Me Bf 109 Question for Gordon???
Rob Arndt
Since I informed Walt that it was not unusual for the latter Bf 109Gs
and Ks to have the semi-retractable tail wheel in locked-down position
when flying... can you now tell me WHY this was done?
Another question concerns the Bf 109 German 2-point landing and
dropping the tail vs the Finnish Bf 109 3-point landing. The Finns
claimed that the 3-point was better but did the LW pilots ever have
any problems with their 2-point system?
Thnx,
Rob
guy
I don't know abut the '109 but the prototype Hurricane had a
retractable tail wheel, however it was found that with it locked down
the spin characteristics were greatly improved - maybe a similar thing?
euno...@yahoo.com.au
> Gordon,
>
> Since I informed Walt that it was not unusual for the latter Bf 109Gs
> and Ks to have the semi-retractable tail wheel in locked-down position
> when flying... can you now tell me WHY this was done?
All Me 109 variants had either a fixed or a fully retractable tail
wheel. There was no semi retractable version AFAIKT though I have
seem vague references to this.
The Me 109F series introduced a retractable tail wheel along with
numerous aerodynamic refinements over the Me 109E7
The Early Me 109G series i.e. Me 109G1 & Me 109G2 retained this
retractable tail wheel.
Due to weight growth later Me 109G3 and Me 109G4 received a larger
diameter tailwheel. This made retraction impossible within the
existing mechanism and without re-engineering the airframe and nothing
like that was going to slow down 109 production. Early Me 109G3/G4
retained the smaller retractable types. Along with the bigger
tailwheels enlarged mainwheels were fitted, this forcing bulges in the
upper wing area as well.
Me 109G5 & Me 109G6 all had fixed tail wheels.
Some Me 109G6 had fixed non retractable extended tail yokes which
reduced the sitting angle of the aircraft from about 15 degrees to
about 13 or so. (no exactly sure). These 'tall' tail yokes
dramatically reduced taxing incidents due to the better visibillity,
more importantly it reduced landing and takeoff incidents. Presumably
propellor p-factor problems were reduced and in addition it had been
found that due to prop circulation effects one portion of the inner
wing was near stalling when in the 3 point attitude.
The Me 109G6 received water methanol injection, and enlarged
supercharger equiped engine and finally both and these aircraft were
known as Me 109G-6AM, Me 109G6AS and Me 109G6ASM. This all happened
in April 1944. In June 1944 these changes were standardised as the Me
109G-14A and Me 109G-14AS. Water Metanol injection was standard on
these aircraft and a enlarged oil cooler.
The fixed extended tail yoke is more commonly associated with the Me
109G-10 which started seeing service in early November 1944 however Me
109G-14 which also remained in production and Me 109G-6 which were
reworked or repaired all sometimes had this tail yoke.
The machine that 'fixed' all of these inelegant and interim production
mods was the Me 109K-4 which entered service in October 1944 (before
the Me 109G-10 which had the same engine but with a more primative
airframe.). It had an extended AND retracatable tail yoke, the
blulges over the synchonised cowling guns were smoothed over and the
retractable covers over the main wheels.
When given these same refinements (which the P-51 had) and when
opperating with an engine of similar power the Me 109K4 was the same
speed but had a better climb and better turn than the P-51. Certainly
the low speed low altitude turn of the P-51 was inferior as was the
high speed high altitude turn and had better handing in the air. The
P-51 obviosuly had its superior range, pilot visibillity and roll
rate.
>
> Another question concerns the Bf 109 German 2-point landing and
> dropping the tail vs the Finnish Bf 109 3-point landing. The Finns
> claimed that the 3-point was better but did the LW pilots ever have
> any problems with their 2-point system?
Finninsh pilots simply had lots more training. When Finnish pilots
turned up in Germany to learn single engine night fighting techniques
from the Germans it was found that the Germans were loosing nearly 50%
of their pilots to training accidents while the Finns only 10%. Such
is war that you are just as likely to die in an risky training
exercise as combat.
>
> Thnx,
> Rob
euno...@yahoo.com.au
The Me 109 certainly received increases in vertical fin area (just as
the Spitfire did) with the latter tall wooden fins being quite stark.
However the Me 109 had outstanding and very easy spin recovery
courtesy of the automatic slats and a relatively long tail momment
arm. The tail seems to have been enlarged so as to provide enough
authority to overcome the torque effects of the increasingly powerfull
engines especially during takeoff and landing.
Though the 109 has a bit of a reputation for difficult takeoff and
landing characteristics (ameliorated by the extended tail yoke which
is seldom seen in survivor airframes) in the air it was another
matter. Impending low speed and high speed stalls were annuciated by
buffet and when the stall came there was no tendancy to flip onto its
back like Spitfres, Mustangs and Fw 190. A spin was easily
recovered. During the BoB RAF evaluation pilots noted that Spitfires
were being out turned by Bf 109 because inexperienced Spitfire pilots
didn't sense the limits of their aircraft and feared the consequences
of a stall: which in a Spitifire meant a likely flip to inversion. An
Bf 109 just mushed forward and you lowered the nose to recover.
I'm of the school that attributes the reputation of the Spitfire for
superior manouverabillity more to the superior power advantages
provided by 100/130 octane fuel. You had 1260hp Spitifres fighting
1100hp Bf 109E3 which is a 15% advantage. That's not to say the
sptifre wing didn't have superior turning characteristics, its simply
to say they were not significant without the extra power.
WaltBJ
Gordon
> Another question concerns the Bf 109 German 2-point landing and
> dropping the tail vs the Finnish Bf 109 3-point landing. The Finns
> claimed that the 3-point was better but did the LW pilots ever have
> any problems with their 2-point system?
Stability would be much better if you land on all three gear at once,
vice two point and then drop the tail down. The accident rate for the
Finns was FAR better and I know German pilots that were crashing their
beloved Me's in the last weeks of the war when making the smallest mis-
step on landing. Mueller in JG 5 was pissed off that he balled up his
favorite 109 G-6 with two weeks to go - no battle damage, just simply
crossed things up and broke his a/c in half. That is a veteran pilot
landing "the right way" with 5 years experience on the 2-point landing
method.
G
guy
Odd isnt it? I remember an interview with a BBMF Lancaster pilot who
founf the Lanc very hard to 3 point, he then said that on talking to
WW2 Lac pilots they invariably 2 pointed. (different aeroplane of
course) as an aside have you noticed that Spits always one point?
(tailwheel first then the big buggers come down)
Guy
Geoffrey Sinclair
<euno...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:2b484805-f058-41b0...@y28g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
> All Me 109 variants had either a fixed or a fully retractable tail
> wheel. There was no semi retractable version AFAIKT though I have
> seem vague references to this.
Alternatively people can look at the photographs of Bf109F
models in flight and notice the little bump in the rear fuselage
where the tail wheel almost but not quite
Hence the semi retractable tag.
> The Me 109F series introduced a retractable tail wheel along with
> numerous aerodynamic refinements over the Me 109E7
Apparently the tyre still being exposed to the slipstream is
retractable in Eunometic speak.
There were problems with the retraction mechanism and it
became common to fix the tailwheel down.
> The machine that 'fixed' all of these inelegant and interim production
> mods was the Me 109K-4 which entered service in October 1944 (before
> the Me 109G-10 which had the same engine but with a more primative
> airframe.). It had an extended AND retracatable tail yoke, the
> blulges over the synchonised cowling guns were smoothed over and the
> retractable covers over the main wheels.
The change from bulges to a smooth cowling was directly related
to the supercharger fitted, the larger supercharger meant the
smoother cowling, so G-6, G-14 with S for supercharger in their
designation had the better cowling, the G-10 and K had the
bigger supercharger as standard.
Some to most of the K models did have a fully retractable tail wheel,
but they also ran into the problem of needing larger undercarriage
wheels, hence the large U shape bulges on the upper wing surfaces,
larger tail wheels had to be fitted as well.
> When given these same refinements (which the P-51 had) and when
> opperating with an engine of similar power the Me 109K4 was the same
> speed but had a better climb and better turn than the P-51.
Fascinating, the K4 engine is rated at 1,800 to 2,000 HP and
this is now considered the same as the 1,600 to 1,700 HP P-51
engine power.
Not to mention the big difference in weights being hauled around.
One reason the P-51 was not rated as a good climber.
Of course in the Eunometic Spitfire the engine power makes a
big difference in the Spitfire I versus the Eunometic 109E, here
of course the difference is ignored.
> Certainly
> the low speed low altitude turn of the P-51 was inferior as was the
> high speed high altitude turn and had better handing in the air. The
> P-51 obviosuly had its superior range, pilot visibillity and roll
> rate.
It should be noted the service ceiling of the Bf109G-10 and K
and the P-51 D were all in the order of 41 to 42,000 feet, with
the P-51 slightly higher. Which is a clue to power and lift at
altitude.
The Bf109G-6 service ceiling was around 38,000 feet.
Geoffrey Sinclair
Remove the nb for email.
Geoffrey Sinclair
<euno...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:3f8573d2-6a38-4f33...@o9g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 22, 2:51 am, guy <guyswetten...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> I don't know abut the '109 but the prototype Hurricane had a
>> retractable tail wheel, however it was found that with it locked down
> > the spin characteristics were greatly improved - maybe a similar thing?
The improvement of the spin characteristics was the result of a
ventral spine fitted from the 61st production example onwards,
plus 7 inch extension downwards of the rudder. Without the
spine the lower half of the rudder was unable to contribute to
spin recovery.
The tailwheel was made fixed in production examples.
> The Me 109 certainly received increases in vertical fin area (just as
> the Spitfire did) with the latter tall wooden fins being quite stark.
As far as I am aware the Bf109 tail and rudder remained the same area
from the A to E models. The F model decreased the rudder area, the
G kept the F tail and in 1944 the G, as an option, and the K, as
standard, were fitted with larger tails. There was a steady increase in
installed power from the A to K models.
> However the Me 109 had outstanding and very easy spin recovery
> courtesy of the automatic slats and a relatively long tail momment
> arm. The tail seems to have been enlarged so as to provide enough
> authority to overcome the torque effects of the increasingly powerfull
> engines especially during takeoff and landing.
The above is for the Eunometic 109, reduce the qualities to end
up with the Messerschmitt 109. There was no steady increase in
Bf109 tail area as an indicator.
Basically tail moment is the distance between the centres of lift for the
main wings and the tailplane. The bigger this is the smaller the tail
can be, but of course you pay for it in the weight and friction costs
of the extra fuselage. The other thing that comes into play is the
size of the tail.
The distance between the (mid) wings and tailplane of the P-51 is about
50% of the overall length, the Spitfire and Bf109 are closer to 60%.
The P-51 had a smaller tail plane and elevators than the Spitfire VIII,
the same rudder area as the broad chord rudder but about twice the
vertical fin area.
> Though the 109 has a bit of a reputation for difficult takeoff and
> landing characteristics (ameliorated by the extended tail yoke which
> is seldom seen in survivor airframes) in the air it was another
> matter.
Mainly because the extended tail yoke was not a majority fit,
and only appeared in 1944. The Messerschmitt reputation for
weak undercarriage was obvious in the Bf109, plus of course
the narrow track and the visibility problems.
Ah another Eunometic 109 versus Eunometic Spitfire moment
coming up.
> Impending low speed and high speed stalls were annuciated by
> buffet and when the stall came there was no tendancy to flip onto its
> back like Spitfres, Mustangs and Fw 190.
Ah, the Eunometic 109 has better stalling characteristics than the
Messerschmitt one, the Eunometic allied types have worse than
the Supermarine and North American types.
Basically the Spitfire low speed stall was rated better than the
Bf109. So by the looks of it was the high speed one.
I will also quote Dudley Henriques,
"There was and is absolutely nothing inferior about the stall and spin
characteristics of the P51D. In discussing this issue, one has to be
quite specific about the use of power both pre-stall entry and post
stall.
The Mustang power OFF, stalls normally both at 1g and accelerated,
and the spin if allowed to develop is also quite normal through post
stall, incipient, fully developed auto-rotation and through recovery.
POWER ON however, is quite another story as relates to departure,
spin, and recovery. Fuel load in the fuselage tank if installed can
cause severe cg issues, and ANY power carried through post stall into
spin can result in a non recovery in some instances.
The main point I'm making here is that it isn't correct to say the 51
has inferior stall/spin characteristics without specifically stating
these differences.
I've done stalls of every kind in the Mustang, and power off spins as
well and I rate the airplane if flown correctly as normal in this area
in every respect.
Dudley Henriques"
> A spin was easily
> recovered. During the BoB RAF evaluation pilots noted that Spitfires
> were being out turned by Bf 109 because inexperienced Spitfire pilots
> didn't sense the limits of their aircraft and feared the consequences
> of a stall: which in a Spitifire meant a likely flip to inversion. An
> Bf 109 just mushed forward and you lowered the nose to recover.
In case people are wondering Eunometic is comparing the low speed
stall of the Bf109 to the high speed one of the Spitfire, high speed
stalls are where the worst behaviour occurs, and choosing the worst
of the high speed stall results as well.
And of course inexperienced pilots are the ones unsure about the
aircraft limits.
> I'm of the school that attributes the reputation of the Spitfire for
> superior manouverabillity more to the superior power advantages
> provided by 100/130 octane fuel.
In case people are wondering the school is a small isolated one
closer to a 1 pupil version, than a major metropolitan version.
> You had 1260hp Spitifres fighting
> 1100hp Bf 109E3 which is a 15% advantage.
Note this sort of advantage for the Bf109K versus P-51D is
wiped away when Eunometic does that comparison.
In case people are wondering the higher Octane rating gives
more horsepower at lower altitude.
Merlin II power, 100 Octane, 1,160 Hp at 9,000 feet, 1,030
HP at 16,250 feet.
In a test, using 100 octane at ground level Merlin II, 100 Octane
1,320 HP, engine life 10 hours, or 20 with stronger blocks.
The Merlin XII fitted to the Spitfire II, 100 Octane fuel, was
rated as 1,175 HP for take off, 1,050 HP at 13,000 feet.
The DB601A was rated at 1,175 HP at take off.
Eunometic needs to simply alter the facts.
Early in the battle the Bf109 had the advantage of constant
speed propellers, the RAF fighters caught up during the battle.
> That's not to say the
> sptifre wing didn't have superior turning characteristics, its simply
> to say they were not significant without the extra power.
Firstly the power claims are wrong, secondly the rules are changed
when comparing the Spitfire I to the Bf109E versus the P-51D
versus the Bf109K.
Dan
Lanc main gear is further apart relative to the aircraft size than
Me-109. Lanc also has a darn sight more stability about the pitch axis.
The few Lanc pilots I have spoken to say the Lanc didn't really want to
land but as long as one insisted it was going to cooperate.
Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
guy
wrote:
SNIP
> On Sep 22, 2:51 am, guy <guyswetten...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> >> I don't know abut the '109 but the prototype Hurricane had a
> >> retractable tail wheel, however it was found that with it locked down
> > > the spin characteristics were greatly improved - maybe a similar thing?
>
> The improvement of the spin characteristics was the result of a
> ventral spine fitted from the 61st production example onwards,
> plus 7 inch extension downwards of the rudder. Without the
> spine the lower half of the rudder was unable to contribute to
> spin recovery.
>
> The tailwheel was made fixed in production examples.
>
(November 1936)
'Bulman and Lucas carried out limited spinning trials ... These showed
that recovery from spins to the left was less than positive than those
to the right - though neither was regarded as being below the standard
deemed to be the minimum required by the Service. It was moreover,
perhaps surprisingly, discovered that recovery was marginally improved
in both directions if the tailwheel was fixed in the "down" position,
suggesting some beneficial airflow instability at the bas of the
rudder during spin recovery.'
(May/June 1937) 'To overcome this (a breakdown of airflow) a new
ventral spine was incorporated under the rear fuselage...'
Therefore the fixed tailwheel came first.
Guy
SNIP
guy
In addition the 'ventral spine was incorporated on the 61st production
aircraft'
and
'This was first flown on L1547 on 19 January 1938'
Guy
euno...@yahoo.com.au
wrote:
> Ah good to drop by for a laugh.
>
>
> news:2b484805-f058-41b0...@y28g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
>
> > All Me 109 variants had either a fixed or a fully retractable tail
> > wheel. There was no semi retractable version AFAIKT though I have
> > seem vague references to this.
>
> Alternatively people can look at the photographs of Bf109F
> models in flight and notice the little bump in the rear fuselage
> where the tail wheel almost but not quite
>
> Hence the semi retractable tag.
>
> > The Me 109F series introduced a retractable tail wheel along with
> > numerous aerodynamic refinements over the Me 109E7
>
> Apparently the tyre still being exposed to the slipstream is
> retractable in Eunometic speak.
3/4 of the tyre is retracted, on the 109K all of it is retraced.
>
> There were problems with the retraction mechanism and it
> became common to fix the tailwheel down.
On early models.
>
> > The machine that 'fixed' all of these inelegant and interim production
> > mods was the Me 109K-4 which entered service in October 1944 (before
> > the Me 109G-10 which had the same engine but with a more primative
> > airframe.). It had an extended AND retracatable tail yoke, the
> > blulges over the synchonised cowling guns were smoothed over and the
> > retractable covers over the main wheels.
>
> The change from bulges to a smooth cowling was directly related
> to the supercharger fitted, the larger supercharger meant the
> smoother cowling, so G-6, G-14 with S for supercharger in their
> designation had the better cowling, the G-10 and K had the
> bigger supercharger as standard.
The Cowling could have been smoothed even without the enlarged
supercharger, in fact such changes were investigated and measured so
that 2/3rd of the speed lost to the bulges (9km/h at Military Power at
sea level) was recoveded.
Execution
of the tests : With each cowling design a test run was performed
using Kampfleistung1;(Military power)
The tested speeds were corrected for 0 m altitude
and
Standard Temperature (Normaltemperatur).
Results : 1. Serial production 109 G – engine cowling :
Vno =
492 km/h
2. Serial production 109 G – engine cowling
with bulges
f or MG 131 on both sides :
Vno =
483 km/h
3. Enlarged, streamlined engine cowling :
Vno =
489 km/h
Aircraft : 109 G – 6 Trop. Werk.Nr. 16 476 SL + EM
Possibilities for increasing performance Airframe-wise
Wheel well covers, 11-14 km/h
Improved MG 131-installation, 7-9 km/h
Fully retractaible tailwheel, 3-4 km/h
So the cost of the failure to upgrade the airframe of the Me 109g-6
cost in total about 21 to 27km/h or 12.5 to 17mph.
Say and average of 24km/h or 14mph. This is at Military Power at WEP
the improvement would be even greater.
It gets an Me 109G6 running 1.42 from 392mph to say 406mph easily
enough to null out any speed advantage of a spitifre. It takes an Me
109G6AM and Me 109G14A from about 404mph to 420mph. It takes and Me
109G14AS to 430mph.
>
> Some to most of the K models did have a fully retractable tail wheel,
ALL of the K models had a retractable tail wheel. The K-4 was the
only model to enter service.
> but they also ran into the problem of needing larger undercarriage
> wheels, hence the large U shape bulges on the upper wing surfaces,
> larger tail wheels had to be fitted as well.
It wasn't a problem: they were fitted and they worked.
>
> > When given these same refinements (which the P-51 had) and when
> > opperating with an engine of similar power the Me 109K4 was the same
> > speed but had a better climb and better turn than the P-51.
>
> Fascinating, the K4 engine is rated at 1,800 to 2,000 HP and
> this is now considered the same as the 1,600 to 1,700 HP P-51
> engine power.
This is typical hair splitting over the most trivial and isignificant
amounts. It shows how trivial and silly you are.
The reports of particularly problematical Me 109 started even before
DB605DM and DB605ASM were in service in October 1944. The DB605DM
produced only 1750ps which reduces by 1.6% to 1726hp when converting
from metric to imperial horsepower. The DB605DCM entered service a
few weeks later, and again was worth 1800ps (1774). Later the
DB605DBM and DB605 DB/DC. Some eventually reached 2000ps in Feb 1945
when running 1.98ata boost.
In anycase its only 2% to 4.5% difference. The performance of the
DB605DM being not bad considering it was running on 87 octane instead
of 100/130 and that had slightly less weight and better fuel
consumption.
>
> Not to mention the big difference in weights being hauled around.
> One reason the P-51 was not rated as a good climber.
The P-51 by this time had lost its drop tanks and burned of a fair bit
of its load.
The Me 109 simply had an ingenious way of producing a small and
therefore lightweight wing which could produce very high coefficients
of lift and and therefore superior power to weight ratio and that with
poor quality materials.
>
> Of course in the Eunometic Spitfire the engine power makes a
> big difference in the Spitfire I versus the Eunometic 109E, here
> of course the difference is ignored.
Me 109 probably never met spitifires of any mark which didn't have
100/130 fuel and therefore had 1260hp engines as opposed to 990/1030.
>
> > Certainly
> > the low speed low altitude turn of the P-51 was inferior as was the
> > high speed high altitude turn and had better handing in the air. The
> > P-51 obviosuly had its superior range, pilot visibillity and roll
> > rate.
>
> It should be noted the service ceiling of the Bf109G-10 and K
> and the P-51 D were all in the order of 41 to 42,000 feet, with
> the P-51 slightly higher. Which is a clue to power and lift at
> altitude.
Its a clue as to the supercharger settings they did have to fight the
Russians.
Gordon
Mossie, two points.
Geoffrey Sinclair
news:a3aa8847-7826-4a35...@v23g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
> On Sep 22, 5:24 pm, "Geoffrey Sinclair" <gsinclai...@froggy.com.au>
> wrote:
>> Ah good to drop by for a laugh.
>>
>> <eunome...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
>>
>> news:2b484805-f058-41b0...@y28g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > All Me 109 variants had either a fixed or a fully retractable tail
>> > wheel. There was no semi retractable version AFAIKT though I have
>> > seem vague references to this.
>>
>> Alternatively people can look at the photographs of Bf109F
>> models in flight and notice the little bump in the rear fuselage
>> where the tail wheel almost but not quite
>>
>> Hence the semi retractable tag.
>>
>> > The Me 109F series introduced a retractable tail wheel along with
>> > numerous aerodynamic refinements over the Me 109E7
>>
>> Apparently the tyre still being exposed to the slipstream is
>> retractable in Eunometic speak.
>
> 3/4 of the tyre is retracted, on the 109K all of it is retraced.
Yes folks, 3/4 retracted is retracted in the Eunometic world.
>> There were problems with the retraction mechanism and it
>> became common to fix the tailwheel down.
>
> On early models.
And of course the bigger tail wheel tyre meant the cavity was
too small, so the tailwheel was fixed down.
>> > The machine that 'fixed' all of these inelegant and interim production
>> > mods was the Me 109K-4 which entered service in October 1944 (before
>> > the Me 109G-10 which had the same engine but with a more primative
>> > airframe.). It had an extended AND retracatable tail yoke, the
>> > blulges over the synchonised cowling guns were smoothed over and the
>> > retractable covers over the main wheels.
>>
>> The change from bulges to a smooth cowling was directly related
>> to the supercharger fitted, the larger supercharger meant the
>> smoother cowling, so G-6, G-14 with S for supercharger in their
>> designation had the better cowling, the G-10 and K had the
>> bigger supercharger as standard.
>
> The Cowling could have been smoothed even without the enlarged
> supercharger, in fact such changes were investigated and measured so
> that 2/3rd of the speed lost to the bulges (9km/h at Military Power at
> sea level) was recoveded.
Yes folks, Eunometic says they were changed, then oh no, they
it now becomes they could be changed. So now rather than admit
yet again the Eunometic 109 was being used, not the Messerschmitt
109 we have a list of possible improvements.
One day Eunometic will actually give credit for the text copied,
some similar tests are at
http://www.kurfurst.org/Performance_tests/109G1-6_datasheet/109G_perftable_EN.html
> Execution
> of the tests : With each cowling design a test run was performed
> using Kampfleistung1;(Military power)
>The tested speeds were corrected for 0 m altitude
> and Standard Temperature (Normaltemperatur).
>
> Results :
> 1. Serial production 109 G - engine cowling : Vno = 492 km/h
> 2. Serial production 109 G - engine cowling with bulges
> or MG 131 on both sides : Vno = 483 km/h
> 3. Enlarged, streamlined engine cowling : Vno = 489 km/h
>
> Aircraft : 109 G - 6 Trop. Werk.Nr. 16 476 SL + EM
>
> Possibilities for increasing performance Airframe-wise
>
> Wheel well covers, 11-14 km/h
> Improved MG 131-installation, 7-9 km/h
> Fully retractaible tailwheel, 3-4 km/h
>
> So the cost of the failure to upgrade the airframe of the Me 109g-6
> cost in total about 21 to 27km/h or 12.5 to 17mph.
Note the above are estimates, but Eunometic likes them.
> Say and average of 24km/h or 14mph. This is at Military Power at WEP
> the improvement would be even greater.
Yes folks, as speed goes up drag goes up but hey, streamlining
rewards will go up, the Eunometic 109 only of course.
> It gets an Me 109G6 running 1.42 from 392mph to say 406mph easily
> enough to null out any speed advantage of a spitifre.
Firstly add 6 mph to the standard Bf109G-6, continue with the
process of enhancements, and you have the Eunometic 109G.
> It takes an Me
> 109G6AM and Me 109G14A from about 404mph to 420mph.
> It takes and Me 109G14AS to 430mph.
Next do not tell the audience the Eunometic 109G is being used,
not the Messerschmitt one, with enhanced base top speeds.
Of course the reality is they were proposed changes, like claims
a better radiator could have added 10 to 20 mph to the Spitfire.
>> Some to most of the K models did have a fully retractable tail wheel,
>
> ALL of the K models had a retractable tail wheel. The K-4 was the
> only model to enter service.
Unfortunately that does not appear to be the case, given the problems
at the time, including the need to use larger tyres again.
Of course there is the problem of identifying pictures and ensuring
they are G or K.
>> but they also ran into the problem of needing larger undercarriage
>> wheels, hence the large U shape bulges on the upper wing surfaces,
>> larger tail wheels had to be fitted as well.
>
> It wasn't a problem: they were fitted and they worked.
Really, larger bulges on the wing upper surfaces presented no
problem, not even a loss of speed?
>> > When given these same refinements (which the P-51 had) and when
>> > opperating with an engine of similar power the Me 109K4 was the same
>> > speed but had a better climb and better turn than the P-51.
>>
>> Fascinating, the K4 engine is rated at 1,800 to 2,000 HP and
>> this is now considered the same as the 1,600 to 1,700 HP P-51
>> engine power.
>
> This is typical hair splitting over the most trivial and isignificant
> amounts. It shows how trivial and silly you are.
I like this, it is a real joy to note Eunometic considers it vitally
important to up rate the Spitfire I engine and use it as the reason
the Spitfire was better, but it is trivial and insignificant to note
when the Bf109 had a similar power advantage.
Trivial and insignificant are clearly defined as hurting the fiction.
> The reports of particularly problematical Me 109 started even before
> DB605DM and DB605ASM were in service in October 1944. The
> DB605DM produced only 1750ps which reduces by 1.6% to 1726hp
> when converting from metric to imperial horsepower. The DB605DCM
> entered service a few weeks later, and again was worth 1800ps (1774).
> Later the DB605DBM and DB605 DB/DC. Some eventually reached
> 2000ps in Feb 1945 when running 1.98ata boost.
Note by the way the above simply confirms what I said.
The Germans were pushing their engine technology, unsurprising
in the circumstances, it lead to problems, the 150 Octane fuel in
the US fighters also had its problems.
> In anycase its only 2% to 4.5% difference.
1774/1700 4.4%, 2000/1700 18% difference.
> The performance of the
> DB605DM being not bad considering it was running on 87 octane instead
> of 100/130 and that had slightly less weight and better fuel
> consumption.
You see it goes like this, Eunometic wants the world to believe any
Spitfire I superiority is all about more power, but the Eunometic
109 is all about skill, not the extra power.
Oh yes, fuel consumption, rather tied to the airframe in use and
the desired speed, wonder what "better" means this time in
Eunometic speak.
>> Not to mention the big difference in weights being hauled around.
>> One reason the P-51 was not rated as a good climber.
>
> The P-51 by this time had lost its drop tanks and burned of a fair bit
> of its load.
I really like this. Bf109K loaded weight 7,410 pounds.
P-51D empty weight 7,635 pounds.
By the way by the time the Bf109K had intercepted it had lost
its drop tanks and burned a fair bit of its load, given how short
ranged it was.
Yes folks, the P-51 was heavier, hence the need to mention
drop tanks instead of admitting that fact.
> The Me 109 simply had an ingenious way of producing a small and
> therefore lightweight wing which could produce very high coefficients
> of lift and and therefore superior power to weight ratio and that with
> poor quality materials.
Yes folks, the Eunometics are superior, apparently it was all the
wonder light weight wing. Apparently the Germans are supposed
to have poor quality materials from the mid 1930's. Usual line,
the Eunometics are geniuses, except they cannot obtain quality
raw materials, or use engines with less power, not very smart
but waved away as something that is, this time, classified as
beyond genius control.
Anyone else noted the P-51 flew a lot faster than the Bf109,
and Spitfire, with the same engine power? You know,
aerodynamics, not light weight wing. Or that the US aircraft
industry tended to build heavier aircraft and in the case of
fighters generally better built in ranges?
>> Of course in the Eunometic Spitfire the engine power makes a
>> big difference in the Spitfire I versus the Eunometic 109E, here
>> of course the difference is ignored.
>
> Me 109 probably never met spitifires of any mark which didn't have
> 100/130 fuel and therefore had 1260hp engines as opposed to 990/1030.
Yes folks, power matters when the Germans have less, it is
irrelevant if they have more.
Meantime the 1260 Hp figure for the Spitfire is of course an
exaggeration. Oh yes, if it was true, 1,175 Hp was the Bf109E
engine power is 7% more, apparently 4.5 % is insignificant and
trivial, as is 18%, 7% is vital.
Ah a good laugh does wonders.
Merlin II power, 100 Octane, 1,160 Hp at 9,000 feet, 1,030
HP at 16,250 feet.
In a test, using 100 octane at ground level Merlin II, 100 Octane
1,320 HP, engine life 10 hours, or 20 with stronger blocks.
The Merlin XII fitted to the Spitfire II, 100 Octane fuel, was
rated as 1,175 HP for take off, 1,050 HP at 13,000 feet.
The DB601A was rated at 1,175 HP at take off.
Eunometic needs to simply alter the facts.
>> > Certainly
>> > the low speed low altitude turn of the P-51 was inferior as was the
>> > high speed high altitude turn and had better handing in the air. The
>> > P-51 obviosuly had its superior range, pilot visibillity and roll
>> > rate.
>>
>> It should be noted the service ceiling of the Bf109G-10 and K
>> and the P-51 D were all in the order of 41 to 42,000 feet, with
>> the P-51 slightly higher. Which is a clue to power and lift at
>> altitude.
>
> Its a clue as to the supercharger settings they did have to fight the
> Russians.
In other words the idea the Mustang could fly higher is totally
irrelevant to comparing altitude performance with the Eunometic
109. In the Eunometic world facts that are disliked are ignored.
Christopher Morton
<teut...@aol.com> wrote:
>Another question concerns the Bf 109 German 2-point landing and
>dropping the tail vs the Finnish Bf 109 3-point landing. The Finns
>claimed that the 3-point was better but did the LW pilots ever have
>any problems with their 2-point system?
I believe this was once addressed in the test pilot's column in "Air
Internationa". I seem to recall the writer stating that the 109
needed to be "flown all the way down", rather than allowed to just
sink on its own. I believe he mentioned a two wheel versus a three
point landing.
--
More blood for oil... in my name!
Peter Stickney
Aad asked a couple of reasonable questions -
>
> Since I informed Walt that it was not unusual for the latter Bf 109Gs
> and Ks to have the semi-retractable tail wheel in locked-down position
> when flying... can you now tell me WHY this was done?
That's not an unusual situation - the retracting mechanism for tailwheels
isn't as durable and reliable as the retract mechanism for the mains
Having the tailwheels retract and not extend was a fairly common problem.
It's much easier from a maintenance point of view to just keep the tailwheel
fixed down. This didn't just happen with Me 109s - for example, F-51s in
USAF service in the '50s usually had the tailwheel locked down, with a
canvas boot covering the tail wheel well. There is some performance loss,
yes, but it's not too drastic except when every last bit of performance is
required. (Which is less often than you think)
> Another question concerns the Bf 109 German 2-point landing and
> dropping the tail vs the Finnish Bf 109 3-point landing. The Finns
> claimed that the 3-point was better but did the LW pilots ever have
> any problems with their 2-point system?
As long as there have been airplanes with conventional (tailwheel) landing
gear, it's been the subject of debate.
With a stalled or nearly stalled landing (3 point) the airplane is flying
more slowly when it touches down, is less likely to bounce, and can have a
shorter ground run. (Since it's moving slower). Airplanes with long noses
and big props can use their brakes more effectively without the risk of
nosing over.
That being said, there are drawbacks - with most airplanes, and especially
with WW2 single-engine fighters, visibility straight ahead, over the nose,
is non-existant. The entire runway disappears. (Take a drawing of, say,
an Me 109, or Spitfire, or whatever, and draw a line from the position
that the pilot's head would be in parallel to the line formed by the
mainwheel to the tailwheel (ground line) All you can see is your own
airplane. Speed control on final approach is more important - If you're
fast, then you spend a lot of time floating over the runway waiting to slow
down and settle to the ground, leaving runway behind you (Never a good
thing) or stalling on the approach with no room to recover. (A really bad
thing) If there's any crosswind, it's harder to keep the airplane straight
when landing - the visual cues are tough to pick up.
It's also easier to groundloop the airplane - having the Center of Gravity
behind the main landing gear amplifies any motion of the tail from side to
side, (unstable) and the steeper the ground angle, the more pronounced the
effect is. Since the primary direction control through most of the ground
run is the rudder (The tail wheels swivel, do they don't really help keep
things straight) having the rudder partially blanked by the wings and
fuselage make keeping things straight harder, as well.
(That's why some fighters got extended tialwheel legs - Me 109s, P-40s,
Corsairs - lowering the ground angle made then harder to groundloop. The
109 had another factor which made ground handling more difficult - the
camber (vertical tilt) of the wheels also amplified any directional
changes, (Road Graders use a similar setup to make steering easier - if
you're somewhere near a grader in operation, soo how the wheels tilt when
it steers)
Wheel landings give you better view over the nose, are less sensitive to
speed on the final approach, and give you better directional control in the
fast part of the landing run. You do have a higher risk of bouncing, which
can be very bad - the bounce give the wing a higher angle of attack, and
you end up climbing a fair distance, and running out of airspeed. Stalling
the airplane 20 or 30 feet up is a Bad thing - you're going to end up with
a broken airplane. The risk of ground looping on the landing roll when you
lower the tail is still there.
So, all things being equal, it really comes down to experience, training,
and preference. By the later part of World War 2, the Finns, by and large,
where a highly experienced, well trained group of pilots. They were more
comforatable flying their 109s an the slow side of the envelope. Most
German pilots were rathe low time (Total pilot training time was about 130
Hrs, with about 5 Hrs in fighter-type airplanes, and transition training
into fighters was made by fighter units themselves._ For those pilots,
wheel landing were a lot more, as it were, comfortable.
And, of course, it depends on the airplane. Some airplanes just don't like
to 3 point - the Cessna Bird Dog (L-19/O-1) with full flaps just doesn't 3
point well. I always preferred a tail-down wheel landing.
--
Pete Stickney
The better the Four Wheel Drive, the further out you get stuck.