Author Topic: 109G/la-5/7 and the slats (Read 7091 times)

lasersailor184 · « **Reply #15 on:** October 24, 2004, 05:37:02 PM »

So what are these slats supposed to do?

Staga · « **Reply #16 on:** October 24, 2004, 06:10:21 PM »

At higher AoA (angle of attack) wings tend to stall; when slat pops out it changes the wing profile little and also creates a slot from where air bleeds from wing's under surface to the upper surface and helps airflow to stay in contact to wing and not become turbulent, if it happend wing loses lift = wing stalls.

Waffle · « **Reply #17 on:** October 25, 2004, 03:39:03 AM »

From some things that I've read, the slats deploying at slower speeds and in turns, especially if they deployed at different times, made the 109s and 110s a little more unstable as a gun platform due to the uneven deployment. Basically, geting a target in sights, following it, then have a slat deploy - loose target sight and correct, sometime over correct...trying to regain target sighting.

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #18 on:** October 25, 2004, 04:04:58 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by GScholz
Angus, do you think that if the 109 pilots didn't like the slats and were wiring them shut, that Messerschmitt would have continued to incorporate the slats in 5 years of 109 designs from the E model to the K?

I don't think so.

Its 10 years, the slats were there the whole time.

KurfÃ¼rst · « **Reply #19 on:** October 25, 2004, 05:47:08 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Angus
Pretty much tells out loud what some of those old 109 pilots were saying, - that the slats were throwing them off their aim.
In a perfect world slats like these were of course wonderful, but is wasn't a perfect world you see.......

You keep beating a dead horse.

You keep claiming 109 pilots didnt like slats, but you failed to come up with ANY evidence. You keep pointing to several well known pilots, failing to support the claim with a quote and source from them.

As HoHun put it, you simply made up a problem that never existed in real life, and keep boxing the air, pulling out "evidence" from you magic hat, but none can see it.

Angus · « **Reply #20 on:** October 25, 2004, 07:15:00 AM »

HoHun and Izzy:

Look again, this is from an aerodynamic teaching book for professional pilots:
""Some aircraft are equipped with automatic slats. These are hinged in such a way that the press distribution at high A.o.A. pushes the slat forwards/downwards at high A.o.A.

That kind of automatic slat has to be very well balanced and glide easily to have the desired effect. A slightly damaged automatic slat may open at higher A.o.A. than the normal opening one. This will cause assymetrical lift and unacceptable roll disturbances at high A.o.A." "
ISBN can been seen if you scroll up.

The second thing was from Rall.
Straight from the Horses mouth:
"The 109 had slats which I didn't like"

If you want me to I can mail you his voice saying this, umm, and some other words you really would not like to hear.

But my point anyway, is that as my textbook gives, that if the slats were in insufficient condition, they could become a liability instead of an advantage.I have no problem with that.
The benefit from slats would be absolute if they could be kept in good condition at all times thereby.

I can dig something up, but this is authentic, I have given the source quotes and the ISBN. So stuff it Izzy

KurfÃ¼rst · « **Reply #21 on:** October 25, 2004, 07:39:10 AM »

Ok, keep beating it Angie. And of course, lets hear Rall saying this, you know my email, you can mail it right away - if it exists.

And the other things I may not like from the 3rd highest scoring Bf 109 pilot, oh, who happens to be the 3rd highest scoring fighter pilot, too. Only God knows if its a coincidence..

But the main thing still is:

ANGIE DIDNT FIND ANYTHING THAT WOULD SAY 109s HAD PROBLEMS BECAUSE OF THE LEADING EDGE SLATS. NOT ONE.

So stuff up the pitch fork you work with everyday, oh my brother suffering from an extreme case of 109-envy.

niklas · « **Reply #22 on:** October 25, 2004, 07:47:13 AM »

So you assume every 109 had damaged slats ? Maybe even delivered this way from the factory?

Slats alone don´t give you more lift. They allow higher AoA, that´s all. They prevent the wing tips to stall earlier than the inner part, thus the ailerons keep effective and the aircraft can be kept controlled while the inner part of the wing is already stalled.

Asymmetric opening could have been avoided by adjusting the ailerons. Beauvais mentioned it once , but they got the instructions late in Rechlin. Brithis pilots definitly didn´t know about it. The aileron snatch was fixed with the F afaik.

But of course this slat-feature was just there to be a nuisance for the pilots, the 109 did fly and land much better without them, and the slats over the whole wingspan for the 262 were of course just a consequence of the upcoming madness of Messerschmitt as we all know..

niklas

Angus · « **Reply #23 on:** October 25, 2004, 07:49:35 AM »

Ah, of course a 109 would be the only aircraft in the world with maintenance free and problem free slat system?

They must be teaching todays pro pilots a lot of nonsense I guess.

Ralls words are actually on video. I'll have to transfer it to tape somehow, or rather mp3.
Email as on these boards?

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #24 on:** October 25, 2004, 08:25:50 AM »

Angus you are trying to make up a problem where none existed. There were no chronic 109 slat problems reported, never. If some guys didnt like them so what?

MiloMorai · « **Reply #25 on:** October 25, 2004, 08:39:35 AM »

Angus, you should know better than never mention anything that shows the Me109 was anything but the ultimite fighter of WW2.

I see Barbi has re-registered with a new nick. Still his old self.

Angus · « **Reply #26 on:** October 25, 2004, 08:59:19 AM »

There were no special chronic slat problems for the 109.
They are universal, that's all.
They need to be maintained well, if not, they do not operate in the desired way.
That's where I belive the myth of snapping plane due to slats originates from. Not from the factory, nothing to do with the all-holy 109, just due to combat related maintenance problems.
Clear enough?

KurfÃ¼rst · « **Reply #27 on:** October 25, 2004, 09:05:38 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Angus
Ah, of course a 109 would be the only aircraft in the world with maintenance free and problem free slat system?

Email as on these boards?

Angie PRAY tell me WHAT can go wrong in freaking metal plate, that is attached to two rollers travelling on a rail(?), moving only if the air pressure on the metal plate is too low?!! NO MECHANICS involved! Wishful thinking I guess. The flight stick alone was 100 times that complex. A slat is a most simple device, developed on the tech level of WW1, effectively "maintained" and produced (what maintance does it require at all?) even in the Soviet low-tech enviroment, does that fact even remotely penetrated that thick skull of yours?

I just wonder WHY you are so stubbornly persist that there was a problem with them, when theres absolutely no evidence pointing to that...

Email, yep.

Angus · « **Reply #28 on:** October 25, 2004, 09:53:16 AM »

Your prayers are answered.
What can go wrong?
Well, the slats have to be very well balanced and glide easily to have the desired effect.

So, mud, ice, and lack of lube, dents, holes, rust and so on come to mind.

The LW had a hard time keeping their aircraft fully operable towards the end of the war, we all know that. So please don't get me wrong, the princip of the automatic slat is very good indeed aerodynamically. But if they don't work completely perfectly they become a liability.

I'll see what more I can find anyway.
(Something more proper)

Pongo · « **Reply #29 on:** October 25, 2004, 10:07:56 AM »

The slats on the first F86 where taken from a 262 according to World Airpower Journal.

I read one pilot that said the problem with slats was that many inexperianced pilots would feel the stall coming and let up, not forcing the turn a little more and deploying the slats. So they never knew how manuverable the 109 was.