restored Messerschmitt Bf 109 E4 WN 3579

[MiloMorai]

So Barbi where are the roll rate graphs for the late model 109s?

Just more of your gum flapping.

[gripen]

Here are quick and dirty calculations again based instrumented test of the Bf 109F-2 (by DVL). Later models without flettner tabs are not much different.

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

Will be published pretty soon in one form or another.

gripen

[VO101_Isegrim]

Gripen it appears that your calculations way overestimate the neccesary stick forces required for roll rates by a factor of 2.5 ...

Ie. notice what your data gives for 280 mph : 30 lbs required for 50 degree / sec roll...

I recall that you have already posted these numbers, but Niklas told you that you have made some mistakes in your calculations.

Look at how this compare to what the pilot`s tell :

Dave Southwood on G-2/trop:

"Roll performance is similar to a Hurricane or elliptical wing tipped Spitfire.  A full stick roll through 360 degrees at 460kph [=285 mph]  takes 4 to 4.5 seconds without using rudder, and needs a force of around 20 lbf.  One interesting characteristic is that rolls at lower speeds entered at less than 1g, such as a roll-off-the-top or half Cuban, have a markedly lower roll rate to the right than to the left.  Therefore, I always roll left in such manoeuvres."

Dave Soutwood states 80-90 deg / sec at 285mph, but requiring only 20 lbs instead of your stated 50 lbs....

Marh Hanna flying the buchon stated very similiar roll rate to the Mustang at 300mph with one hand, that would also imply roughly 90 deg/sec at 20-25 lbs stick force.

Also I have got results of Finnish flight tests with 109G, which stated "10kg stick force required at 450 km/h for a little less than 90 deg/sec roll rate.

I was also told by buhc that German calculations for 109F roll rate gave 94 degree / sec at 480 km/h.

Appearantly your 50 lbs numbers refer to only 20 lbs stickforce, a lot less than half of what the pilot could use. Using full force would of course yield far higher roll rates.

Also, regarding your statement that "later models with Flettner tabs were not much different", I would like to know the base of this, as there are actual tests done on 7.10.44 on Wn 18550, a test plane with aileron Flettners at 3330 kg weight. Test pilot was still able to deflect the ailerons 2/3s at Mach .75 / 770 kph, a very good result indeed for a non power-boosted plane.

In short, your calculations do not match the results of anybody else`s results . Perhaps you can tell us how you arrived at them ?

[VO101_Isegrim]

Originally posted by MiloMorai
So Barbi where are the roll rate graphs for the late model 109s?

Why do I have to prove anything ? It`s F4U who states something, so he has to prove it. Gee, next time he says the world is flat, would that mean I *have to* travel around the globe to disprove it..?

But I am sure guys like you and him will understand each other very well, as both of you have the bias and hatred against anything German/Luftwaffe, which reflects in your posts. Well, this is the attitude that made people to ignore you completely on here and other boards. Your barking don`t deserve the attention.

Why don`t you just go back to your little troll cave?

[Guppy35]

Originally posted by VO101_Isegrim


But I am sure guys like you and him will understand each other very well, as both of you have the bias and hatred against anything German/Luftwaffe, which reflects in your posts.

 

Look at what you wrote.  "Bias and hatred against anything German/Luftwaffe"

You've gotta be kidding right?  Aces High=game.  Is it possible that your glasses are so clouded by your assumption that there is a bias that you can't see the forest for the trees?

I'll agree with you on one thing though.  F4UDOA should give up participating in these debates, cause no one is listening.  I would disagree that it's his fault however

Dan/Slack

[moot]

It would be worthwhile for the big political pansies to post informative posts or shut the fu(k up.

Find each other's emails or street adresses and resolve your problems in private, no one else here gives a stinking watermelon if you are better heat seeking puke spewers than one another.

[Batz]

Originally posted by Guppy35
Look at what you wrote.  "Bias and hatred against anything German/Luftwaffe"

You've gotta be kidding right?  Aces High=game.  Is it possible that your glasses are so clouded by your assumption that there is a bias that you can't see the forest for the trees?

I'll agree with you on one thing though.  F4UDOA should give up participating in these debates, cause no one is listening.  I would disagree that it's his fault however

Dan/Slack

I would say a good number of the folks who posts on this A & V forum don’t play AH. There is nothing wrong with that because these are discussions about aircraft not game play. There are a lot of guys who post with good info who don’t care one way or another how HT makes his game. I don't play AH. I don’t think Isegrim, MiloMorai, Gripen, Niklas or Hohun play either.

This is the Aircraft and Vehicles Forum not the Gameplay forum. Outside of what GRUNHERZ said no one here even mentioned AH modeling.

If you don't like these topics or the type of discussions then why bother reading these threads? No one is spamming you, or calling you at home, or forcing you in anyway to click on any thread in this forum.

BTW you can search F4's replies or just check his replies in the 109-kill ratio thread.

[Guppy35]

Originally posted by Batz
I would say a good number of the folks who posts on this A & V forum don’t play AH. There is nothing wrong with that because these are discussions about aircraft not game play. There are a lot of guys who post with good info who don’t care one way or another how HT makes his game. I don't play AH. I don’t think Isegrim, MiloMorai, Gripen, Niklas or Hohun play either.

This is the Aircraft and Vehicles Forum not the Gameplay forum. Outside of what GRUNHERZ said no one here even mentioned AH modeling.

If you don't like these topics or the type of discussions then why bother reading these threads? No one is spamming you, or calling you at home, or forcing you in anyway to click on any thread in this forum.

BTW you can search F4's replies or just check his replies in the 109-kill ratio thread.

Yer right Batz, it was my mistake for assuming I might learn something or enjoy a thread involving the 109E.  They do tend to lead to pissing contests, which amazes me.  Any thoughts on why this seems to be so Luftwaffe based?

Dan/Slack

[F4UDOA]

Gents,

Weather you agree or disagree with me the Fact is that the Luftwaffe post go off the rails consistantly. This is not my fault as I avoid most LW threads for just this reason. Batz brought me into this one on his initial post.

Batz,

You and I have a history that has nothing to do with the recent post. You can act like you have the high road but the fact is you have an axe to grind because I (and others) have pointed out the fact that you arrange the scenarios in a very biased fashion to favor your side (the axis) by removing certain aircraft amoung other things. You brought up the "locked in cement" coment which comes from Kit Carson. So instead of attacking me why don't you provide evidence to the contrary of Carson, surely you have something?

I won't even address Isegrim because he is the worst poison of all all these boards and all WW2 boards. Why not ask Butch2K or Neilstirling from the (now gone) WW2 boards where Isegrim would have these debacles regularly with anyone who disagreed with his propaganda.

There are many types of personalities on the boards. But Isegrims type is a "tourist". He does not play the game, he is not part of the community and does not provide any of his own data to the arguement. He just waits for the thread to start then starts picking at data provided by others. I have ask him several questions none of which he can provide asnwers to because he has none and he won't be here long enough to back up anything he says anyway.

[Batz]

I have arranged scenarios that excluded aircraft?

When was this?

In Okinawa it was me who requested both the chog and f4u-1 (FAA) be included and that at least 1 group of f4u-4s remain after aub was considering dropping them. All we asked for and got is 1 additional group of nikis and to have the a6m2 replaced with a6m5s. But it was up to the scenario designer and CMs to decide what planes to allow and which to exclude. I was a ct cm and never ran Pac setup to include or exclude any of your favorite planes. So whatever “facts” you think you have “pointed out” are all in your head.

I am not taking the "high road". What I am telling Guppy is since he already knows how these threads end up (he even tells of his experience in AW) then why bother reading them if he's so put off by them.

You can't blame other posters after all they aren’t forcing him or anyone to read these threads. If he chooses to suffer through them then he can suffer through in silence. Playing the fake arsed Rodney King "Can't we all just get along" and it’s "just a game" won’t inspire change in any one. He should know this by his own experience.

[MiloMorai]

Originally posted by VO101_Isegrim
But I am sure guys like you and him will understand each other very well, as both of you have the bias and hatred against anything German/Luftwaffe, which reflects in your posts. Well, this is the attitude that made people to ignore you completely on here and other boards. Your barking don`t deserve the attention.

In truth Barbi, you would be ignored if it was not for your fanatical stance on anything Nazi. Bias and hatred?? That is you with regards to American and British a/c.  As for other boards, I have not been not been told my presence was not wanted, unlike you!!! - a certain armour forum. You were the laughing stock on the old OnWar forum. Or the 'new' offshoot of the OnWar forum, where you were told to 'shape up or ship out'. It is so nice now on the Ubi forums without your posts - no flame wars. You draw flame wars like flies to the manure.  I was even asked to join a new board which would rather not have you around. Now I wunder why that is? Could it be because of your lack of civility in your posts? (ie. being antagonistic and the subtle insults)

As for the roll graphs, what better way to shut people up and prove that the late model 109s had good roll rates. All we see is more of your gum flappin.


Flettner tabs were the exception rather than the rule with only ~10% of the 109K-4s so fitted (as per Butch2k).

[Charon]

What makes this tiresome is stuff like this:

Like his favourite about the locked-in-concrete-400mph-109s... he goes on and on again and again repeating this, on every forum, never ever backing it up with anything... time to time, we have to read these phrases about the "there`s countless many anecdotal evidence" stories from him. Yet I haven`t seen any of those from him. Read: I asked him - about how many, 8 or ten times by now ? - to support his views. He`s just INCAPABLE OF THAT every time. He just parrots it. Yet he critizises others for the lack of data.

Where you then respond with stuff like this to support your position:

Marh Hanna flying the buchon stated very similiar roll rate to the Mustang at 300mph with one hand, that would also imply roughly 90 deg/sec at 20-25 lbs stick force.

Which for some strange, obviously accidental reason omits the very next sentence:

The roll rate is very good and very positive below about 250 mph. This is particularly true of the Charles Church's Collection clipped wing aircraft. Our round tipped aeroplane is slightly less nice to feel. With the speed further back the roll rate remains good, particularly with a bit of help from the rudder. Above 250 mph however the roll starts to heavy up and up to 300 or so is very similar to a P-51. After that it's all getting pretty solid and you need two hands on the stick for any meaningfull roll rates.

The full link to the flight test is here, along with the 1940 RAF test of the 109E.  http://www.bf109.com/flying.html


Here is the general flight impression:

The roll rate is very good and very positive below about 250 mph. This is particularly true of the Charles Church's Collection clipped wing aircraft. Our round tipped aeroplane is slightly less nice to feel. With the speed further back the roll rate remains good, particularly with a bit of help from the rudder. Above 250 mph however the roll starts to heavy up and up to 300 or so is very similar to a P-51. After that it's all getting pretty solid and you need two hands on the stick for any meaningfull roll rates. Another peculiarity is that when you have been in a hard turn with the slats deployed, and then you roll rapidly one way and stop, there is a strange sensation for a second of so of a kind of dead area over the ailerons - almost as if they are not connected ! Just when you are starting to get worried they work again !

Pitch is also delighful at 250 mph and below. It feels very positve and the amount of effort on the control column needed to produce the relevant nose movement seems exactly right to me. As CL max is reached the leading edge slats deploy - together if the ball is in the middle, slightly asymmetrically if you have any slip on. The aircraft delights in being pulled into hard manuevering turns at these slower speeds. As the slats pop out you feel a slight "notching" on the stick and you can pull more until the whole airframe is buffeting quite hard. A little more and you will drop a wing, but you have to be crass to do it unintentionally. Pitch tends to heavy up above 250 mph but it is still easily manageable up to 300 mph and the aircraft is perfectly happy carrying out low-level looping maneuvers from 300 mph and below. Above 300 mph one peculiarity is a slight nose down trim change as you accelerate. This means that running in for an airshow above 300 mph the aeroplane has a slight tucking in sensation - a sort of desire to get down to ground level ! This is easily held on the stick or can be trimmed out but is slightly surprising initially. Maneuvering above 300, two hands can be required for more aggressive performance. EIther that or get on the trimmer to help you. Despite this heavying up it is still quite easy to get at 5G's at these speeds.

The rudder is effective and if medium feel up to 300. It becomes heavier above this speed but regardless the lack of rudder trim is not a problem for the type of operations we carry out with the aeroplane. Initial acceleration is rapid, particularly with nose down, up to about 320 mph. After that the '109 starts to become a little reluctant and you have to be fairly determined to get over 350-360 mph.

So how does the aeroplane compare with other contemporary fighters ? First, let me say that all my comments are based on operation below 10,000 feet and at power settings not exceeding +12 (54") and 2700 rpm. I like it as an aeroplane, and with familiarity I think it will give most of the allied fighters I have flown a hard time, particularly in a close, hard turning, slow speed dog-fight. It will definitely out-maneuver a P-51 in this type of flight, the roll rate and slow speed characteristics being much better. The Spitfire on the other hand is more of a problem for the '109 and I feel it is a superior close in fighter. Having said that the aircraft are sufficiently closely matched that pilot abilty would probably be the deciding factor. At higher speeds the P-51 is definitely superior, and provided the Mustang kept his energy up and refused to dogfight he would be relatively safe against the '109. Other factors affecting the '109 as a combat plane include the small cramped cockpit. This is quite a tiring working environment, although the view out (in flight) is better than you might expect; the profusion of canopy struts is not particularly a problem.

Charon

[GScholz]

MiloMorai, at least Isegrims insults are subtle. You seem to be a complete a-hole.

Isegrim, first Mark Hanna did not fly a Buchon in that test. He flew a 109J which is a prototype export early 109G6.



Secondly, you need to read posts more carefully. Gripen said "without" not "with".

Charon, "Above 250 mph however the roll starts to heavy up and up to 300 or so is very similar to a P-51. After that it's all getting pretty solid and you need two hands on the stick for any meaningfull roll rates." Which means that "meaningful" roll rates WERE possible at high speed using two hands, and that the controls were NOT "locked in concrete". Thank you.

[MiloMorai]

Originally posted by GScholz
MiloMorai, at least Isegrims insults are subtle. You seem to be a complete a-hole.

And it takes one to know one.

They are only subtle in the beginning, wait till he gets warmed up and calls someone a pedophile, which he has done.

........

What is a "meaniful" roll rate?

[GScholz]

On second thought, you seem to be a child.