Author Topic: 109F vrs the spit9 (Read 5131 times)

Batz · « **Reply #45 on:** August 23, 2003, 12:20:55 AM »

Go back agw and whine about their 190a4.

The spit isnt limited to just 5 min. Its 5 min then 10 cool down then 5 min again forever. The 109 is 10 on 10 off forever. So what fidelity are you talking about?

The ah spit nine boost at 100% throttle is 15, 18 with wep.

You can ride at 15 all day long.

So who cares if its just the 109 your complaining about.

Nashwan · « **Reply #46 on:** August 23, 2003, 05:47:01 AM »

Quote

The spit isnt limited to just 5 min. Its 5 min then 10 cool down then 5 min again forever.

Which matches the real life limits. Many pilots exceeded that of course.

Quote

The 109 is 10 on 10 off forever.

I believe it should be 3 mins WEP on the 109F. Of course, many pilots would exceed that too, but the 109 is modelled with more than 3 times it's real WEP time, the Spit with it's actual WEP time.

Quote

The ah spit nine boost at 100% throttle is 15, 18 with wep

The AH Spit IX boost gauge is wrong. The Spit IX in AH couldn't use 18lbs boost, and it isn't modelled with 18lbs boost. The 15lbs figure, ie non WEP in AH, matches the "normal" 12lbs rating in British tests, which could be used for 60 mins in real life.

The AH 18lbs rating matches the real life 15lbs rating.

In other words, the AH boost gauge reads 3 lbs too high. When it shows 15lbs, it's actually 12lbs, and you should be able to maintain that for 1 hr. When it reads 18lbs, it's actually 15lbs, and that had an official time limit of 5 mins.

niklas · « **Reply #47 on:** August 23, 2003, 09:18:31 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Guppy
Low? I was under the impression that both the Spitfire and the 109 had dive limits of 470 mph (750 km/h).

Did the 109F improve the pilot's ability to exert leverage on the stick at high speed? The RAF's 109E test seemed to suggest that the 109 had problems with rolling at 400 mph, let alone 600.

Aileron reversal speed has nothing to do with dive limits. It´s more likely an indicator for wing stiffness, thus rolling velocity at high speeds. The higher the better of course.

Do you know what the same RAF test report in comparison to the spitfire?
"These tests showed that, although the Me109 (E) ailerons felt much heavier than those of the Spitfire at speeds between 300mph and 400mph, the aircraft could be made to bank at about the same rate as the Sptifire at these high airspeeds"

Then the famous conclusion, where most people don´t know the whole part:
"At 400mph a pilot, pushing the sideways with all his strength, can only apply 1/5 aileron, the time to bank being 4 secs. THE SPITFIRE IS AS BAD AS THE ME109 IN THIS RESPECT"

In AH the 109E rolls of course worse even at lower speeds, though there is this 45° banking chart out there from the RAF that clearly says that the 109E could bank 45° twice as fast as a SpitI at 200mph, becoming equal from 300-400mph. You know the bottom char of the following picture

And the upper chart in this picture should tell you also something about the spit aileron characteristics, it clearly states that the spit needed 60lb aileron force (!!) to achieve 1/5 aileron deflection at high speeds, while the 109E needed just a bit more than the half! So in your place i would stop those arrogant remarks about the Emil ailerons, because it was nothing unusual at this time, and the spit was way worse!!!!
AND THIS IS THE OPINION OF A RAF REPORT.
And there´s also a rollrate chart for the Spit1 out there, see

Though it´s just for 30lb, it´s clearly to see that wingtwist or aileron twist limits very early the rollrate. AH rollrate for the SpitI is close to this chart, the problem is that the Emil is modelled even worse in AH while it should be superior from 150-300mph.

Btw, the Spit´s ailerons only felt light at moderate stick defelctions. For full deflection they became very quickly solid. Once more, with 30lb pounds stickforce full deflection for metal ailerons at a Spit V was only possible BELOW 110mph!!! At 130mph only half deflection was possible anymore with 30lb!
The report can be found
here
but you probably know it already

I know that the english enjoy smiling about germans and german equipment, unfortunatly even today where we try to build up a working EC , but in case of the Emil you should better be very silent, because the contemporary enemy, the SpitI, was even worse! But sadly, or "of course", not in AH.

niklas

Guppy · « **Reply #48 on:** August 23, 2003, 10:46:08 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by niklas
Aileron reversal speed has nothing to do with dive limits. It´s more likely an indicator for wing stiffness, thus rolling velocity at high speeds. The higher the better of course.

Okay. I was previously wondering why you brought up aileron behaviour at 600 mph for an aircraft with a much lower allowable speed; your point regarding the Spitfire's wing stiffness is understood and well taken.

As for the rest, yes, I do know that the Spitfire I/II was in many ways worse or no better than the 109E in roll. Karnak originally asked about data regarding the 109F vs. the Spitfire V with metal ailerons, and you replied that the 109F was definitely superior. The data I've seen indicated that the metal ailerons significantly improved the Spitfire's roll performance; I was wondering whether a comparable improvement had been made to the 109F, and in so doing brought up what seemed to me to be one of the E's bigger problems with high-speed roll (pilot ergonomics). You seem to have taken this as an insult to the 109. That was not my intention, and I apologise if I gave you such an impression; I would appreciate it if you would refrain from assuming arrogance and intent to denigrate the 109 on my part.

Since my last post, I've come across a brief excerpt from the British test of the 109F (I think it's the same one that mw brought up earlier), and quote part of it below:

"At high speed the ailerons are more effective than the fabric ailerons of the Spitfire, but are not as good as the metal ones."

(It should be noted, though, that the test did not include a direct fly-off between the two types, and there is no hard data accompanying the quote.)

MANDOBLE · « **Reply #49 on:** August 23, 2003, 11:06:56 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Guppy
bigger problems with high-speed roll (pilot ergonomics).

109 aileron control is as bad as 109 elevator control at hi speeds, I suppose poor elevator control was also due pilot ergonomics ...

Batz · « **Reply #50 on:** August 23, 2003, 11:14:20 AM »

Quote

The AH Spit IX boost gauge is wrong. The Spit IX in AH couldn't use 18lbs boost, and it isn't modelled with 18lbs boost. The 15lbs figure, ie non WEP in AH, matches the "normal" 12lbs rating in British tests, which could be used for 60 mins in real life.

The AH 18lbs rating matches the real life 15lbs rating.

In other words, the AH boost gauge reads 3 lbs too high. When it shows 15lbs, it's actually 12lbs, and you should be able to maintain that for 1 hr. When it reads 18lbs, it's actually 15lbs, and that had an official time limit of 5 mins

You guys always coming with something in regards to the spit.

In the threads about the brit tests comparing the a4 and spit you guys always harp on the fact that the ah spit 9 is being run at higher boost so the thats why the data doesnt match. Now you come back with Ah guages are wrong

Whatever gets you through.......

Over 20 min the spit will have been able to run 10 min of "wep" (5 on 10 off 5 on = 10 min wep) same as the the 109f.

Mister Fork · « **Reply #51 on:** August 23, 2003, 11:49:15 AM »

It's the man, not the machine that's at issue.

Pointing to wingload, top speeds etc is bulls##t. It's ALWAYS the man, not the machine. Under-rated planes (Bf 109G-10/2) and the Fw series always have higher K/D ratios yet they are inferrior machines in dog fighting and turn capabilities.

I'd hate to run into guys like Urchin, Hazed, Batz, AGJV44, Wilbuz, Fester, Gman, Frency, or Kewessa in ANY plane let alone in an aircraft I think is superior to thiers. After the initial merge, you know how good that pilot is... usually case your ded.

If wingloading and corner rates ruled, explain this K/D ratio?
Fw 190D-9:1.63|Fw 190A-8:1.42|Fw 190A-5:1.40|Bf 109G-10:1.31|Nik-2:1.28|Bf 190G-2:1.16|Spit IX:1.15|La-7:1.14

Karnak · « **Reply #52 on:** August 23, 2003, 12:52:31 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by niklas
Karnak, at higher speeds the 109 was definitly superior in rolling. The Spit had a rather low reversal speed of only less than 600mph. Furthermore the Naca result of the SpitV aileron test is significantly worse than that of the RAF (which is in the Naca comparison chart). The response time of a SpitV was very low, so for quick manoevers at medium speed the Spit an disadvantage. Huh, full stick deflection with 30lb stick force only below 110mph...and the force gradient was steep, 50lb won´t improve it much... A little bit like a zero, large ailerons for good slow speed manoevering, but stick forces naturally were too high at medium and high speeds.

niklas

I'd like to see that. Every other document shows otherwise, or did the NACA test use an early Mk V with cloth ailerons? I know we were sent a Spitfire Mk V pretty quick.

Also keep in mind that the maximum lateral stick force a 109 pilot could exert was 40lbs due to the cramped cockpit. A Spitfire pilot could exert more than 60lbs.

Nashwan · « **Reply #53 on:** August 23, 2003, 01:22:25 PM »

Quote

In the threads about the brit tests comparing the a4 and spit you guys always harp on the fact that the ah spit 9 is being run at higher boost so the thats why the data doesnt match.

Doesn't sound like any thread I've seen.

The British captured an A3. The Germans had already derated ALL their A3s, because of engine dificulties. It was originally designed to run at 1.42 ata, the Germans derated it to 1,35ata at lower RPM.

The RAF tested it at 1.42 ata.

The RAF compared it to a Spit F IX with Merlin 61, like we have in AH. The AH Spit IX shows 18lbs at WEP, whereas in real life the plane ran at 15lbs max (WEP). However, the AH Spit IX at 18lbs boost has the same performance as the real life Spit at 15lbs boost.

The AH Spit IX uses 15lbs as normal power, whereas in real life the Spit IX used 12lbs as normal power. However, the AH Spit at 15lbs matches the real performance figures at 12lbs boost.

I think you may be getting confused with the AH Spit V.

In the comparison with the 190, the RAF ran their Spit V at 9lbs boost climbing, (normal rating) and 12lbs boost for speed runs, which was the max WEP rating at the time of the test. The rating was later increased to 16lbs.

niklas · « **Reply #54 on:** August 23, 2003, 05:38:36 PM »

In case my pictures don´t show up in your browser, follow this link (i hate geocity)
http://de.geocities.com/stefan_l_01/fzg/

Karnak · « **Reply #55 on:** August 23, 2003, 08:33:04 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by niklas
In case my pictures don´t show up in your browser, follow this link (i hate geocity)
http://de.geocities.com/stefan_l_01/fzg/

Spitfire Mk I tests are completely irrelevant to any Spitfire with metal ailerons.

Yes, the Bf109 (all versions) out rolls Spitfires with cloth ailerons, but that has never been the question in this thread.

Every test I have ever seen that compared a metal aileroned Spitfire with any Bf109 had the Spitfire showing a very substantially higher roll rate at all speeds.

(Those tests are interesting in relation to the Hurri in AH as it handily out rolls the Spitfire Mk I)

BUG_EAF322 · « **Reply #56 on:** August 24, 2003, 12:21:47 AM »

And if u want to wabble and roll.

Get a Focke Wulf.

Don't forget that Uberness was 99% propaganda too.

Flyboy · « **Reply #57 on:** August 24, 2003, 06:03:26 AM »

bah!

this thread has escalated in to total gibrish (as far as i understand it

)

thanks for all the info guys, you can keep debating if you want since from time to time i can actually understand fragments of info

and even that is interesting

skull, good idea but i kinda doubt we are in the same skill level (no offence) anyway we acn give it a go if you want

niklas · « **Reply #58 on:** August 24, 2003, 10:53:43 AM »

Well, quite often they mention the example of 1/5 aileron of a 109E. I just pointed out that this was an RAF test
a) for a 109E
b) the same Report states that the Spitfire I was as bad, or even worse, in any case rolled worse

The other Naca Report i linked to is clearly mentioning a Spit V with metal ailerons, check page 2 of the Report. Obviously you refuse to read it, maybe i should quote a little bit out of it:
"The forces required to obtain high rolling velocities in high speed flight were considered excessive. With a stick force of 30 pounds, full deflection of the ailerons could be obtained only at speeds LOWER THAN 110 mph. .... . A rolling velocity of about 59° per second could be obtained with 30pounds stick force at 230mph IAS.
The ailerons were relatively light for small deflecitons but the slope of the curve of stick force against deflection increased progressively with deflection, so that about five times as much force was required to fully deflect the ailerons as was needed to reach one-half of the maximum travel. ...
The pilot was able to exert a maximum of about 40 pounds on the stick. With this force, full deflection could be attained ONLY UP TO about 130mph. Beyound this speed, the rapid increase in stick force near maximum defleciton prevented full motion of the control stick. ...
The ailerons failed to meet the requirement of rerference 1, which states that a value of pb/2V of 0.07 should be reached with a stick force of 30 pounds at 0.8 of the maximum level-flight IAS, or about 230mph in this case."

I would accept the Naca as an independend institution. Don´t forget that the curve in the Naca comparison chart is based on RAF measurements, so it´t imo a bit optimistic, for some reasons...

niklas

GScholz · « **Reply #59 on:** August 24, 2003, 12:23:24 PM »

Bah, here I go away for 3 days and the thread has turned into a 109E vs. Spit I roll rate debate ... why?!? There is a separate thread on that issue go here: http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=94348

This is a discussion about the Spit IX and the 109F4 as modelled in AH.

As for the data I presented; the engine hp and internal fuel capacity numbers are historical, the normal loaded weight and any other data marked with "in AH" are taken form HTC's own data posted on their hompage. The speed and climb figures are taken from HTC's charts and is probably incorrect to 1% or 2% (I doubt the 109F4 had a top speed at SL of exactly 330 mph, but they are reasonably accurate for this discussion. The power loading figures was calculated from hp and weight. The wing loading at 100% fuel was historical, the empty figures was calculated by subtracting the fuel weight from the normal loaded weight and applying the percentage change to the historical numbers.

I can only guess, but I believe HTC's charts were made with 100% fuel.

On leading edge slats; the slats were not augmented in any way with springs or hydraulics. Even at very low speeds (30mph for instance) the force of air would be sufficient to keep the slats closed, the speed has nothing to do with the deployment of slats. As AoA increases the angle of the onrushing air changes upward, and this is what deploys the slats. Underneath the slat there is a ... slat

a groove that allows the now upward facing wind to force the moving slat into forward position thereby creating a curved passage that leads the air around the leading edge of the wing.

Some planes have "fixed slats" called slots, basically just curved holes just behind the leading edge of the wing.

The 109F4 (and every other 109 except the Emil) has 10 minutes of WEP and 5 minutes cool down time modelled in AH. Whether this is historically correct I have no idea, but I suspect not considering the many different types of WEP used in WWII that are not modelled in AH. Most likely HTC has modelled WEP to "fit" the best they could with the historical evidence despite the limitations in the AH game engine.

In the Main Arena the Spit IX is clearly the better plane than any 109 because the MA does not promote team work much. The MA is filled with lone wolfs and the Spit with its great turning ability and great guns is a clear winner. However I once faced two 109's that did work together expertly, and those two wiped out our 5 strong flight ... repeatedly. They were always higher using their great climbing ability, they worked together against a single target and covered each others backs. It was disgusting (because they were Knits

), but impressive to se how these two just dominated 5 Rooks in mixed planes, shot us all down, and got away with it.

I have no doubt that if you get the best 12 109 drivers in AH give them some time to train together and set up a fight with the similarly trained best Spit drivers in AH, the 109's would prevail, and most likely dominate the fight entirely. 109F4 vs. Spit V, 109G2/6 vs. Spit IX and 109G10 vs. Spit XIV.