109 and compression!!!

[Toad]

"did not"
"did too"
"did not!"
"did too!"

<g>

Ever wonder why they went to hydraulically boosted flight controls?

To stop arguments like these, probably ! ;-)

[Captain Krunch]

Not me Toad! <g>

I'm the first one to admit that I'm not on solid ground.  Not a one of us has any real experience so we end up getting our knowledge from books and The History Channel.  PLEASE!!! Some of the errors we've all seen a million times are obvious (109G-6 tops out at 386 MPH) but there are probably a zillion others we'd never spot.  I don't think we'll really know the truth until we build a time machine.  Until then we will just have to do our best, hehehe.

[Toad]

I think you can trust the basic numbers in the aircraft flight manual. While I've only flown (and owned) a few differnt US WWII trainers, I've found they perform very closely to what "the book" says they will do.

Of course, these trainers were "stock"...pretty much the way they were initially designed and came out of the factory.

The actual fighters and bombers underwent continual changes on the production line and in the field to improve the performance over the initial design specs.

My father was a 345th Air Apache and the tales he tells of modifying B-25 C's, G's and H's in the field are both interesting and amusing. (He nearly stalled a -C that had 8 .50's in the nose and 4 more in blisters on the side of the cockpit by holding the gun button down too long while strafing an airfield. You'll never find that info in the manual <g> ).

Still, if all the aircraft were modeled according to the AFM issued to the pilots who had to fly them, we'd have a reasonably "level playing field". I don't think anyone lied to their pilots about what the hardware would do...it wouldn't pay off in the end.

I'm just happy to have something that I can "fly" that feels OK without paying $600,000 and without using 50 gallons an hour!! LOL!

[Kats]

 

Some of the errors we've all seen a million times are obvious (109G-6 tops out at 386 MPH)

Hmmmm, how fast does a 109g-6 with MW50 go at 22,000 ft?

Sometimes things assumed to be errors are actually correct.
 

------------------

[Captain Krunch]

Kats, I only have nanoseconds to respond but...

109G-6 has a top speed of 386mph at 22,640 with MW50 engaged.  If you consider that the MW50 is improving top speed by around 5 to 10% you are talking about a plane that normally tops out at 347 to 365 MPH.  That's roughly equivalant to a 1940 109D/E and much slower than a 109F.  

The first thing you'll read about the G versus F version is that Messerschmidt sacrificed maneuverability for top speed.  When you look at the MAJOR horsepower to weight improvement the G-6 offers over the F you can see those guys weren't kidding.  Not only does the G have an extra 350HP, but it has a nearly 20 percent better horsepower to weight ratio than the F.  However according to every history book you'll ever see it was all for naught.  The G is actually slower than the F.... not to mention it can't maneuver as well either.  Not exactly a compromise if you ask me.  I don't buy it.  It probably did go 386 MPH at 22,000 feet but that's without MW50 engaged.  


According to popular history every single 109 produced during it's 7 year run (?)including all G models was fast.... except one.... the G-6.

[funked]

Read this: http://members.aol.com/bf109gust/webhtmls/flying.html

[-ik-]

oh dear, oh dear, oh dear.

captain crunch, let me divulge a little information to you my friend.   MW 50 was a boosting substance used below the rated altitude of the DB 605A. Thus at 22,000ft, it was pointless to engage it. A 109G-6 with MW 50 and a 109G-6 without MW 50 would have the same maximum true air speed. MW 50 only boosted speeds at lower altitudes, for instance the 109G did 317mph on the deck without MW 50, 340mph with.

For high altitude work, GM-1 boost was used if available. The top speed for a 109G with GM-1 boost was 406mph at 27k ft.

------------------

[Teapot]

Umm ... anyone notice that the 109 modelled is in fact a G -10?
Jane's WWII aircraft state that the G-10 was the fastest of the G series at its operational height ... I've also noticed that it doesn't compress that quickly now ... or is that my imagination?

Cheers
Teapot

[Drum]

  I've read where some 109 Experten trimmed the rudder so that in normal cruising atitude and speed they were forced to push forword on the stick to maintain level flight.  At higher speeds this helped remove the mash in the 109's stick.  It works in WBs as well, not sure about here yet as I can't get the game too load.

  The game must not like TNT graphics???


[This message has been edited by Drum (edited 10-17-1999).]

[Kraut]

Mthinks it was the elev. they trimmed. There was no rudder trim from cockpit. Also in an article by Martin Caidin, he mentioned that both sides who flew the 109E, were unanimous that above 400 moving ailerons & elev. demanded extra ordinary strength & rolling manoeuvers were beyond the average pilot.
FWIW,
Good Hunting!

[Captain Krunch]

-ik-

No need to get snooty about WW2 popular history.  90% of the readers on this list are WW2 adicts that understand MW50...  including myself.  

[fats]

There seems to be awful lot of confusion about the Bf 109 trims so here goes. The in-flight adjustable rudder trim became available with G-6 as some of them received the larger rudder ( straight rudder hinge line ). Which was also found on some G-14 and G-10 and was standard by the time of K-4.


//fats

[Sink]

fats

Are you certain about the rudder trim?  I seem to have read somewhere that the tab was a balance tab to reduce rudder control forces. In all the drawings that I could find, there seem to be 2 fixed tabs above and below the balance tab for rudder trim. Are you talking about a different version of the rudder?

[aircat]

 ok I'm NO EXPERT.... now that out of the way.. 2 cases of friends letting me in on info... first case is my brother inlaw he was a tank commander in a abrams (M1-a?) anyway.. he said dont beleave a damn thing they state in the tech manuals... they have pushed and passed just about everything in there.. namely speed... its list at 45 mph or something like that... he was telling me about doing speeds near 70 and was not on exactly what youd call level ground... another of my friends tells me that in training dont beleave the manuals cause the people who build them put up low #s to keep expectations down and then when they test them they are more easily WOW'ed... and also another thing thats told to them... you can trust but dont swear your life on your eqipment as you need to remember its made by the lowest bidder. <just a few things to chew on>

[Captain Krunch]

I'm with you Aircat.

Every time an organization (military, governmental or civilian) opens it's mouth it's usually misrepresenting the truth.... sometimes on purpose, sometimes on accident.  I'd bet that 90% or MORE of the numbers that we base ww2 reality on are either incomplete, misleading, erroneous or lies.  Screwed up information isn't an aberation, it's the status quo... ever watch the news or read a newspaper? <g>  

There is an old saying that goes, "nothing is ever as good or as bad as you expect it to be."

I think this applies to WW2 fighter aircraft in a huge way.  The 109 gets bagged on as an outdated ride.  Maybe it was....  I don't know.  All I really know is that in average hands it could rack up record kills during any phase of the war and on any front.  When it came to factors that mattered in real air combat it certainly had what it took.  What are those factors?  Other than top speed I have no idea.  Every standard model of 109 was fast, sometimes the fastest plane in the air.  Oh yes <g>, except for one model, the 109G-6.  The same G-6 that has the most improved power loading (relative to it's predacessor) of ANY 109 model.  In fact it's not even close, the power loading almost shoots off the chart compared to the F.