More 109 goodness

[Virage]

http://www.aeroscientists.org/aircraft.html

[hogenbor]

Nice.

Seems a bit 109 biased though. Some statements do not correspond with what I've read in interviews and books and on this forum.  I do think the 109 was a pretty good fighter though.

Kind regards,

Ronald

[Kurfürst]

Yep, its a bit one sided, though not as much as the Mike Williams fictions. What I liked about the site is that it gives the reasons ho Willy Messerschmitt could build an airplane that was small in dimension etc with little drag, yet by using advanced aerodynamic devices, it could still be highly manouverable.

[MiloMorai]

Personal attack

[BUG_EAF322]

The spit couldnt do negative turns until 1943

and more crap

[Angus]

Negative G's are the only way to win a dogfight.

[thrila]

I wonder why the RAF/LW losses weren't listed for '40....

[HoHun]

Hi Virage,

>http://www.aeroscientists.org/aircraft.html

Hm, I'd not use that as a reference.

While the Clmax for each aircraft matches the weight, wing area and stall speed given in the table, it has to be power-on, flaps-down Clmax that is not directly related to manoevrability.

The turn rate is mostly determined by the power-off, flaps-up Clmax, which is considerably lower than the values quoted in the table.

For example, I consider 1.48 for the Me 109 and 1.22 for the Spitfire as realistic, based on the material I have found. I haven't seen good data for the P-51, but it might be around 1.2, too.

That's a 21% advantage for the Me 109 (not almost 100% as you'd believe from the quoted site), and the Spitfire's 40% larger wing makes more than up for that.

(Of course, it's possible to turn at lower speeds with flaps down, and the Me 109 due to its slats and camber-changing flaps might actually gain more by dropping flaps than the Spitfire with its relatively ineffective split flaps. That's the extreme edge of the envelope, though.)

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

[Karnak]

From the site in question:
The performance of the Me 109 and the Spitfire is almost the same. However, the Spitfire had an average 25-20%C plain aileron  with little aerodynamic balance which, despite differential control, gave it a very heavy stick force in roll compared to the light stick force of the Me 109. With a 50% span and narrow  chord, Frise, aileron, the Me109 stick forces were very low in roll.  It could do a complete roll in less than 3 seconds. This was much quicker than any Allied fighter. The Me109 was more evasive than  the Spitfire or the P-51 which were slow  in roll and much less agile.  

Where can I get some of whatever they are smoking?

The Spitfire Mk I and Mk II and the Bf109E series were very comparable in roll, both in rate and stick forces.  The Spitfire Mk V and up was markedly superior in roll to the Bf109 series.  The P-51 series was markedly superior in roll to the Spitfire series.

I think they've combined the best traits of all the German fighters into one super fighter, called it a 109, and proceeded to compare it to the Allied fighters.

I also noted that their fansite lists the Bf109G, in 1941, at 413mph.

Linking to delusional fansites does not make for a good argument.

[GRUNHERZ]

Arant spitfire flapsbessientaly one position airbrakes? They come down almost 90 degress...

[GRUNHERZ]

Originally posted by Karnak


I also noted that their fansite lists the Bf109G, in 1941, at 413mph.

Linking to delusional fansites does not make for a good argument.

The site is quite over the top, but the Bf109G from early 42 was capable of such speeds. Even 109F was a 410mph fighter in reality.

[Karnak]

Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Arant spitfire flapsbessientaly one position airbrakes? They come down almost 90 degress...

Yes.  What does this have to do with the article though?  Flaps, contrary to what AH and IL-2 would have people believe, are not a primary flight control.


Regarding the Bf109F, I've seen that claim, but I do not believe it.  Too many things happened in the war that would not have had the Bf109F been a 410mph fighter.  Unless I see some very hard proof of that, I'll continue to chalk it up to more Luftwaffefanboism.

[GRUNHERZ]

Why does it have to do with the article? I was just asking the question..

Yep, the flight tests that show those 410mph early 109G and 109F were just lies made for LW fanbois to gloat over 60 years hence...

And it's not hard to belive at all, the worst possible data for a pudgy Bf109G6 shows 390mph. A G2 is much cleaner, an F4 even more so. I have also seen several other sources showing 408mph for the G2 clean.

And why would that be so unbelible to youthat a summer 1942 Bf109 is able to do 410mph? Maybe a case of Spitfire 9 fanboism that doesnt dare admit thew possibilirty that the current Bf109s were just as fast or faster?

And really few things would have changed the war outcome - a 109 being 10mph faster than the incorrect sterotype is certainy not one of them.

[HoHun]

Hi Karnak,

>Regarding the Bf109F, I've seen that claim, but I do not believe it.  Too many things happened in the war that would not have had the Bf109F been a 410mph fighter.  Unless I see some very hard proof of that, I'll continue to chalk it up to more Luftwaffefanboism.

Hm, have a look at

http://www.beim-zeugmeister.de/zeugmeister/index.php?id=21&L=1

It's documented pretty well there.

Some of the data sheets are independendly available here:

http://www.lanpartyworld.com/ww2/files/109f/109f.html

Speeds around 660 km/h are about what one should expect from mounting an engine in the class of the DB601E on the sleek Friedrich airframe.

Here's a calculation I prepared in December, based on the Zeugmeister site:

http://hometown.aol.de/HoHunKhan/Me109FTopSpeed.gif

Note that in contradicton to my comment on 1.30 ata/2500 rpm, the keeper of the Zeugmeister site has recently uploaded a manual page dated 24.2.1941 showing 1.42 ata/2700 rpm as emergency power:

http://www.beim-zeugmeister.de/zeugmeister/index.php?id=38&L=1

This higher power setting is not indicated on my graph, but of course it would further boost the speed.

I don't believe there's any good technical reason to doubt the 410 mph figure.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

[Karnak]

GRUNHERZ,

Sorry, but if the Bf109F could do 410mph we're not looking at a mid 1942 fighter, we're looking at an early 1941 fighter.

Also, this has naught to do with the "Spitfire Mk anything".  I couldn't care less if the Bf109F was faster than a Spitfire F.24.


If the Bf109F was capable of 410mph, why did it not have absolute dominance over the Spitfire Mk V?  I know that it was faster and climbed better, but the margin was not that large.  If the Bf109F was a 410mph fighter the introduction of the Fw190A would not have been the shock to the RAF fighter pilots who suddenly faced a fighter that could disengage at will.  If the Bf109F was a 410mph fighter the RAF fighter pilot's morale would have plummeted when facing it, not only when the Fw190A appeared.  Instead the RAF fighter pilots were confident in the Spitfire Mk V's ability to meet the Bf109F on equal footing (personally I think they were being a tad optimistic), but they did not feel this way about the Fw190A which is functionally, when compared to the Spitfire Mk V, not significatly faster than a 410mph Bf109F.  If the Bf109F was a 410mph fighter the photorecon Mosquito PR.Mk IV would have been unable to run from them, yet it did so on numerous occasions, instilling in it's aircrews a confidence in their aircraft that they had lacked prior to it's introduction.  This included outrunning Bf109s that were first noticed co-alt and closing from astern, yet the 380mph Mosquito PR.Mk IV was able to accelerate and escape from the Bf109 on numerous encounters.  A 30mph advantage should have easily overcome any chance that a unarmed PR.Mk IV could have escaped.

I'm sorry, but the historical record of events does not back up a in service 410mph Bf109F.