control was very very heavy, while the banking was very light, and this together with a very heavy wheel-connected rudder, who became light but a tad sluggish as soon as it lifted.
While it's all been fixed now, I have two things on my mind.
Firstly, I'm glad I did not take off in the thing, - takeoff was aborted doing almost 40 mpg on a rough field.
Secondly, it makes you think more about why some planes are popular because of their harmonisation. Spit I and V had too light elevators. 109E had no rudder trim. Etc etc. Anyway, Spit IX and 109F are considered to be the most delightful models of their series by many of the pilots. 109F4 Presumably for its harmonisation, lightness and clean lines, and a boosted up Spit IX for its sheer capacity in every aspect.
-
Just looking at level speed for the moment:
(http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/109fvspit9.jpg)
Given the following:
- The boost pressure are lowered to 1.25 ata for combat performance and 1.35 ata for take-off power. The combat performance is reduced thereby by 4.5% and the take-off power over 6%. - as best as I can translate/make it.
From: Kennblatt für das Flugzeugmuster BF 109 Baureihe F-1 und F-2 mit DB 601 N Motor.
- *)The start and emergency power is off limits until revocation, 2650 U/min (2600 U/min +2%) may thus not be exceeded in any flight attitude.
From: D.(Luft) T.3605 A-B 0 u. 1 Motoren-Karte 9 October 1942 DB 605A engine card.
[/list]
- Im hard pressed to imagine the 601E in the F4 actually saw much service at 1.42 ata, 2700 rpm.
Also of interest from the Kennblatt: ..."da die verwendung der Start und Notleistung auf eine dauer von 3 minuten begrenzt ist." which I take to say, the use of start and emergency power is limited by 3 minutes to one duration.
From USAAF Report No 110
Combat tactics
Reports of observers at the battle fronts indicate that the Messerschmitt should be highly regarded in respect to rate of climb and altitude performance. Maneuverability of the F series, although greatly improved over the older series, is still not quite as good as the Spitfire at higher altitudes or the P-40 at lower altitudes.
The following excerpt may give some idea of what may be expected in action. It is taken from combat reports of British pilots flying Kittyhawks (P-40E) in Africa. The Messerschmitts attack from high altitude making use of all available sun and cloud cover and then zoom away. They have proven most vulnerable at the top of their zoom when they are almost stalled.
More comments from AFDU on the 109F not previously mentioned: As a result of the heaviness of the elevators at speeds over 400 m.p.h., violent evasion is not possible, and the aircraft would present a simple target to a following Spitfire. Similarly, a Spitfire attacked by a ME.109F from above, should have no difficulty in evading if he turns sharply towards the direction of attack. It is considered that recovery from a high speed dive near the ground would be difficult, as the loss of height entailed is considerable. This may account for occasional reports of Me.109Fs being seen to dive straight into the ground without apparently being fired at.
-
Originally posted by mw
From: Kennblatt für das Flugzeugmuster BF 109
The boost pressure are lowered to 1.25 ata for combat performance and 1.35 ata for take-off power. The combat performance is reduced thereby by 4.5% and the take-off power over 6%. - as best as I can translate/make it.
Which 109 are you talking about here?
Originally posted by mw
From: D.(Luft) T.3605 A-B 0 u. 1 Motoren-Karte 9 October 1942 DB 605A engine card.
*)The start and emergency power is off limits until revocation, 2650 U/min (2600 U/min +2%) may thus not be exceeded in any flight attitude.
- Im hard pressed to imagine the 601E in the F4 actually saw much service at 1.42 ata, 2700 rpm.
The 109F4 didn't have a DB605A engine. Any data concerning the operational restrictions of the DB605A is irrelevant. Data on the DB601E would be relevant.
Originally posted by mw
From USAAF Report No 110
Combat tactics
Reports of observers at the battle fronts indicate that the Messerschmitt should be highly regarded in respect to rate of climb and altitude performance. Maneuverability of the F series, although greatly improved over the older series, is still not quite as good as the Spitfire at higher altitudes or the P-40 at lower altitudes.
Yes this nicely fits with AH's modelling as well.
Originally posted by mw
The following excerpt may give some idea of what may be expected in action. It is taken from combat reports of British pilots flying Kittyhawks (P-40E) in Africa. The Messerschmitts attack from high altitude making use of all available sun and cloud cover and then zoom away. They have proven most vulnerable at the top of their zoom when they are almost stalled.
More comments from AFDU on the 109F not previously mentioned: As a result of the heaviness of the elevators at speeds over 400 m.p.h., violent evasion is not possible, and the aircraft would present a simple target to a following Spitfire. Similarly, a Spitfire attacked by a ME.109F from above, should have no difficulty in evading if he turns sharply towards the direction of attack. It is considered that recovery from a high speed dive near the ground would be difficult, as the loss of height entailed is considerable. This may account for occasional reports of Me.109Fs being seen to dive straight into the ground without apparently being fired at.
This is very close to how most 109's are flown in AH. B&Z and if you're not careful with your speed you run the risk of lawndarting.
-
mw, your chart contains some errors.
First curve, "Kennblatt für das Flugzeugmuster F1/F2": The given curve is for combat power only and this means 1,3ata @2400rpm. You list 2600rpm.
Itīs correct however that for service power was reduced. That were the original power outputs:
1,42@2600 : 1250PS
1,3@2400: ~1080PS
With the power reduction the power outputs became:
1,35@2600: 1175PS (Usually listed in engine documents)
1,25@2400: 1020PS
The 3minute emergency power refer to the 1.42ata boost, for 1,35ata maybe the time was enlarged. The speed for emergency power now was probably in the middle between the original perforances of emergency and combat power.
Whatīs RAE btw? Isnīt this the same Report 110? Then remember:
The allied Report 110 cleary is speaking of "ESTIMATED PERFORMANCES" (check bottom line of performance chart), so it has little to say.
The official german performance chart includes
the following speeds for combat power(!) of the F4:
sealevel: 523km/h or 325mph
6.2km: 660km/h or 410mph (Edited: it must be 660km/h, otherwise it doesnīt fit with the 410mph. 10km/h more than a F1F2 with more power and 1km more altitude wouldnīt make sense. The number 606 is screwed up...)
Once more, this is not emergency power. The main reason for the speed gain compared to the F1/F2 is imo the new propeller which seems to be optimized for higher speeds (a little bit more power too of course, but not much)
And it does make abolutly no sense to compare offical german performance data, based on mean aircraft performances, or maybe even minimum performance requirements for new aircraft leaving the factory, to single tests of prepared spitfires. What were the offical performance claims of the RAF for the Spit9? There must exist offical data charts like for the 109 on german side! Iīd really like to see them.
niklas
-
Originally posted by mw
More comments from AFDU on the 109F not previously mentioned: As a result of the heaviness of the elevators at speeds over 400 m.p.h., violent evasion is not possible, and the aircraft would present a simple target to a following Spitfire. Similarly, a Spitfire attacked by a ME.109F from above, should have no difficulty in evading if he turns sharply towards the direction of attack. It is considered that recovery from a high speed dive near the ground would be difficult, as the loss of height entailed is considerable. This may account for occasional reports of Me.109Fs being seen to dive straight into the ground without apparently being fired at.
[/B]
Interesting. The NACA report has to say the following on Spitfire VA elevators:
"In turns at speeds ihgh enough to prevent reaching maximum lift coefficient because of the excessive accelerations involved, the small static longitudal stability of the Spitfire caused undue sensitivity of the normal acceleration to small movements of stick. As shown by the time histories of high-speed turns (Figs 15 to 18) it was neccesary for the pilot to pull back and then ease forward almost to its original position in order to enter a turn rapidly without overshooting the desired normal acceleration."
And here`s the reason:
i"The small elevator travel required to reach maximum lift coeff. was evident in turns as well as in pull ups... Only 3 degrees of elevator movement was required to go from level flight at a lift coefficient of about 0.3 to the first sign of stall. This movement corresponds to a stick deflection of 3/4 inch. This degree of stability is far lower than the 4 inches of rearward stick movement required in reference 1."
It`s seems the 109`s and Spits control was the exact opposite. A 109 pilot had to deal with heavy elevator control forces, similiar to the Mustang, tough light enough to pull 4Gs with one hand even at 520kph, whereas a Spit pilot was forced not to pull more than a mere 3/4 inch on stick, otherwise the plane would stall out, and was forced to make milimeter movements aft and fore during turns for the same reason. Rudder again the opposite, very light on the 109, moderately heavy on the Spit.
Ailerons favour the 109, the ailerons were "very good and positive" (Mark Hanna`s description of a Buchon) "moderately light" (Eric Brown`s on a gunpod wielding G-6).
Compared to the Spitfire, rolling required less force and was greater at high speeds: Paul Coggan described it as 20 lbs stick force was required for a 360 roll at 460 kph (300mph), completed in 4-4.5seconds (=80-90 degree roll rate). This agrees very closely to German tests, which state "approx. 4.5secs" for 360 degree roll at 450 kph.
The Spitfire`s ailerons were very heavy on the other hand. Early Marks like the MkI were just plain catasptrophic as was seen, introducing of metal ailerons imporved it to an acceptable, though still poor quality.
The NACA`s report on Spitfire MkVA (with metal ailerons) metions that the pilot was limited to 40 lbs stickforce (same as on the 109, there control forces were light). The report metions that in high speed flight, the aileron forces were "considered excessive". With 30 pounds stickforce, full deflection was only possible up to 110 mph, and even with 40 lbs no more than 130 mph. At 6000 ft, 230mph IAS, 59 deg/sec was possible with 30 lbs stickforce. According to the roll rate chart, at 300mph, where the 109G developed 80-90 degree roll rate with only 20lbs stickforce, the Spitfire MkVA pilot straining himself for 30 lbs could only make about 54 degrees. Of course, it should be noted that the report refers to a Spit VA, of out only about 80 were made, all the following MkVs, IXs etc. had additional weight installed in the wings in the forms of Hispano cannons, reducing roll rate further.
BTW, regarding your site, it`s interesting to see how carefully the presented reports are picked, and only shown partially, ie:
-SpitV speed vs. 109F : That is, a prototype Spitfire V, admittedly "not operationally loaded", running considerable faster than production planes, compared to a RAE test (or more like estimation?) of a 109F-2 that runs some 30 mph slower than it does in all other, German or Soviet tests, or the F1/2 Kennblatt itself.
-The (in)famous ADFU trials presented on the page, compared to a "Me 109G", only forgotting to tell that it was a Wilde Sau 109G-6, with the additional weight of gunpods, not even running at maximum allowed boost or using the standard 1944/45 methanol booster, and was flown by inexperienced pilots who were so much unfamiliar with the working of leading edge slats, that they eased back on the stick as they opened, meaning they never nearly fully exploited the turning abilities of the plane
-there`s also the example of presenting test results for a stripped Spit XIV, with as little information avaiable (only results), used in a single test with a boost rate it was never approved for in operational service
You also argued that 1.42ata is irrevelant for the DB601E as there was a limitation to another engine between June 1942-June 1943... I am inclined to believe that there`s more than just honest errors here.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
Spitfire Mk I tests are completely irrelevant to any Spitfire with metal ailerons.
Yes, the Bf109 (all versions) out rolls Spitfires with cloth ailerons, but that has never been the question in this thread.[/qoute]
Please note that the NACA flight tests and the roll curves (the ones which show Hurri, Spit, P-40) both show the same plane, Spitfire MkVA, Air Ministry No. 3119, with METAL AILERONS. As you can see, there`s a LOT of improvement compared to early Spit Is in terms of roll. I suspect the relativly thin wings of the Spit made them prone to wing twist, and a reversed aileron effect decresed roll rate considerably.
Well, that`s why you see short, relatively thick square tipped wings on the Extra 330. Those are the best for roll rate.
[qoute]Every test I have ever seen that compared a metal aileroned Spitfire with any Bf109 had the Spitfire showing a very substantially higher roll rate at all speeds.[/qoute]
What tests are these? Can you give a link ?
Are you perhaps referring to the ADFU trials vs. 109G and FW 190? That "109G" was a nightfighter G-6 with gunpods. These added 215kg plus weight at the wings, reducing roll rate considerably compared to a normal, "clean" fighter version.
-
Originally posted by Nashwan
Doesn't sound like any thread I've seen.
The British captured an A3. The Germans had already derated ALL their A3s, because of engine dificulties. It was originally designed to run at 1.42 ata, the Germans derated it to 1,35ata at lower RPM.
The RAF tested it at 1.42 ata. [/qoute]
No, no, sorry.
The first thing is that the engine was not derated because of it`s own difficulties. The engine was fine. The problem was that the A-3 introduced the more powerful BMW 801D instead of BMW 801C, and the construction didn`t allowed enough heat escape for the new engine, thus the rear cylinders constantly overheated. So, the engine was reduced to run at 1.35ata, not becuase of engine, but airframe troubles. When the engine bay was extended on the the A-5, 1.42ata setting for 1800PS was restored on those planes.
And regarding the RAF`s tests of the A-3 at 1.42ata. It hardly mattered that they run it at higher boosts, as the plane proved to be some 20-40 mph slower than all other FW190A`s tested at 1.42atas in Germany, or by the USAAF or USN. The Brits managed to reach some 380-390mph with it at 1.42ata - the USAAF, USN, the Focke Wulf factory did 415mph on the same powers. The same goes to low altitudes: at 1.42ata a 190A is supposed to develop 565 kph max speed. In the RAF tests, they managed to do some 510 kph... clearly, the plane was in bad shape. In fact, in British tests, they barely reached speeds at 1.42ata which could be reached at 1.3ata in all other tests.
-
all this technical stuff doesn't help you fly the planes in AH...
:cool:
-
The first thing is that the engine was not derated because of it`s own difficulties. The engine was fine. The problem was that the A-3 introduced the more powerful BMW 801D instead of BMW 801C, and the construction didn`t allowed enough heat escape for the new engine, thus the rear cylinders constantly overheated. So, the engine was reduced to run at 1.35ata, not becuase of engine, but airframe troubles. When the engine bay was extended on the the A-5, 1.42ata setting for 1800PS was restored on those planes.
Phillipe Willaume seems to think it was a problem with the engine, and solved by chroming the exhausts, but I won't argue. If the engine couldn't work at full power in the plane, it doesn't really matter wether it was the engine or airframe's fault.
And regarding the RAF`s tests of the A-3 at 1.42ata. It hardly mattered that they run it at higher boosts, as the plane proved to be some 20-40 mph slower than all other FW190A`s tested at 1.42atas in Germany, or by the USAAF or USN. The Brits managed to reach some 380-390mph with it at 1.42ata - the USAAF, USN, the Focke Wulf factory did 415mph on the same powers. The same goes to low altitudes: at 1.42ata a 190A is supposed to develop 565 kph max speed. In the RAF tests, they managed to do some 510 kph... clearly, the plane was in bad shape. In fact, in British tests, they barely reached speeds at 1.42ata which could be reached at 1.3ata in all other tests.
No, sorry, you're wrong.
The A&AEE tested it at 329mph at sea level, 392mph at 17.250ft. Only above that altitude was it slow. The plane had a problem with critical altitude, not speed.
The ADFU found a speed of over 340mph at 2000ft, which again fits with the US tests at 1.42 ata.
-
Spitfire ailerons were in development throughout the whole war. The quantum leap was going from fabric to metal, as for the 109 it was a change of the ailerons/wing.
However, Supermarine developers were not satisfied yet, and kept going to the end.
I have never seen any actual combat related statements that the Spitfire had any problems rolling with the 109, - now rolling with the 190 was another story.
One has to bear in mind that the figures are also not so absolute, - roll rate could differ between planes from the same production line, not to mention factors like fuel load, ammo load and physical strength/fatique of the pilot, which is not modelled in AH.
However, I belive the AH model is reasonably good and well within the margin of error.
If we however had the clipped, cropped, chopped and boosted up Spit IX LF there would be some whining,,,,man......
-
Fixed the 2600 typo and added another Spit IX data set as confirming documentation to the chart.
(http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/109fvspit9.jpg)
A&AEE reports, from which the Spit data comes, in fact constitute the official RAF position of a types performance. Compared to data from test facilities at Rolls-Royce, Hucknall; Supermarine, Worthy Down; Royal Aircraft Establishment, Farnborough; or the Air Fighting Development Unit, Duxford, A&AEEs figures are invariably conservative. If youve been to my site, youve seen the offical performance claims of the RAF for the Spit9
I have the same F4 numbers from the Kennblatt, however as youve noticed they dont add up and are unreliable. I couldnt use them.
I understand that the DB 601E engine manual (Aug 41) shows the the engine was derated in the F4, just as I figured.
The USAAF report No 110 was prepared by Material Command, Engineering Division, Wright Field, Dayton, Ohio. Their findings were very much in line with the RAEs (Royal Aircraft Establishment) Report No. E.A .39/11. I take it there is coincidentally a BA Report No. 110 as well.
Btw, can anyone translate this:
Bei Notleistung wird Motor stark beansprucht, deshalb von dieser leistungsentnahme auch nur im notfall gebrauch machen
It doesnt make sense to me.
While Im on the subject of derated engines in 109s:
Technical Sheet issued by the Quartermaster General (Air Equipment)
Berlin, 18th June 1942.
Subject: DB 605 engine in the Me 109 G
A number of cases of breakdown in the DB 605 engine as a result of pistons burning through have occured. The following must therefore be observed.
The take-off and emergency output with a boost pressure of 1.42 ata. and 2800 revs. may not at present be used. The climbing and combat output with 1.3 atm. and 2600 revs. may, in the case of the older engines (for works numbers see below), be used only when operationally essential.
...
In engines with reinforced pistons the danger of their burning through is not so great as in the older version of the piston, but the take-off and emergency output may still not be used.
The Spit V used in the comparison against the F2 has top speed identical to that achieved by the Germans with Spit V EN380. ;)
You guys seem to forget that the Spits had their wings strengthened and ailerons shortened, which improvements were designed and implemented to increase roll rate over that of a Spit V A.
I dont want to get too far off topic but regarding the stripped Spit XIV comment, the following comments from No. 610 ORB are interesting:
18.July.44 "The modification of the aircraft to take 21 lbs boost continues. Each day a number of flights are made to test and to try out the modified engines."
-The above condition coincides with this chart (http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/griffonhp_b.jpg) (Note this sim doesn't model this, nor is this fact generally known or acknowledged). Apparently Rolls finally cleared for +25 in early '45. Its just a matter of time until I dig up, and share, sufficient documentation to convince any reasonable person. I won't hold my breath waiting for your documentation showing "boost rate it was never approved for in operational service" ;)
August: "Much effort has been expended during the month to improve the surface finish of the aircraft .303 guns have been removed from the aircraft, and the wings plugged and smoothed off. Mirrors too have been taken off, and the aircraft have been polished and polished."
8 Aug 44 "During the past week intensive efforts have been made to get extra speed out of the aircraft, to give them as much advantage as possible. Filling "gunk" and polish have been used extensively. The .303's are being removed from some aircraft, and a lot of attention given to the fit of the cowlings, etc."
6 Sept 44 "A historic day for the Squadron as today it flew over German territory for the first time. The operation originally planned was cancelled, but a sweep was arranged for the afternoon, the squadron operating with the Hawkinge wing (350 and 402 Squadrons). The Wing flew across Holland and crossed the German frontier to Isselburg." (350 and 402 in Spit 14.)
This was the first time 90 gallon tanks have been used, and with them the Squadron operational radius is increased considerably. Though airborne for 2 hours, most aircraft had 50 - 60 gallons left when they landed."
Nashwan, Im still puzzled by the A3-4 boost situation. Clearly they were derated and while Im not certain of the reasons, the Do 217 used the same engine but had a better cooling system and was not derated. As you say though, in the end its the same result.
Geez, the Spits really do get short changed here don't they?
-
"If youve been to my site, youve seen the offical performance claims of the RAF for the Spit9
Thx, after reading through your intro page iīd like to see the real documents. Because reading through the tests i always get the impresseion that every machine was specially prepared and assembled for the test instead of coming right out of the factory.
"I have the same F4 numbers from the Kennblatt, however as youve noticed they dont add up and are unreliable. I couldnt use them. "
You donīt use them because they are too good for you and donīt fit into your crusade against the 109...
Yes there are some typos, the guy who translated the original should wear glasses, he has huge problems to distinguish a 0 and a 6 (the original document must have been in very poor condition). This way he typed 606 instead of 660 and, very funny, 16km altitude for the continious power number. Over 900PS in 16km altitude, wow, now THATīs a high altitude engine, right? (itīs 10km of course).
Then thereīs a mistake by the germans, they used the values from the F1/F2 Kennblatt (for example 495km/h combat power) but listed them for the meanwhile reduced power settings. Speeds would be a bit lower of course.
Those are the errors i can spot currently, otherwise it seems to be ok.
And this means that with combat power the 109F4 is faster than your spit15 @15lb, and with emergency power it would have been pretty equal up to 22k to your Spit LF (which is the optimized variant for speed with the clipped wings). What, on the other hand, would mean it was faster than the standard Spit9 HF @18lb boost.
Where can i find the RAE report? Do you have the docs? I havenīt seen the 601E manual too so far (Youīre sure it is a E and not the N) May i see it? Thank you.
In any case you quote the report 110 you should always mention estimated performances Thank you. Just a matter of fairness.
Speaking about the "german" Spit 5 you should also mention the maximum speed the germans reached with the "original" Spit5: only 460km/h in combat mode. When your spit
Speaking about overboosted engines donīt forget the "überlasteten" Motoren of the Mossie chasers on german side. But letīs stay with the F and 9.
"You guys seem to forget that the Spits had their wings strengthened and ailerons shortened "
Sorry, but shortening ailerons may lighten them, logically, but reduce their effect. More wing area is now working "against" the rolling, and less in favour.
109F and standard Spit shared the same handicap, the ailerons did not reach to the wing tips. This outer area, which moves fastest ina roll logically, is working nicely against a roll movement. The Spit is handicaped even more due to the significantly higher wingspan.
niklas
-
Speaking of not adding up.
Niklas,
Do you have a detailed weight and loading chart for a 109G of any varient?
-
Originally posted by mw
A&AEE reports, from which the Spit data comes, in fact constitute the official RAF position of a types performance. Compared to data from test facilities at Rolls-Royce, Hucknall; Supermarine, Worthy Down; Royal Aircraft Establishment, Farnborough; or the Air Fighting Development Unit, Duxford, A&AEEs figures are invariably conservative. If youve been to my site, youve
seen the offical performance claims of the RAF for the Spit9
[/qoute]
Too much talk, Mike.
Let`s face the facts instead:
On your site there are half a dozen graphs and test which refer to prototype Spits, or Spits running at boost levels they were never cleared for, which you try to sell as typical examples of operational fighters, by not giving vital information regarding there nature, though you are aware of it.
Clearly, Spitfires performance needs this kind of shady help. ;)
I have the same F4 numbers from the Kennblatt, however as youve noticed they dont add up and are unreliable. I couldnt use them.
Oh sure you do, you have the numbers for F-4 with DB 601E from the manual for F-1/F-2 with DB 601N....
Sure, no surprise, the F-4 with +350 HP was as slow as the "Emil". At least according to British estimations.
:rolleyes:
I understand that the DB 601E engine manual (Aug 41) shows the the engine was derated in the F4, just as I figured.
As I understand, in Aug 1941, the Spitfire V was derated to only +9lbs, isn`t it? At least that what even your site tells.
The USAAF report No 110 was prepared by Material Command, Engineering Division, Wright Field, Dayton, Ohio. [/qoute]
And gives estimated speed data.
[qoute] Their findings were very much in line with the RAEs (Royal Aircraft Establishment) Report No. E.A .39/11. I take it there is coincidentally a BA Report No. 110 as well.
Their "findings"? Oh, you claim the page in the report with huge letters printed on "ESTIMATED PERFORMANCE" (you forget that part all the time...) has of any real meaning compared to the German figures in the Kennblatt?
[qoute]
Btw, can anyone translate this:
Bei Notleistung wird Motor stark beansprucht, deshalb von dieser leistungsentnahme auch nur im notfall gebrauch machen
It doesnt make sense to me.
[/qoute]
I am all yours:
"When using Notleistung [=1.42ata] the engine is heavily stressed, therefore this power setting [as well] should be only used in case of emergency".
I take it is from the DB 601E manual.
Which means it wasn`t banned from using it, unlike as you claim,
though pilots were warned to make spare use of it, ie. only in combat and not in ferry etc.
However, all such "limits" were lifted in May 1942 for DB 601E, at about the same time the Spitfire V was cleared for +12 lbs, a good month before the Spitfire IX appeared (and was limited to +15lbs only, not to mention it didn`t appeared in numbers until late 1942), and a whole YEAR before Spit IXLF appeared and was cleared for +18lbs. The older MkIXs remained derated at +15lbs, limiting their max. speed to 500 kph at SL, 37 kph SLOWER than an F-4 in their post-May1942 state.
[qoute]While Im on the subject of derated engines in 109s:
Technical Sheet issued by the Quartermaster General (Air Equipment)
Berlin, 18th June 1942.
Subject: DB 605 engine in the Me 109 G
...
The take-off and emergency output with a boost pressure of 1.42 ata. and 2800 revs. may not at present be used. The climbing and combat output with 1.3 atm. and 2600 revs. may, in the case of the older engines (for works numbers see below), be used only when operationally essential.
...
etc...[/qoute]
Typical example of selective qouting, right, Mike? Just like on your site.
I remember you posted that for the first time at butch`s board. You have visited this thread,
http://pub131.ezboard.com/fallboutwarfarefrm31.showMessageRange?topicID=3189.topic&start=1&stop=20
where butch said the following, in response to your posting of this:
" Agreed but this was fixed by June 1943, at this time the ban on 1.42ata was lifted. "
" While the 701990 did need a fix bacause it was anterior to the piston crown increase, all the old the engines were supposed to have been fixed by mid 1943. The June 1942 ban state that all older engined were to be fixed at their next overhaul."
So the case is clear again: despite very well aware of the real situation, you first attempted to use the DB 605 engine limitations to "prove" the DB 601 was derated; then you selectively qouted that part, "forgotting" to tell the part that all limitation was lifted in June 1943.... oh, and of course, what is in your comparison?
A estimated performance based on derated engine powers of an F-2 in 1941 versus a prototype Spitfire IX at a boost rate it wasn`t cleared until mid-1943. :eek:
The Spit V used in the comparison against the F2 has top speed identical to that achieved by the Germans with Spit V EN380. ;)
... nota bene, with all guns and ammo removed from the Spit in the German tests....
Oh, wait...this sounds familiar... "the aircraft was not operationally equipped"... where did I see this? Oh yes,at Mike`s site, for that Spit V which Mike listed vs. the British estimations - which are FAR BELOW the actual performance given in German docs - of the 109F-2 .
[qoute]You guys seem to forget that the Spits had their wings strengthened and ailerons shortened which improvements were designed and implemented to increase roll rate over that of a Spit V A.[/qoute]
Share us with all the details. A source and qoute would be a good start.
[qoute]I dont want to get too far off topic but regarding the stripped Spit XIV comment, the following comments from No. 610 ORB are interesting:[/qoute]
Which proves the following:
ad1, No Spitfire XIV sorties over Germany until September (despite some claim the opposite), no use of 90 gallon droptanks until then.
ad2, Mike Williams posseses a R-R chart that shows that Griffon 65 in the Spit XIV is not cleared for +25lbs only to +21lbs, (despite that, he lists tests for SpitXIVs at +25lbs at his site and try to sell them as operational ones by holding back information). According to MW`s own chart, which lists possible, but not cleared powers, +25lbs is only possible with strenghtened bearings. These had been not handed over during the war.
ad3, Indirectly he admits that his claims of +25lbs boost usage with Griffon 65 under operational conditions are completely unsupported ("It`s just a matter of time until I dig up..." = he has nothing right now that would point towards or prove it).
And now, the real limits of Griffon 65s:
http://www.pbase.com/image/6383220
As can be seen, the Griffon 61, 65, 66 engines udes in the Spit XIV, Spit 21 is limited to +18 lbs on 100 octane, and +21 lbs on 150 octane. +25lbs is not possible due to main bearing troubles.
In addition, his claim of "R-R sovling the problem" is disproved by a Mk21 test on his own site, date March-July 1945, tells that "The relevant limitations at the time of the test were: Combat, +21 lbs, 2750 RPM" for the Griffon 61 with identical construction to Griffon 65.
Dear Mike, blind, unsupported zealotry is very easy to disprove with hard, detailed facts, as you had just experienced it.
-
Nah Niklas, those reports are complete (minus the occasional position error curve). You what to confirm them, hit the archives. There are other guys that know this.
"your crusade against the 109... " hehe, now that's a switch! Nah, like most guys I'm just trying to figure out how it was.
Maybe your interpretation of the bad F4 numbers is currect, beats me. I don't think those ratings applied much during the time the F4 was top of the line anyway.
Re roll: think less wing warp, better roll.
"Spit LF (which is the optimized variant for speed with the clipped wings). What, on the other hand, would mean it was faster than the standard Spit9 HF @18lb boost. "
Kinda confusing statement: The LF prefix signified the aircraft was equipped with the Merlin 66. Sheesh , I forget offhand but there were right around 4 thousand of these built on top of which were about 1,300 Merlin 66 engined VIII and another 1,000 Mk. XVIs with the equivalent 266. By sheer numbers along this type is most representative. The HF IX wasn't "standard" (if standard means most numerous or representative) but I think it was a fine performer in its role.
you might want to edit your post for some confusing typos
-
This was a truly great plane for its time, but overshadowed by the 190 and phased out of production in favor of the G series.
It's rate of climb is so good you think it's made of flubber. It's wing loading is modest, it rolls well, it's WEP lasts a long time. It has just enough cannons to take out a B-17. In short it;s a great point interceptor.
It's not fair to compare a plane deployed in 1941 to a model of the Spitfire deployed nearly two years later. Outside of a pure turn fight, the 109F4 would have the advantage over its contemporary models of the Spitfire and Hurricane.
-Blogs
-
Originally posted by F4UDOA
Speaking of not adding up.
Niklas,
Do you have a detailed weight and loading chart for a 109G of any varient?
G-2 weights 3100 kg, fully equipped with pilot, ammo, guns, fuel etc.
G-5 or G-6 weights 3150kg, though as there were MANY models, there are small variations.
G-6/R2 (Armed recce variant) weighted 3196 kg.
G-14/U4 weighted 3318 kg.
G-14/ASM weighted 3272 kg.
G-10 weighted 3297 kg.
For example, detailed weight for G-2:
Empty : 2253 kg
Empty equipped : 2580 kg
Crew: 100 kg
Fuel (400 liter internal) : 296 kg
Lubricants: 33 kg
Ammo : 30 + 50 kg = 80 kg
======================
Total: 3100 kg (as given in original)
-
"Too much talk, Mike" Hello pot, this is kettle. ;) Hehe, fine I'll shut up. I 'll just let the facts speak; for those interested check my sig site.
Speaking of alot of talk, you're really not saying much there ;)
Oh for those that missed it, the logic I tried to show was that if 1.45 was forbidden on the 601N and the 605A, it may follow that it was banned on the 601E sandwiched in time between the two.
- "No Spitfire XIV sorties over Germany until September" Don't draw conclusions from 1 squadron. ;)
- "Mike Williams posseses a R-R chart that shows that Griffon 65 in the Spit XIV is not cleared for +25lbs only to +21lbs"
As of July 44... Hey, what it shows is very interesting! One doesn't often read that entire squadrons were running at this boost by summer '44. The guys who did this sim didn't get that much.
The chart you shared is also interesting. The date matters though! At the time both the Griffon 61 and 65 were cleared for +21, whereas the Griffon 64,67 and 85 were cleared for +25, which proves the Griffons could handle that level of boost. Very interesting! Its just as logical to me that the 65 followed the course of the 64/67 as it would the 61 :) We'll see...
Funny we're talking Spit XIV, I guess it can't be long before the K4 is tossed about ;)
I don't profess to have it all figured out, but I've learned a fair bit which I've tried to share with others. I'm still trying to sort out a few things. Its history, I'm not sure why people take it so personally.
-
The cover of European Air War was a classic, it had a K4 on it.
-
Originally posted by mw
Oh for those that missed it, the logic I tried to show was that if 1.45 was forbidden on the 601N and the 605A, it may follow that it was banned on the 601E sandwiched in time between the two.[/qoute]
Does this pattern also applies to that in both of your named cases the ban was lifted later?
[qoute]
-"No Spitfire XIV sorties over Germany until September" Don't draw conclusions from 1 squadron. ;) [/qoute]
Makes sense. ;)
[qoute]The chart you shared is also interesting. The date matters though! At the time both the Griffon 61 and 65 were cleared for +21, whereas the griffon 64,67 and 85 were cleared for +25, which proves the Griffons could handle that level of boost. [/qoute]
Eh-eh. Certain series of Griffons, that is. Different internal contruction I believe. Though frankly, I can`t recall any wartime plane using Griffon 85 et co.
[qoute]Funny we're talking Spit XIV, I guess it can't be long before the K4 is tossed about ;) [/qoute]
Unfortunately, due to character limitations of this board, and brother Hop`s loss of interest (stamina?) in the usual through&detailed (=30-40 page single posts :D ) discussions, I am afraid we miss that part, altough it would be certainly an enjoyment, as I have a lot of time at around now, so... ;)
In any case, the K4 is coming, altough not in a form of a forum discussion. :cool:
[qoute]I don't profess to have it all figured out, but I've learned a fair bit which I've tried to share with others. I'm still trying to sort out a few things. Its history, I'm not sure why people take it so personally.
Well the intent is nice, but what about telling the whole story? Like, limited boost, old type models, presence of gunpods in tests...?:cool:
-
Here is quick and dirty estimates for the Bf 109F-2 roll rates with 30 and 50 lbs stick forces at 3000m (roughly 10k) from a German war time instrumented test.
IAS 30lbs 50lbs
mph deg/s deg/s
200 80 80
240 65 85
280 50 88
320 37 90
360 22 45
400 11 25
As can be seen from the data, the Spitfire V with metal ailerons had clearly better roll rate and lower stick forces than Bf 109F-2 at high speed.
It should be noted that NACA and RAE measurements on roll rate of the Spitfire support each other pretty well, NACA just used 30 lbs stick force and RAE 50 lbs. Actually RAE tests are more reliable in this case because it can be seen from the NACA data that they did not count wing twist on the P-36 and P-40.
gripen
-
Sry gripen, youīre not right here. At 400mph and 50lb (23kg) the 109F2 could reach still 0.85 1/s, or nearly 50°/sec. (page 12).
niklas
-
Niklas,
You must convert TAS to IAS to get comparable values with RAE and NACA charts.
gripen
-
No Gripen, an increase of altitude increases the roll rate, not decrease it. In P-80 tests for example, the plane did around 130 deg/sec at 10 000 ft and it increased to 160 at 40 000 ft.
Besides, what you listed for 30 lbs performance is way off from what the pilots tell.
Ie., Dave Soutwood said the following after flying the 109G-2 "Black 6":
"A full stick roll through 360 degrees at 460kph takes 4 to 4.5 seconds without using rudder, and needs a force of around 20 lbf. "
That`s 80-90 deg/sec at 300mph with only 20 lbs stick force. Your calculations are very far off from that...
This should prove interesting as well:
http://isegrim.50megs.com/109data/109G_aileron_stability.jpg
http://isegrim.50megs.com/109data/ROLLRATE%20Spit%20Hurri%20P40%20P36.jpg
In the NACA test with Spit V (metal ailerons), the plane makes only about 50 deg/sec at 320 mph, and needs 30 lbs compared to 20 lbs on the 109.
That hardly points towards the Spit would have lighter forces, and even less that it rolls better at high speeds...
-
Isegrim,
The data for the Bf 109F-2 is at 3000m therefore it is roughly directly comparable with NACA and RAE data (10k). This is not a calculation but an instrumented data set and it will be published in one form or another pretty soon (but not by me, I just did some research work for the project). After that Niklas can also release the report in his page. The data contain also some values at higher altitude.
gripen
-
Comparing 109F and Spit IX climb:
(http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/109fvspit9climb.jpg)
F4 Kennblatt shows 3327 ft/min which is very close to RAE. USAAF shows 3,400 ft/min. Pretty fair agreement between RAE, Kennblatt fur das Flugzeugmuster, and USAAF.
Have at it! ;)
-
Interesting selection of aircraft, Mike, however, you numbers seems to mismatch real life test a bit. At least your numbers doesn`t really match the maximum rate of climb in the Kennblatt fur Bf 109F-1/F-2 which states 18.5 m/sec.
So I decided to make a little comparison of climb rates. I only used your data for Spitfires, so that there could be no error. However, I would stick to real life test data for German planes instead of rough estimations done in Britain and the USA.
(http://vo101isegrim.piranho.com/For%20MW%20SpitVB+IXF%20vs.%20F2-G-2-K4.jpg)
Enjoy! ;)
-
hah! That's worth a good chuckle :) Good one! ;)
-
Oh yeah, there's the 109K! I knew that was coming! ;) With a DB 605L no less :) hehe
-
Originally posted by mw
Oh yeah, there's the 109K! I knew that was coming! ;) With a DB 605L no less :) hehe
What`s the problem? I think it`s entirely fair to compare the 109K to the Spitfire V. Or is the 1700HP DB605L a problem? Boy, I knew I would have to compare with the more usual 2000HP DB 605D engine! :D
At least, if it`s fair to compare the 109F-2 (introduced in service in October 1940) with the Spitfire IXLF (introduced in service April 1943)...
You can`t say anything, I took all Spitfire data from your site. :cool:
-
Originally posted by mw
Comparing 109F and Spit IX climb:
F4 Kennblatt shows 3327 ft/min which is very close to RAE. USAAF shows 3,400 ft/min. Pretty fair agreement between RAE, Kennblatt fur das Flugzeugmuster, and USAAF.
Have at it! ;)
ok, now the fun is over. THIS finally says everthing about you!
Itīs really interesting to see how you select always the worst data you can find while neglection good data from the same source
Earlier you said you donīt trust the Kennblatt for the F. Now you select the data out of it. What you of course DON`T mention is that in the same Kennblatt the 109F1/F2 is listed with 20.5m/s, roughly 4100ft/min!!! Why donīt you mention this eh?
Oh btw, +15lb and +18lb is always emergency power for the 61 and 66. 1.3ata@2500rpm is only combat power for the F4, and 2400rpm only for the F1/F2.
Go on in several forums to present such stupid comparisons. Maybe you find people who donīt have the background to judge whether this comparison makes sense or not. Obviously you have fun to convince people in such a poor way.
If itīs your "style" to discuss, hiding informations, neglecting facts and data, picking only whatīs serving you - go on, if you need it. It says a lot about you, and itīs not positive.
niklas (over and out)
-
NOW NOW Gentlemen!
Niklas and Isengrim: you are accusing MW of forwarding data in exactly the way you frequently do yourselves. Greet yer soulmate instead.
Anyway, there is a list of topics to be dealt with, here we go....
From MW we see data that usually lists the Spitfire as superior, since the data charts are "selected" in such a way that they show the lower performance of the 109 vs carefully trimmed peak performance of the Spit. Well,,,according to the above.
From Niklas, through many a text scruffle through the time, I have the following information, chopped down in 2 main categories, chopped down in further subcategories:
Spit wing is inferior! For Speed, climb and maneuver.
Firstly, the wing design is obsolete and behind the 109 design.
A) The leading edge has been destroyed by armament while the 109 uses its brilliant design to incorprate slats which drastically improve performance in tight situations.
B) The elliptical design leaves the wing with unessecary wing area and an unfavourable aspect ratio. Elliptical shape does not compensate for the loss in Aspect ratio regarding induced drag. and as recently mentioned, wing area aone does not create lift. Wing loading is irrelevant.
Secondly, Spits engine and frontal area was lagging behind!
A) DB as a smaller frontal area and the 109 has a more aerodynamical nose
B)The DB output pro weight, altitude, boost, duration, injection or whatever was always on the better side of the RR Merlin
C)Furthermore, the 109's layout allowed a more effective propeller than the Spit, and furthermore, the Propeller development/manufacture for the DB/109 lay ahead.
I guess, that all data even hinting that the poor soddy Spit performs anywhere near the divine 109, must be manipulated in one way or another, - that is if there is truth in all of the Niklas Data, - save it may have been tweaked in the way he is now accusing MW for.
There we come to comparing different things really, thereby approaching Isengrims point.
So, Isengrim:
According to my Data, the 109F1/2 were starting deployment in April 1941. The Spitfire Mk IX started service in July 1942. A year between where the British had been the underdogs regarding speed and climb (although they spiced up and chopped some squadrons (!) of the Mk V). After that, Spit IX vs 109F as duelists of the skies, running paralell with the 109G2/G6 who's dogfighting skills were the lesser. Comparing the 109F with all sorts of the Spit IX is therefor quite normal, - those met and fought, - if not the 109F, then the G2 and G6, - does not make such a vast difference. However, the 109K and a SpitV, - they have about 2 years between them, - 109K deliveries beginning in October 1944.
There were many occations of the Spit IX fighting the 109F, however I doubt the 109K ever met the Spit V...
So, pulling this up, - what is wrong with MW's data? his data is not wrong, just the presentation, and I think you two guys just topped that, not just now, but many times!
:rolleyes:
-
The first Bf 109F1 fighters were delivered to operational units in January 1941.
-
Originally posted by Angus
Niklas and Isengrim: you are accusing MW of forwarding data in exactly the way you frequently do yourselves. Greet yer soulmate instead.
Your reply forces me to answer once more. Please give me few examples for this accusation!!!!
Everyone can write mistakes, this is no problem. Telling only half the truth and presenting only selected data is the problem, especially when knowing more and better data.
It was me who showed the Naca rollrate comparison chart first here, it was me who gave the hint for the 868 report, it was me who informed about the SpitVA report. It was me who gave you and all otheres best informations based on scientific sources from all sides about this topic.
And what come from Spit-supporting side? Just sentences like "What i heard Spits were always superior to the 109". Very scientific and well proven data....
Spit wing is inferior! For Speed, climb and maneuver.
Correct, and everything i said can be proven in a scientific manner. You forgot about the oudated 4-digit airfoil producing high pitching moments btw. Every mid-war aircraft later used the advanced 5-digit airfoil, while the 109 used right from the beginning the 2R1 with reflexed shape.
B) The elliptical design leaves the wing with unessecary wing area and an unfavourable aspect ratio.
Clipped wing showed that supermarine themselves knew that area was wasted. The shape became not favourable on the other side, except for rolling. It would be interesting to know whether there were projects with completly new wing shape and lower wing area.
Elliptical shape does not compensate for the loss in Aspect ratio regarding induced drag. and as recently mentioned, wing area aone does not create lift. Wing loading is irrelevant.
First sentence correct. A flat plate wonīt produce much lift, even if you have a wingarea of 10000ft^2. I did NOT say itīs irrelevant, i just said itīs not an adequate comparison factor, because wing designs were too different.
Secondly, Spits engine and frontal area was lagging behind!
Correct. Todays high speed fighter resemble much more the dart nose of the 109. Every child could see this.
B)The DB output pro weight, altitude, boost, duration, injection or whatever was always on the better side of the RR Merlin
Where did i say this? Please give me the quote! If you donīt find the quote i want an excuse for this, itīs bad style to quote me wrong.
C)Furthermore, the 109's layout allowed a more effective propeller than the Spit, and furthermore, the Propeller development/manufacture for the DB/109 lay ahead.
Correct. Schwarz investigated Rotol airsrews, the thickness ratios especially in the roots was not good (too thick).
I guess, that all data even hinting that the poor soddy Spit performs anywhere near the divine 109, must be manipulated in one way or another
The spit usually had more power and was performing roughly equal or worse. So from an aerodynamic viewpoint it must have been inferior.
But aside from my technical points here, please give me the quotes i demanded where you accuse me of statements i havenīt made as far as i can remember. Letīs see if you can bring them or if itīs just another example of uncorrect data presentation (to forumlate it the harmless way)
niklas
-
Better reply again:D
First thing I stumbled on was the clipped wing sentence.
As far as my sources state, the wing got clipped to improve rollrate and raise top speed, however, it would reduce climb and worsen stall characteristics. Many pilots did not like the clipped versions because of this.
Now about some here displaying selected data, I found this:
(Gripen giving some points to you)
"Niklas,
There is not much sense to compare weights of the Merlin 6X and DB605A or should we compare outputs at 10000m? Generally single stage Merlins were lighter than single stage DB605s but single stage DBs did a bit better at high altitude than single stage Merlins. It should be also noted that the high altitude DB605AS did not reach production before spring 1944 while the two stage Merlins had been around about two years by that time. Two stage DBs failed to reach more than experimental service during war. RR was able to develop engines to service stage faster than DB.
gripen"
Who was comparing apples and oranges?
Now a lot about this:
"B)The DB output pro weight, altitude, boost, duration, injection or whatever was always on the better side of the RR Merlin "
Is to be found in the same thread as Gripen entered. A good source of information there, where you basically strive to prove the above!
Then these are new news to me, that the Spitfire made a little compensation to its bad wing with more power, - bear in mind also that the 109 usually has a more favourable power loading through all years of the war. (Exceptions were of course the tuned up Spittys)
Oh, instead of an excuse, I hope this is sufficient. The name of the thread is: RR Merlin vs the DB series, under some dust in the AH BB.
And then to this:
" A flat plate wonīt produce much lift, even if you have a wingarea of 10000ft^2"
Did you ever try to hold a metal sheet in a storm? Given some power and an A of A, any flat sheet will produce lift. Of course it is a valid comparison factor, even between different wing designs. It's like saying: "Wing loading does not matter"
These words said, I will withdraw from the keyboard, take off in the skies of AH to blast some more undermodelled 109's with my poor soddy stupid-winged-overmodelled Spit IX.
:D
-
Please, you quote an answer from gripen to proove what i should have said? Are you crazy?
This is what you said here on the open forum with the meaning that i have said something similar:
"The DB output pro weight, altitude, boost, duration, injection or whatever was always on the better side of the RR Merlin "
Now please find a quote from me saying this really! Do it, find it, or take the quote back and excuse yourself for incorrectly quoting me!
Actually this is what i wrote:
"If you reduce the question down to a power comparison, neglecting material, fuel, design, installation and other things, RR engines WILL LEAD, especially in a power/volume comparison"
Really, iīd like to read an excuse from you here soon...
niklas
-
You'll have to read the whole thread through to sum it up really, it was a quick snatch.
Was your sentence there?
-
Ahh,,,found it.
OK OK OK,,,so the Merlin was more powerful, even at the same RPM!
The rest holds, especially the wing thingie.
Still unexplained why the Spitfire could fly as fast pro Hp/alt with more weight, and pull more Newtons to altitude pro hp. I mean with inferior and out-dated wing structure, how can that happen........
-
For an engine comparison itīs probably better to compare the air mass flow rather than a single value like rpm, volume, or boost. Booth 3 values are connected together and can be expressed by a single one, mass flow.
Also the well known octan value is not very exact for all situations but thatīs a different story. It was replaced in germany during wartime with a kind of "air overloaded factor curve".
This is the data for the 601E of the F4 with full boost:
2700rpm, 1,42ata, 33,9 liter , 1350PS
The Merlin 45 (correct my data if wrong, not 100% sure, power for sealevel!):
3000rpm, 2,088ata (+16), 27liter, ~1450PS
The Merlin 61
3000rpm, 2,02ata(+15), 27liter, 1510PS
If we put the first 3 factors together as a proportional factor to mass flow, and build the ratio PS/Massflow(factor) then we get:
0.0104 for the 601E and
0.0087 for the Merlin 45 and
0.0091 for Merlin 61
So it looks like the 601E is superior, more power per massflow.
But we (oh sry, I do) want to do it even more scientific. If you compress air, it getīs hot. This reduces density, thus massflow.
Massflow = N * V * D
N = N_mot / (2*60) (2 because we pull only every 2nd stroke air, 60 to convert from rpm to rev. per second)
V = engine volume in liter / 1000 (for m^3)
D = density = [ (p/p0)^(1/k) ] * D0 (p manifold pressure, p0, D0 atmospheric pressure and density at sealevel, k = 1.235 for air)
N / V / D / Massflow(kg/s):
22.5 / 33.9 / 1.627 / 1.241 for the 601E and
25 / 27 / 2.223 / 1.500 for the Merlin 45 and
25 / 27 / 2.165 / 1.461 for Merlin 61
Power / Massflow is:
1087 for 601E and
966 for the Merlin 45 and
1033 for Merlin 61
601 is still leading, and in case Merlin engines use intercooler or charger cooler, the comparison will be even more in favour of the 601, because cooler air means higher massflow.
I hope you were able to follow so far...
It shouldnīt surprise someone that the slow running engine has a more efficient combustion. The engines with the highest efficiency today are Diesel engines for ships whith piston bores of 3 feet and strokes of over 6feet. They run so slow, around 50-100rpm, that they donīt need a gear (no losses), the propeller is directly attached to the shaft.
At speeds near or over 500km/h, weight differences in reasonable limits have only a minor influence on top speed for both fighters.
Was the Spit as fast or climbed as good with SAME power? Really? Better check your numbers hihi :)
niklas
-
Assuming a co-e initial merge I'd say the outcome will largely depend on pilot skill. The spit IX has a clear edge in performance in a knife fight...but the 109 is probably equal in an E fight. Assuming the 109 doesn't have gondola's (if so then edge in all to spitty) I'd guess the range hitting power and ammo load in 20mm all favor the spitty. Since the 109F is normally flown by "experten" and the population of spit dweebs...er drivers...is much less skilled (obviously there are more than a few outstanding sticks flying spitties) I'd say the vegas line is 109F 3 to 2.
-
I was able to follow as far as towards a general assumption.... DB is superior, - and thereby I do not yet owe you an apologize for referring to you stating that. Anyway, you promoted the data, so as far as your evidence goes, the Spit now hardly has anything in its favour:(
Nice to see a smilie from you as well, Niklas
Now, for the rest.....running to max speed:)
Spit I (merlin III) 1030 hp, weight 5844 lb typical,
6200 lb max, topping speed at 19K 365 mph, cruising 304 mph at 15K.
109E4 1175 hp, weight 4685-5875 lbs max,top speed 348 mph at 14650 ft, cruise 300 mph at 13125 feet
So, the SpitI is heavier and faster!
Climb:
There it gets a tad more complicated. More hairy numbers and so on, and the need to calculate things to Newtons. I have some data on the spits, but need more on the 109's. I presume, Niklas that you will enter some. Anyway, some examples:
A spit I would be at 15K in 3 and a half minutes, 15K in 5 minutes 18 secs, 20 K at 7:42.
A Spit IX would be at 10K at 2,7 mins, 20K at 5.6 etc etc.
anyway, I'll try to get this to an excel chart, but I sorely need more 109 data. Climb and weight figures?
-
Spit I was cleaner than the rather angular looking 109E. Spit was faster and turned better. 109E climbed and accelerated better and flew higher.
-
Originally posted by Batz
Go back agw and whine about their 190a4.
The spit isnt limited to just 5 min. Its 5 min then 10 cool down then 5 min again forever. The 109 is 10 on 10 off forever. So what fidelity are you talking about?
The ah spit nine boost at 100% throttle is 15, 18 with wep.
You can ride at 15 all day long.
So who cares if its just the 109 your complaining about.
thats actually wrong. We did tests:
109's 10 minutes wep 10 minutes cooling
190's 10 minutes wep 20 minutes cooling
P51's 5 minutes wep 10 minutes cooling
P47's 5 minutes wep 10 minutes cooling
SPIT's 5 minutes wep 15 minutes cooling
we did others but the subject was dropped.but this was the result (confirmed by a few people too)
-
Angus, first youīre wrong about the Emils power setting. In flight there were only 1.3ata available, and this were only 1000PS.
Your power setting 1030hp @6.25lb is for the Merlin II and 87 octan. As far as i know the Merlin III, fitted to the Spitfire I+II, did have slightly more power with same boost. But ok, letīs use 1030HP or ~1050PS
I think itīs better to compare the standard Spitfire I from ī40. IN the MKII test there is the "Rotol Spitfire I, N.3171". The header of the test indicates that those machines were prepared to war condition, though they donīt mention weapons.
Topspeed 290mph near ground, 346mph at 19k.
Your data about the 109E is based on this very special machine that seems to be responsible for all these handling trials, because the flight tests show also french data. It should be noted that this machine saw service, was extensivly flown by the French after it was captured, was then transfered to england where it was further flown.
The french got significantly better results with the machine, the english trials clearly show a lack of maintance.
In the french tests where this 109E was still in better shape, it reached 354mph at 15k.
There exist a document from russia showing the performance of a 109E3 from an english test. This captured machine performed in england like this:
295mph at ground, 348mph at 14.5k
So even a captured 109E (which was definitly not an aerodynamic wonder) could beat with slighly less power in an english test the SpitI/II, if you compare equal alitutes and consider overall condition. Tests comparing own new fighter to captured machines are always not 100% representative btw.
With +9lb or even +12lb, the spit probably was slightly faster, but this would mean also with a huge power advantage.
According to the british tests the 109E reached minimum 2700ft/min the first 10000ft, this is 3.7minutes. They measured 8minutes up to 19700feet, but most important is this sentence from the test report:
"Owing to cooling difficulties the radiators were open up to 13000 feet and then gradually closed up to 26000feet. This may account for the discrepancy between the measured times to height and those published in germany"
In the Tsagi charts the 109E exceeds 3000ft/min up to 13k, thus you can expect ~5 minutes up to 15k.
And now, just to bring in some german data too: The climb times from a 109E manual are:
3000m/10k 3,0 minutes
6000m/20k 6,3 minutes
Unfortunatly no german data about SpitI/II is available to me, it would have been highly interesting to see how caputres english machines performed in german tests!
niklas
-
I'll get on to the maths. Thanks for the Data.
I know that Gen. Rall flew captured allied aircraft. Maybe that would be a source to check out. Does anyone have his book?
-
Angus, maybe you should start a Spit I/109E thread ;)
Top speeds of Spit I: 354 mph @ 18,900' +6.25 lbs/sq.in., Spit II: 354 mph @ 17,550 +9 lbs./sq.in. Both equipped with bullet-proof windscreens. There are many data points from numerous aircraft showing top speed in the mid 360s but these are generally without the bullet-proof windscreen. Top speed at full throttle height would only increase a couple mph using +12 boost. However "It will be noted from the Service reports that an approximate increase in speed, due to the use of emergency 12 lbs. boost, of 28/34 mph is obtained depending on the altitude flown up to 10,000 feet".
Merlin III power rating
1,030 hp., 3,000 rpm, +6.25 lb/sq.in. 16,250'
1,310 hp., 3,000 rpm, +12 lb/sq.in. 9,000'
-
Well, to honour the topic of this thread, let's also compare the 109F and the Spit IX. Spit I and 109E4 are just so temptingly close in power and weight, and also, I need more data. The Spit XIV and the 109K (or G-10) for that sake are also an interesting couple for comparison.
I will be trying to put some data into Excel calculating some figures into Newtons at the same timepoint, - i.e. climb and weight in the same time calculated into energy. Will be quite interesting to study, but I sorely need more data on various models of the 109.
BTW, one thing for the merits of an elliptical wing is its ability to hold on to the lift in bankings, or so I understand. (That I have from an aerobatics textbook). This seems to go hand in hand with tales of the Spit IX using corcscrew-stall-speed climb to outclimb 109G's. The most memorable account of this I have read was probably our Spit IX, the second stage turbo engaging at some 19K. Would be nice to have some data on this, and even test it out in the TA.
-
I have data for 109K and Spit XIV:
TO Weights,
109K: 3362 kg
Mk.XIV : 3859 kg
Wing area:
109K: 16.05 sq. meter
MkXIV. about 240 sq.ft. ??
Unrammed Powers at SL:
109K: 2000 PS
Mk. XIV: ~ 1940 BHP
SL speeds:
109K: 607 kph
Mk. XIV: 578 kph
Sustained Climb:
109K : 24.5 m/sec
Mk.XIV: 23.9 m/sec
That`s for SL... Altitude comparisions are harder to do, because the airspeed make the powers vary greatly... in addition, there`s an unknown propellor effiency, which again varies with speed and altitude (and weather effects...), and also has an effect on how much power is actually avaiable. Similiarly, engine, oil and coolant radiators also add some exhaust thrust....
It`s a very complicated matter, with too many important factors unknown I am afraid.
-
For comparisons between Spits and any present 109s, take in consideration the listed "AH Normal Loaded Weight":
SpitXIV: 8475 lbs.
SpitIX: 7400 lbs.
Seafire IIC: 6900 lbs.
SpitV: 6622 lbs.
Spitfire IA: 6317 lbs.
109G10: 7400 lbs.
109G6: 6940 lbs.
109G2: 6834 lbs.
109F4: 6393 lbs.
109E4: 5875 lbs.
Can u match these weights with the corresponding engine powers?
-
Do you also have the Engine powers for AH?
Anyway, Iīll calculate from those and others into torque and KW's (just for fun) in the climbing sector as soon as I get my spreadsheet (yes, my excel is not "behaving" ok), or any spreadsheed program working.
-
The following is based on my reading of Green's book on the German Airforce and Price's book on the Spitfire:
BF109f production began in the fall of 1940 and two frontline units (geshwader) in France were outfitted by Spring 1941. By summer more than half of front line strength was standardized on the F, which was subsequently reduced by deliveries of the FW190A.
The Spit IX began production in the spring of the following year and the first wings were outfitted with the plane in the summer and fall.
In other words, when we compare the Bf109f and the Spit IX, we are comparing two planes introduced about 18 months apart, roughly 20 percent of the length of the entire war in Europe. The Bf109f had long been removed from production when the Spit IX was being produced in significant numbers.
-Blogs
Originally posted by Flyboy
is it me or the spit9 is superior to the 109f in all aspects?
im pretty sure the spit will out turn the 109 even when it uses flaps (1 or 2 notches)
did someone performed tests with those 2 planes?
-
18 months? Not quite.
If you take aim of squadron strength operations in a combat theater, the 109F4 has its debut in June 1941 (earlier variants being distributed to squadrons in march?) while Spitfire IX debuted in July 1942. So 13-16 months it would seem.
the 109G2 also entered in July 1942, so the natural opponents would be Spit IX vs 109G2/F4 for almost a year!
-
Green says two units in northern france in April 1941. You are right those are probably not the F4, but an earlier variant. I compare that to Price indicating Spit IXs in 3 units the following summer.
In any case 13-16 months is a lot of time in a war where the equipmant advances as rapidly as it did in WWII.
-Blogs
Originally posted by Angus
18 months? Not quite.
If you take aim of squadron strength operations in a combat theater, the 109F4 has its debut in June 1941 (earlier variants being distributed to squadrons in march?) while Spitfire IX debuted in July 1942. So 13-16 months it would seem.
the 109G2 also entered in July 1942, so the natural opponents would be Spit IX vs 109G2/F4 for almost a year!
-
True, but it should be noted that the first F-1s and F-2s appeared in October 1940 with Moelders units (theres exact reference in Prien/Rodeike 109F/G/K ), for combat testing and then for forntline use. Initial accidents grounded them from end of 1940 until February 1941 though, the MkV appeared first in March 1941, then the F-4 in June 1941. I have the exact number of F-4 by early 1942 somewhere, it is in the order of several hundreds. In fact, the most produced 109F was the F-4, very few F-1s and F-3s, and about 2/3 as many F-2s were produced.
The Spit IX F appeared in June (July?) 1942, but it was only available in small numbers initially, and as usual RAF switch to new fighter type was rather slow. Personally, I doubt that the MkIX replaced the MkVs in service as the most numerous type until early/mid 1943, considering that there were 9 times as many MkVs buildt in that time than Mk IXs.. I saw referces to first line use of MkV even as late as end of 1943 (with some Canuck squad, though) !
-
Fits pretty well. However the 109G-6 appeared almost a year after the Spit IX, so Spit IX would meet 109F and G2 primarily in those 12 months as opponents of the MEsserchmitt breed.
The Total foes, quite on par in time, were of course the Spit V and the 109F, the 109 Holding the edge with but a few exceptions of Clipped and boosted Spit V's.
Isegrim: do you have some time to alt data on various 109's? I've been calculating the lifting force of the Spits and it would be nice to have some 109's to compare with. Anyway, brief results are that a Spit will carry roughly the same N pro sec pro Hp, which is a bit in contrast to what Niklas claims. And that even on the same octane fuel!
So, 109F-4 weight and time to alt????? Plz???? Anyone?????
-
You have to watch Issy's math and his selective statements. Likes to mix and match to show German is uber. He is the ultimate "German is uber, all else is crap" 'freak'.
-
It's more likely the Spit IX would have encoutered FW 190s as the 109F was rotated out of western europe to russia or the middle east.
-blogs
Originally posted by Angus
Fits pretty well. However the 109G-6 appeared almost a year after the Spit IX, so Spit IX would meet 109F and G2 primarily in those 12 months as opponents of the MEsserchmitt breed.
The Total foes, quite on par in time, were of course the Spit V and the 109F, the 109 Holding the edge with but a few exceptions of Clipped and boosted Spit V's.
Isegrim: do you have some time to alt data on various 109's? I've been calculating the lifting force of the Spits and it would be nice to have some 109's to compare with. Anyway, brief results are that a Spit will carry roughly the same N pro sec pro Hp, which is a bit in contrast to what Niklas claims. And that even on the same octane fuel!
So, 109F-4 weight and time to alt????? Plz???? Anyone?????