Author Topic: 109 it fly wrong  (Read 15232 times)

Offline MiloMorai

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6864
109 it fly wrong
« Reply #15 on: May 08, 2004, 04:21:58 PM »
Staga can I try yours?:D:D:D:D

Offline Straiga

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 205
109 it fly wrong
« Reply #16 on: May 08, 2004, 05:16:41 PM »
Im sure that LW pilot or any other pilot in the heat of battle sat in the cockpit trimming the airplane to make it fly straight. In the pitch attitude if it was trim in and around combat manuvering speed that would be good enough. Rudder trim was about the same way when rolling left or right giving equal leg work out. But aileron deflection during straight level flight shoundnt be there.
  Airplanes are rigged to fly in equalibrium, just for talk lets say a plane is at fast cruise, the ailerons should be neutral because remember the plane is rigged to do so, and rudder can keep the wings level. Elevator trim to nose down from a center postion, because at fast speed the main wing creates a lot of lift and from preventing the airplane from climbing you need to trim nose downor just hold forward pressure on the stick, now you right hand will get a work out. Rudder trim should be to the right the P-51 on take off alone needs trim set to 7 degrees to the right thats alot. Yes planes do have fixed trim tabs can you can adjust on the ground todays airplane still have them.
 Now we have a plane in equalibrium its not increasing or decreasing speeds, its not climbing or desending, and its not rolling. Its in equalibrium. If we increase power the plane will accelerate in crease thrust over drag, you get a roll moment from increase torgue a little can take care of that because of the way the plane is rigged to fly, and you need more down pitch trim because of an increase speed (more lift). Ailerons are neutral still.
 Now the airplane can not increase any more speed so drag equals thrust again, rudder is decreased because torgue has decreased, and elevator trim set for new airspeed change, and the airplane is equalibrium again.

 My concern is when an airspeed change takes place in the AH planes you have to keep trimming aileron to keep wings level. If you have a plane in equalibrium and pitch the nose over with out power change why does the airplane roll due to increase of airspeed. Im sorry this is wrong. Every airplane I have ever flown for a living, I dont have to trim aileron or have to fight a rolling moment in the plane to keep wings level. because the airplane is rigged to fly that way. I can pitch the nose over increase alot of airspeed and for some reason the wings stay level, what no roll momet. When a combat pilot has to constantly change aileron trim so he doesnt have to fight the airplane from trying to roll on him all the time he will lose the fight. If the plane had a roll tendancy aileron trim should be neutral anyway and the force for aileron responce can be handeled with little aileron stick force.   Not all airplanes have aileron trim, because the airplane is very stable in the roll moment and trim is not nesassary.
 Aileron trim or aileron force is very little used in every day flying, except for unbalanced fuel loads between one wing to another, or one bombs still on one wing and you have to fly with it for awhile, or s lost engine on a mutli-eng airplane,  but you have to use rudder for increase yaw moment in all these applications too.
 The way AH uses aileron trim is incorrect. Cant we get a plane that you can dive on some one without the plane trying to go were you dont want it to go. Frankly the 262, p-38, me-163 in AH fly like any of the single engine prop airplanes I have flown in the real life and all AH planes should to. Airplane are so easy to fly in all three axises, that trim is not nessassary except for elevator trim and may be a little rudder too.

 Later Guys

Offline Staga

  • Parolee
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5334
      • http://www.nohomersclub.com/
109 it fly wrong
« Reply #17 on: May 08, 2004, 05:40:29 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by MiloMorai
Staga can I try yours?:D:D:D:D


I don't think Aspirin helps much in your case  :)

Offline VO101_Isegrim

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 577
109 it fly wrong
« Reply #18 on: May 09, 2004, 10:41:44 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Staga
I don't think Aspirin helps much in your case  :)



Maybe he should try rat poison? That would fix him.  :D

Offline Batz

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3470
      • http://bellsouthpwp.net/w/o/wotans/4JG53/
109 it fly wrong
« Reply #19 on: May 09, 2004, 03:36:36 PM »
lol

Offline Crumpp

  • Parolee
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3671
109 it fly wrong
« Reply #20 on: May 09, 2004, 04:00:09 PM »
The lack of rudder trim on the 109 WAS a problem.  Many Luft pilots did have the "fat" leg from pushing the rudder in constantly.

Here is Col. Kit Carson's comments:

"The absense of a rudder trim control in the cockpit was a bad feature at speeds above cruise  or in dives. Above 300 mph the pilot needed a very heavy foot on the port rudder pedal for trimmed flight with no sideslip which is absolutely essential for gunnery. The pilot's left leg quickly tired while keeping this load on, and this affected his ability to put on more left rudder for a turn at 300 mph or above. Consequently, at high speeds the 109 could turn far more readily to the right than to the left."


"Anyone who believes that he can satisfactorily demonstrate which WWII fighter was the "best" out of the whole bag that appeared from 1940 to 1945 is incredibly naive. There are so many performance variables and kinds of missions, that arguing them to all to a bedrock conclusion that would convince everyone is virtually impossible. There were a few generally acknowledged leaders, however, fighters which became household words the world over: the Spitfire, Mustang, Thunderbolt, Focke Wulf 190 all proved themselves in the crucible of war. The Me-262 was the first operational jet fighter and a dazzling achievement, years ahead of anything we had. But another household work, the highly propagandized Me-109G, was obsolete when it was built and was aerodynamically the most inefficient fighter of its time. It was a hopeless collection of lumps, bumps, stiff controls, and placed its pilot in a cramped, squarish cockpit with poor visibility."

Col "Kit" Carson was a P51 pilot in WWII And an aeronautical engineer.

Here is his comments on the FW-190:

"FW-190A

A superb airplane, every inch a fighter. It could do a half roll at cruising speed in one second. Taking this in conjunction with the airplane's high top speed and rate of climb one expected its pilots to exploit its high speed qualities to the fullest without staying in there to "mix it up" in a low speed, flaps down full throttle, gut wrenching dog fight.

They did. The 190 pilots had a good airplane and some good advice. Nearly all of my encounters with the 190 were at high speeds. On at least two occasions when I met them, in my Mustang started porposing, which means I was into compressibility, probably around 550 mph. I don't know what my air speed indicator was reading, I wasn't watching it.

On another occasion, I jumped one directly over the city of Paris and fired all my ammo, but he was only smoking heavily after a long chase over the town. Assuming I was getting 10 percent hits, that airplane must have had 200 holes in it. It was a rugged machine."


It took the 109G6 4 seconds to do a 45 degree roll at 440 IAS.....

Crumpp

Offline Straiga

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 205
109 it fly wrong
« Reply #21 on: May 09, 2004, 04:25:58 PM »
Crumpp,

 You got it right.

Offline HoHun

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2182
109 it fly wrong
« Reply #22 on: May 09, 2004, 04:55:59 PM »
Hi Crumpp,

>Col "Kit" Carson was a P51 pilot in WWII And an aeronautical engineer.

And he was biased to the point of no return.

Here's some nonsense from his article:

"The Spitfire was an aerodynamically clean airplane to start with, having a total drag coefficient of .021 at cruise. The Me-109 had a coefficient of .036; drag coefficiency and of the horsepower required to haul 'em around. Like golf scores, the lower the better, and no fudging.

Drag coefficient is the score for one hole, but total drag is the score for the entire course. Messerschmitt accepted a higher drag coefficient in favour of a smaller frontal area. That he was successful is evident from the observation that the Me 109 always achieved similar top speeds on similar engine power as the Spitfire.

If the Messerschmitt would have needed much greater power for the same top speed, it would have blown the Spitfire away at low speeds because the drag coefficient doesn't have much of an impact there. As you know, that didn't happen.

Quite obviously, Carson points to a secondary parameter (with great gesture) to make the Me 109 look bad. Either he's incompetent, or he's out to manipulate the reader.

Whether it's the one or the other, he's not a good source.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

Offline MiloMorai

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6864
109 it fly wrong
« Reply #23 on: May 09, 2004, 04:56:52 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by VO101_Isegrim
Maybe he should try rat poison? That would fix him.  :D


I doubt that since it has no effect on you, being your favorite medicine.:)

................

Crumpp, though we have had our differences in the past, that is ancient history. You have much more intelligence than the Nazi Germany luver, Barbi.

Thanks for the support, but I must warn you that Barbi(Isegrim) will be all over you for quoting the Nobody** Carson, as he has done to many others in the past. ** luftluver's word ;)

If you really get him wound up tell him that the LW was a spent force even as early, as say, 1944. This P-51 thread should prepare you. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/6/ubb.x?a=tpc&s=400102&f=63110913&m=953109383

This one is good as well  http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/6/ubb.x?q=Y&a=tpc&s=400102&f=23110283&m=77910535&p=1
Unfortunately the thread was locked and several pages of his posts were deleted and could not answer this statement by his bud Huckles "When measure the engine, don't forget to add the supercharger weight. A Merlin engine without its supercharger is a useless piece of scrap metal. Now compare the weights of superchargers. See the difference?
Also compare them in size with superchargers attached."
. What the German luvers fail to add is the extra weight associated with the 'boost juices' to give the high HP numbers of the DBs.:rolleyes: It should be noted that the sc weight was include in the weight of the Merlin. This is the sort of intelligence??? one has to contend with.

Just so you know were his nick Barbi comes from, it is from one of his nicks Barbarossa Isegrim.

Offline Staga

  • Parolee
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5334
      • http://www.nohomersclub.com/
109 it fly wrong
« Reply #24 on: May 09, 2004, 06:34:49 PM »
How about taking your personal problems to some other board and leave AH's "Aircraft and Vehicles" for, you guessed it, Aircraft and Vehicle discussion?

Oh and quoting Carson makes people look stupid :aok

Offline MiloMorai

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6864
109 it fly wrong
« Reply #25 on: May 09, 2004, 07:17:32 PM »
Staga, if you did not notice, it was Barbi that did the originating. Kindly direct you comments that way.:)

Oh, and the links provided were a/c discussions with cordial posts, except for those posts made by your hero.:)

Now tell me, what is wrong with warning Crummp what he is in for?

Have a nice evening.:aok

Offline Crumpp

  • Parolee
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3671
109 it fly wrong
« Reply #26 on: May 09, 2004, 08:12:45 PM »
I absolutely do not understand your fantasy that German planes were the end all in performance.  

Carson's conclusion's are valid.  They are HIS impressions and are based on his experience.  He is certainly much more qualified than ANYONE in this forum to comment on the flight characteristics of the 109.  

In fact I can find absolutely nothing that contradicts Willy Radinger, Woflgang Otto, Jochen Prien, Peter Rodeike, Eric Brown, Alfred Price, OR ANY authority or pilot of the 109.

Lack of rudder trim WAS a fault in the 109 design and it did cause problems for the pilots.  Any claim otherwise is sheer wishful thinking.  It certainly was not some grand teutonic scheme to make the plane more efficient nor was it an "unnecessary" luxury.  

If it was so great why does ADOLF GALLAND call it an obsolete design in 1943??

Reason Number 4, under the "Most Important Mistakes of the Luftwaffe as seen from the German Fighter Force" in the book "The Luftwaffe Force: A view from the Cockpit"
 

Quote
For this reason (production and development politics) the Me.109 was not taken out of series production for years, althought was absolutely necessary on the basis of performance figures from 1943 on.  Similarly the beginning of the new series of FW 190 and of the Tank 152 was so delayed as to be almost ineffective.


Crumpp

Offline Batz

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3470
      • http://bellsouthpwp.net/w/o/wotans/4JG53/
109 it fly wrong
« Reply #27 on: May 09, 2004, 11:05:58 PM »
Quote
Carson's conclusion's are valid. They are HIS impressions and are based on his experience.


What experience? He never flew a 109. He is also full crap.

If don't know this then thats your failing not anyone elses.

You see once you look at his "impression" in detail and compare that with known facts his opinion doesnt hold water.

Every 6 months someone ignorant of the 109 posts Carson as some sort of established authority. He is so wrong that as HoHun you have no choice except to believe he is purposely distorting the facts, the obvious conclusion is he hates the 109.

Thread on this forum and 100 others have went through and ripped his "impression" part.

Carson is just plain wrong...

Quote
Oh and quoting Carson makes people look stupid


That's a fact....

Offline GRUNHERZ

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 13413
109 it fly wrong
« Reply #28 on: May 09, 2004, 11:13:06 PM »
The Carson 109 article is incredibly flawed.

I remember reading the whole thing before and it really seems like has no practical experience about flying the Bf109.

In fact it particularly strikes me that he even seems to confuse various models of the Bf109 and mish mas all their features as if it made no difference - thats not a sign of expertese.

Offline HoHun

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2182
109 it fly wrong
« Reply #29 on: May 10, 2004, 03:10:40 AM »
Hi Crumpp,

>Carson's conclusion's are valid.  

Did the Me 109 fly rings around the Spitfire at low speed? If Carson were right, it would have done that.

>If it was so great why does ADOLF GALLAND call it an obsolete design in 1943??

You can find that in his "Die Ersten und die Letzten": Galland wasn't satisfied with performance parity, but he strived for technological superiority to counter the numerical superiority of the Allies.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)