restored Messerschmitt Bf 109 E4 WN 3579

[gripen]

Isegrim,
Why don't read what I replied when Niklas argued about that data? These things are quite simple if you know what are talking about. The instrumented data set from DVL gives curves for roll performance at 3km, speed is given in TAS (km/h), roll rate in radians/s and stick forces in kg. So to get roughly comparable data with NACA and RAE reports speed must be converted to IAS (mph), radians to deg/s and stick forces to lbs. These calculations are all I made and Niklas just did not understood that speed must be converted to IAS (as you might noted he did not continue...). Perhaps you can ask Niklas if I have made errors, he has this report.

About your G-2/trop data it should be noted that this anecdotal measurement does not give altitude nor tell is the speed in TAS or IAS. So lets quess that Mr. Southwood really measured stick forces somehow (quite difficult without special instruments) and altitude was say 6000m and speed is TAS. At 6000m 460km/h TAS is about 340km/h IAS (about 210mph IAS). Given that we know that (DVL report also supports this) ailerons of the Bf 109 lightened at high altitude there is not much difference between DVL data (just check the data set)  

And Mr. Hanna (anecdotal again) does not mention is the speed TAS or IAS nor altitude (again).

At least my copy of capt. Kokko's report ( Finnish test report on Bf 109G-2) does not contain aileron stick force measurements. And again you or your source don't tell is speed TAS or IAS nor altitude (again). Actually I believe you source is "Lentäjän Näkökulma II" which does not tell is the speed IAS or TAS nor altitude (again).

And I have not stated "later models with Flettner tabs were not much different". Please, read my post again (hint: there is word "out" somewhere).

And I have that German calculation on microfilm and as "buch" noted, it's just a calculation and actually it contain clear error on 360deg roll calculation part.

That data you got from LEMB (I quess you have not actually seen the report) is a bit different beacause now we have speed in TAS and mach number. If TAS is 770km/h and mach number 0,75 then altitude must be around 10000m (actually there appears to be an error because then mach 1 is 1027km/h?). Again we must convert TAS to IAS and 770km/h TAS is roughly 465km/h IAS (290mph IAS; this is very unaccurate because we don't know conditions). Actually DVL data indicates that higher than 2/3 deflection should be possible at 290mph IAS.

gripen

[F4UDOA]

Just in case someone should manage to repeat the question of where my "locked in concrete" statement came from.

Here is the entire link to the Kit Carson Best of breed comments on the 109.

Best of Breed

Here is the excerpt I was qouting from. He actually said "set in a bucket of cement". My bad, I guess I will have to plead guilty here.

A series of mock dogfights were conducted by the British in addition to the flight test and the following was revealed:

If the airplane was trimmed for level flight, a heavy push on the stick was needed to hold it in a dive at 400 mph. If it was trimmed into the dive, recovery was difficult unless the trim wheel was wound back, due to the excessive heaviness of the elevator forces.

Ailerons

At low speeds, the ailerons control was good, response brisk. As speed increased the ailerons became too heavy but the response was good up to 200 mph and 300 mph they became "unpleasant". Over 300 mph they became impossible. At 400 mph the stick felt like it was set in a bucket of cement. A pilot exerting all his strength could not apply more than one fifth aileron at 400 mph; that's 5 degrees up and 3 degrees down. The aileron situation at high combat speeds might be summarized in the following way:

   (1) Due to the cramped cockpit a pilot could only apply about 40 pounds side force on
        the stick as compared to 60 pounds or more possible if he had more elbow room.

   (2) Messerschmitt also penalized the pilot by designing in an unsually small stick top            travel of plus or minus 4 inches, giving very poor mechanical advantage between pilot         and aileron.

   (3) 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.

Elevator

This was a good control at slow speeds but became too heavy above 250 mph and at 400 mph it became so heavy that maneurverability became seriously restricted. When diving at 400 mph a pilot, pulling very hard could not pull enough "g" force to to black himself out. The stick force per "g" was an excess of 20 pounds in a high speed dive. To black out, as a limit to the human factor in high speed maneuvers, would require over 100 pounds pull on the stick.

Rudder

At low speeds the rudder was light but sluggish in response. At 200 mph the suggishness disappears, at 300 mph the absense of trim control in the cockpit became an acute problem. The pilot's leg force on the port rudder above 300 mph to prevent sideslip became excessive and unacceptable.

Control Harmony

At low speed, below 250 mph, control harmony was good, only a little spoiled by the suggishness of the rudder. At higher speeds the aileron and elevator forces were so high that the word "harmony" is inappropriate.

Aerobatics

Not easy to do. Loops had to be started from about 280 mph when the elevator forces were getting unduly heavy; there was also a tendency for the wing slats to bang open the top of the loop, resulting in aileron snatch and loss of direction.

Below 250 mph the airplane would roll quickly but there was a strong tendency for the nose to fall through the horizon in the last half of the roll and the stick had to be moved well back to keep the nose up.

Upward rolls were difficult, again because of elevator heaviness at the required starting speed. Due to this, only a moderate pull out from a dive to build up speed was possible and considerable speed was lost before the upward roll could be started.

The very bad maneuverability at high speed of the Me-109 quickly became known to the RAF pilots in 1940. On many occasions 109 pilots were led to self destruction when on the tail of a Hurricane or Spitfire at moderate or low altitudes. The RAF pilot would do a snappy half roll and "split ess" pull out, from say 3,000 feet. In the heat and confusion of the moment the 109 pilot would follow, only to discover that he didn't have enough altitude to recover due to his heavy elevator forces and go straight into the ground or the Channel without a shot being fired.

[Puck]

Originally posted by Ike 2K#
did you try to block the swastika

That's off a .de page; and Nazi symbols are (still) illegal in Germany.

My apologies for not throwing mud, but personally I think it's a pretty plane at any speed or roll rate...

[MiloMorai]

Scholzy, every time I see your name I am reminded of the fat comical German in Hogan's Heros.

Now, what is a 'meaningful' roll rate or are to taking gum flappin lessons from Barbi?.

[Guppy35]

Originally posted by GScholz


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

 

Not gonna argue flight test data with you GScholz, but will question the 109J export G6 bit.  The "109" in your photo is a converted Buchon owned by the Messerschmitt  Foundation in Germany.  Are you sure this is the bird Mark Hanna flew?

Mark Hanna ended up dying in the crash of the OFMC Buchon a couple years ago.

Charles Church's Spits are mentioned.  He also owned a Buchon at one point that is now in the US.  Mark Hanna may have had time in that one.

The former Hans Ditte "109G10" is also a converted Buchon.  Mark Hanna had some time in this bird too I believe during 95-96 when they operated the aircraft in England.  I don't know that he had any time in the one you picture as that one has spent more time on the ground than in the air, having had more then it's share of accidents.

The only real 109, prior to the David Price 109E was the well known Black 6 109G2 that also crashed a few years back and is now static at the RAF Museum.  I don't believe Hanna flew that one either.

So for folks to say Mark Hanna was flying a Buchon is accurate as more then likely it is the one he died in or the converted Buchon of Hans Ditte in 95-96

Dan/Slack

[Guppy35]

Found an interesting article about flying Black 6, the 109G2 that is now static at the RAF Museum.  It was written by David Southwind, who did much of the display flying in Black 6

Regarding rolls:

"Roll performance is slow and similar to a Hurricane or elliptical wing tipped Spitfire, a full stick roll through 360 degrees at 286mph(460kph) taking 4 to 4.5 seconds if rudder coordination is not used.  At lower speeds the rate of roll is markedly less when rolling to the right unless very careful rudder inputs are made.  Therefore I generally fly rolls to the left."

Does this mean the 109E rolled better then later 109s, or is this contradictory to Charlie Brown's experience with the 109E?


Quoting him again  "In summary Black 6 is a demanding aircraft to fly.  The workload is high trying to keep straight on take-off and landing and there is a lot of footwork needed in flight to keep the slipball central.  It is an aeroplane that needs to be treated with a great deal of respect."

Dan/Slack

[gripen]

The problem with these "restored" warbirds is that most of them are more like complete rebuilt ie the original plane has been used mostly as model for rebuilding (some parts might be actually redesigned). This is specially true when talking about wrecks like this Bf 109E and other good examples are those P-40s from Russia.  Therefore it's not allways good idea to draw cocnlusions about original planes based on these almost new built planes. It should be also noted that current warbirds rarely contain all equipment of the original (guns, armour, self sealing tanks etc.).

gripen

[VO101_Isegrim]

Originally posted by F4UDOA

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.

  `Kay, why not ask Butch or Neil ? After all, I had very good discussions with them, both are capable of discussing things in detail in an intelligent manner, and I can learn a lot from both of them, unlike from you...
BTW, just in case if anyone interested, I am "propaganda" according to poor F4U ever since we had a discussion on AAW forums, which started to be friendly one, until F4U came up as usual with the bull about locked in cement concrete, slapped into history, nonexistent roll rate at high speed. Then I corrected him showing qoutes from Mark Hanna, Dave Southwood.  He couldn`t stand corrected, and so he went increasingly hysterical, using the phrases he does now and other times, propaganda, nazi etc., and asked me to show him a roll rate document. I did, and this made him completely mad, and ever since he has allergic reactions to 109s and me, from which all of these boards suffer.

So no mate, I am not a poison, it`s that you`re the cancer, and I am the cure.

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.

LOL, again. You have been asking me answer here? Funny I can`t recall that, nor could other, I can only remember your posts look like a raptured septic tank, unless you refer to our previous discussion. Just to brush your mind, You were claiming in your usual frenzy that the K-4`s performance was limited by the amount of "C-3" it carried ... Perhaps it was then when you asked how much "C-3" it carried, and I answered 400 liters... since as usual, you did not have the slightest idea about what you claimed, as C-3 is simply aviation fuel  ...  But you wouldn`t be F4U if you would just simply admitted you were wrong, no, you HAD TO prove that everyone else must be an *ss if he disagrees with you.

But let`s see his reactions :

http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=100221&perpage=50&pagenumber=6

"Isegirl"

"By the way C-3 is only 96 octane anyway. Who cares whats in it. "

" It shows fuel consumption on the other pages. I only posted it to show your nimrod butt buddy that I had something he doesn't obviously. "

"BTW Isagirl is the one who wants to play "guess whats in the fuel". I could care less as I said before. By 1945 the allies were using 150 octane so why should I care if 109's had 96 octane fuel?"

"Actually I have posted more real data on these webpages than you dweebs combined. "

Note : This one must be his favourite idea, The Great F4U Posts More Data Than Anyobody Else.

"I always find it amusing when Luftwaffles talk about civility"

"I still don't care what's in C-3."  

Well I guess anyone can make up his mind about wheter it`s worths to listen to F4U`s accusations about propaganda, bias and insults... I certainly won`t, if needed, there are the mods to deal with flamers.

[VO101_Isegrim]

Originally posted by MiloMorai

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

When did I called anyone a pedophile, Liar ? You are so pathethic with your lies about others, all you have did on this thread is making up ugly stories about others. You are a child, others got it right.

[VO101_Isegrim]

Originally posted by gripen
Isegrim,
Why don't read what I replied when Niklas argued about that data? These things are quite simple if you know what are talking about. The instrumented data set from DVL gives curves for roll performance at 3km, speed is given in TAS (km/h), roll rate in radians/s and stick forces in kg. So to get roughly comparable data with NACA and RAE reports speed must be converted to IAS (mph), radians to deg/s and stick forces to lbs. These calculations are all I made and Niklas just did not understood that speed must be converted to IAS (as you might noted he did not continue...). Perhaps you can ask Niklas if I have made errors, he has this report. [/qoute]


Why ask him again, Gripen? He said it already that you got it wrong... AFAIK, he`s a trained engineer in aerodynamics, and usually knows what he talks about.

About your G-2/trop data it should be noted that this anecdotal measurement does not give altitude nor tell is the speed in TAS or IAS. So lets quess that Mr. Southwood really measured stick forces somehow (quite difficult without special instruments) and altitude was say 6000m and speed is TAS. At 6000m 460km/h TAS is about 340km/h IAS (about 210mph IAS). Given that we know that (DVL report also supports this) ailerons of the Bf 109 lightened at high altitude there is not much difference between DVL data (just check the data set)  

OK, so in brief, you say to ignore the dataset that doesn`t agrees with you, or, alternatively, modify it`s circumstances until it matches your version ? Sorry, that`s very cheap.


And Mr. Hanna (anecdotal again) does not mention is the speed TAS or IAS nor altitude (again).

Okay, so let`s ignore it again, as it again does not match your data...

BTW, he mentions the circumstances, which can rule out most of the variations :

"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.

But then again, the core is that he mentions that the plane at 300mph is comparable to the Mustang (which is around 90 deg/sec), and managable with one hand. The latter would imply about 20-25 lbs stickforce, ie. the force a mature man can convinently apply to the sideways in a similiar sitting position with hands low.

Of course that means that the pilot can use more force on the stick, and as it goes heavier beyond 300mph, he can still deflect them for a time, which means the roll rate does not drop immidiately over 300mph.



At least my copy of capt. Kokko's report ( Finnish test report on Bf 109G-2) does not contain aileron stick force measurements. And again you or your source don't tell is speed TAS or IAS nor altitude (again). Actually I believe you source is "Lentäjän Näkökulma II" which does not tell is the speed IAS or TAS nor altitude (again).

So it doesn`t agree, ignore it again, right ?

And I have not stated "later models with Flettner tabs were not much different". Please, read my post again (hint: there is word "out" somewhere).

Sorry I misread that.


And I have that German calculation on microfilm and as "buch" noted, it's just a calculation and actually it contain clear error on 360deg roll calculation part.

Perhaps you can expand on that "clear error" ?

That data you got from LEMB (I quess you have not actually seen the report) is a bit different beacause now we have speed in TAS and mach number. If TAS is 770km/h and mach number 0,75 then altitude must be around 10000m (actually there appears to be an error because then mach 1 is 1027km/h?). Again we must convert TAS to IAS and 770km/h TAS is roughly 465km/h IAS (290mph IAS; this is very unaccurate because we don't know conditions). Actually DVL data indicates that higher than 2/3 deflection should be possible at 290mph IAS.

You do the same as with the case before, modifing the numbers until they would match your arguement. You put the altitude into great heights, because otherwise you couldn`t arrive at low enough IAS numbers; the high ones doesn`t fit you. First I am not sure wheter those numbers are IAS or TAS, they could easily be IAS as well, which would mean the altitude can be just as well 5000m or so - you seem to forget that Mach number varies with temperature as well. This would ruin your whole hypothesis.

To summarize, what I seen here was that you used a roll rate test at given numbers, but instead of simply giving the original results, you started to convert them on your own way, which is said to be wrong by a trained aerodynamics engineer, and your results do not agree with the tellings of Mark Hanna, Dave Southwood, and neither they match the 109F calcs Butch has qouted, nor the results of Finnish tests... basically nothing and nobody agrees with your numbers, yet you want to IGNORE ALL OF THESE, and claim that only your numbers are correct. Why the complication, why not just post the original results of the DVL tests, why the need to show something else all the time, which is, anyway we look at it, is YOUR, already questioned data, not DVL`s ? Those would be certainly more believable.

[GScholz]

Originally posted by Guppy35
Not gonna argue flight test data with you GScholz, but will question the 109J export G6 bit.  The "109" in your photo is a converted Buchon owned by the Messerschmitt  Foundation in Germany.  Are you sure this is the bird Mark Hanna flew?

This is the title of the artice posted earlier.

"Mark Hanna of the Old Flying Machine Company relates his experiences flying the OFMC Messerschmitt Bf 109J (export version to Spain)."


And from bf109.com evolution table:

Bf 109J - Proposed Spanish licence-built version; not proceeded with.

I do not know the details though.

[Guppy35]

GScholz,

The OFMC was a Merlin engined HA-1112MIL, a veteran of the Battle of Britain Movie, Piece of Cake, and Memphis Belle.  It is also the plane that Mark Hanna died in.

Photo is of that bird.  Someone was taking some creative license when they called it a 109J for that article

Dan/Slack

[Guppy35]

Originally posted by gripen
The problem with these "restored" warbirds is that most of them are more like complete rebuilt ie the original plane has been used mostly as model for rebuilding (some parts might be actually redesigned). This is specially true when talking about wrecks like this Bf 109E and other good examples are those P-40s from Russia.  Therefore it's not allways good idea to draw cocnlusions about original planes based on these almost new built planes. It should be also noted that current warbirds rarely contain all equipment of the original (guns, armour, self sealing tanks etc.).

gripen

I'd agree with that, which to me gives the Black 6 article some credibility as it wasn't a rebuilt wreck and was about as original as it was going to get in this day and age, at least prior to the crash that grounded it.

Dan/Slack

[GScholz]

Well, this is the picture used in the article, and Mark Hanna wrote it himself. However a mistake may have been made by the bf109 webhost.

Btw. How did Mark Hanna die?

Edit: NM, he burned. What a horrible way to go. Was the 109 a total loss?

[Guppy35]

Originally posted by GScholz


Well, this is the picture used in the article, and Mark Hanna wrote it himself. However a mistake may have been made by the bf109 webhost.

Btw. How did Mark Hanna die?

Edit: NM, he burned. What a horrible way to go. Was the 109 a total loss?

There's some debate as to how much of the Buchon/109 wreckage remains.  Some sources say it was all scrapped, but considering the 'dataplate' restorations done these days, it's possible it may reappear in some form.

Dan/Slack