New info on Bf109 vs P-51 vs 190 vs spit.

[WING47]

      I have obviously been asked to do more research on my previous topic, so i did, and the results I found were very interesting. At low speeds the 109 and spitfire come out on top. Why the 109, wing slats. This is defiantly confirmed by Ardy123s video. According to the content in that video the 109 may be even better than a spitfire. As well as HTCs modeling on the 109 seems correct as well.
     The spit and 109 are followed by the P-51 than 190. However, 109 pilots shouldn't get too excited, I confirmed that the 109 couldn't turn at high speeds. At 350 to 400mph the 109 took a staggering 4.5 seconds to roll 45 degrees. This explains how the Mustang out turned a 109, the controls were light and it took little effort to turn it very quick.Here's an example.
   
At 200 mph the 109 was very easy to handle and maneuvered very good.
At 250-300 controls were difficult.
At 300+ they became almost impossible.

At low speed the mustang was unstable and the laminar flow wing was tricky
At medium and high speeds the mustang was only limited by the G tolerance of the pilot.

Another explanation is that once a P-51 was on the 109s tail the common German pilot of the time was probably worse than AH spit dweebs at ACMs. And the biggest of the 109s problems as many other aircraft, is not modeled in AH, ant that is simply what a pilots muscles could do.

[boomerlu]

Another explanation is that once a P-51 was on the 109s tail the common German pilot of the time was probably worse than AH spit dweebs at ACMs. And the biggest of the 109s problems as many other aircraft, is not modeled in AH, ant that is simply what a pilots muscles could do.

As I recall, the pilot modeled in AH exerts at most 50 lbs of stick pressure in any direction.

[Jabberwock]

      I have obviously been asked to do more research on my previous topic, so i did, and the results I found were very interesting. At low speeds the 109 and spitfire come out on top. Why the 109, wing slats. This is defiantly confirmed by Ardy123s video. According to the content in that video the 109 may be even better than a spitfire. As well as HTCs modeling on the 109 seems correct as well.
     The spit and 109 are followed by the P-51 than 190. However, 109 pilots shouldn't get too excited, I confirmed that the 109 couldn't turn at high speeds. At 350 to 400mph the 109 took a staggering 4.5 seconds to roll 45 degrees. This explains how the Mustang out turned a 109, the controls were light and it took little effort to turn it very quick.Here's an example.
   
At 200 mph the 109 was very easy to handle and maneuvered very good.
At 250-300 controls were difficult.
At 300+ they became almost impossible.

At low speed the mustang was unstable and the laminar flow wing was tricky
At medium and high speeds the mustang was only limited by the G tolerance of the pilot.

Another explanation is that once a P-51 was on the 109s tail the common German pilot of the time was probably worse than AH spit dweebs at ACMs. And the biggest of the 109s problems as many other aircraft, is not modeled in AH, ant that is simply what a pilots muscles could do.

In reference to the rate of roll point: which 109?

The lateral control of the 109 family improved through the war. While its not my specialty, I believe that the 109F had a new wing and alieron  arrangement, that reduced stick forces and improved the rate of roll at higher speeds.

There was a 109G roll rate graph floating around a few years ago.

[Perrine]

interesting comments about bf 109

"109's controls locked up in high speed."

- Another very mythical subject. Before answering one must be asked: "What model are you talking about?"

- There was large differences between various types in the high speed controls. Each newer version handled better in high speeds, the best being the 109 K series which had flettner tabs for enhanced aileron control - at least in theory, as it is debated whether many Me 109 K-4s actually had those flettners enabled. 109 G series were much better on this regard compared to 109 E, which yet again wasn't such a dog as many claim. 109 test pilots, Russians included, have said that the 109 had pretty good roll at higher speeds - again not as good as the 190s, P-51 or P-47 - but it maintained a good lateral control ability. Recovering from extremerely fast 750-900 km/h vertical dives was the problem - not level flight or even normal combat flying.

- Spitfire and a 109 had equal roll rates at up to 400 mph speeds. Not even the favourite warhorse of the Americans, P-51, exactly shined with its roll rate at high speeds. P-51 pilots have actually said that flying P-51 at high speeds was like driving a truck.

- An often quoted British report made of a Me 109 E talks about the "short stick travel", "due to the cramped cockpit a pilot could only apply about 40 pounds side force on the stick" and "at 400 mph with 40 pounds side force and only one fifth aileron displaced, it required 4 seconds to get into a 45 degree roll or bank. That immediately classifies the airplane as being unmaneuverable and unacceptable as a fighter."

- The report claims that The 109-E needed 37lb stick force for a 1/5 aileron deflection at 400mph. Coincidentally, the Spitfire 1 required 57 lb stick force from the pilot for similar deflection at similar speed. This is a 54% higher stickforce for the Spitfire pilot.

- The British test is taken as gospel by many, while it is just one test, made by the enemy, using a worn out and battle damaged airframe. German flight tests report pilots using aileron forces of over 45 lbs and 109's stick was designed for elevator stick forces of up to or over 85kg, over 180 lbs. Finnish Bf 109 G-2 test revealed that at 450 km/h the stick could be still fully taken to the limit with ~10 kg force (20 pounds). Aileron roll without rudder could be performed to both direction from 400-450 km/h in 4-5 s. This is better than the Spitfire with fabric ailerons, about the same as Spitfire with metal ailerons and slightly below clipped wing Spitfire. So it was more matter of the pilot and the test procedures, than maneuverability of the Bf 109. Several details of that test are suspicious and German chief test pilot Heinrich Beauvais disagreed with it and with Eric Brown. Beauvais tried to get into contact after the war with Eric Brown to discuss the matters, but Brown refused to discuss with him. This being the case, it seems that Brown wasn't willing to listen a pilot who'd flown more on the 109 than he ever had, and was more interested on believing his negative findings of the 109 than being proven wrong by a real expert.

http://www.virtualpilots.fi/feature/articles/109myths
http://www.virtualpilots.fi/feature/articles/109myths/#stickforce

[Stoney]

...This explains how the Mustang out turned a 109...
 
...At low speed the mustang was unstable and the laminar flow wing was tricky...

...Another explanation is that once a P-51 was on the 109s tail the common German pilot of the time was probably worse than AH spit dweebs at ACMs...

1.  If you are trying to do some sort of quantitative comparison, you need factual data, not theories, unless you change the language of your theories.

For example, you should change the first excerpt to say "This could explain how the Mustang could out-turn a 109..."  This type of language means that you do not know for sure (lacking quantitative data) but that it would be reasonable to believe it could be the cause of the discrepancy.

2.  Be precise with your language.  To say that the P-51 was "unstable" at low speeds in imprecise.  Do you mean aerodynamically unstable?  Because if you do, you're probably wrong as I've never seen any report that the P-51 displayed any negative stability characteristics in any axis at low speeds.  Now, if you mean it was less stable, then change your language to reflect that.  Also, understand exactly what characteristics laminar flow airfoils contribute to flight and don't say things like "they were tricky".  Be precise about how the laminar flow airfoil in use could have contributed to the slow-speed handling of the aircraft, i.e. that they still stall once critical angle of attack is exceeded just like any other airfoil, but that they can demonstrate more severe stall characteristics.  So that its not the airfoil that causes problems, just that they had more severe effects once the pilot screwed up and stalled the plane at low speed.

3.  Don't use qualitative explanations to describe the apparent superiority of one aircraft over another.  To say that pilot quality was probably the biggest factor that explains how a P-51 could defeat a Bf-109 in a tail chase is a slippery slope.  Qualify these types of statements.  Obviously, pilot quality was certainly lacking at the end of the war, but there are tons of hypotheticals that could provide a Mustang sufficient advantage over a 109 in a tail-chase.

[dtango]

C'mon Stoney, don't you know the iNtErneTs makes experts out of us hayseeds???

[Stoney]

C'mon Stoney, don't you know the iNtErneTs makes experts out of us hayseeds???

I think I heard that some where before...