Clipped-wing Spitfires & Turn rate
jk79_do_...@123mail.org
with clipped wings vs Spitfires of the same type with non-clipped
wings? Was it negligible or significant? What did the pilots who flew
Spitfires with both standard and clipped wings have to say about the
differences in flight characteristics (other than the obviously higher
rate of roll in the clipped-wing spits)?
Could clipped-wing Spitfires still outturn all German fighters by a
considerable margin (in the horizontal plane at least)? How did clipped
wing Spits compare to US fighters when it came to rate of turn at
low/med altitudes?
renab...@aol.com
SNIP
The "word" on Spitfire LF ("low level fighter") in the RAF was
"Clipped, Cropped and Clapped"
1) The wings were clipped
2) The supercharger impeller was cropped
3) The engines were clapped out
"Together with the LF Mk. V came a new term: "The clipped, cropped
and clapped Spitty". The LF Mk. V had "clipped" wings and a
Merlin 45M, 50M or 55M with "cropped" impellers in the supercharger,
which allowed operated at a higher boost - +18psi against the normal
+12psi - when running at max. boost. (I.e. the blades in the
centrifugal compressor had been cut in order to avoid a compressor
stall because the compressor delivered a higher boost than normal at
higher compressor speed.)
The "clapping" was pure irony - the LF V's were often old airframes
with engines, which had done many hours of flight. The LF Mk. V had a
10mph higher top speed at altitudes below 4,000 to 5,000ft (1.300-1.700
m) and could climb 700 ft/min faster at these altitudes, however, its
performance decreased rapidly as the aircraft climbed. Equipped with a
250lbs or 500lbs bombs the LF Mk. V was used as a fighter-bomber at low
level attacks. The pilots, who flew this version, were not happy
carrying out this sort of operation in such old aircraft."
Mailman
> Could clipped-wing Spitfires still outturn all German fighters by a
> considerable margin (in the horizontal plane at least)? How did
> clipped
> wing Spits compare to US fighters when it came to rate of turn at
> low/med altitudes?
Even the "normal" Spitfire could NOT out-turn the Me109 (or the
Hurricane for that matter):
Spitfire Mk II - turning radius 880ft
Hurricane - turning radius 800ft
Me109E - turning radius 750ft
These are theoretical limits - in practice a pilot's estimate of the
G-force would limit the machines to much wider turns.
--
Mailman
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
Keith W
"Mailman" <mai...@anonymous.org> wrote in message
news:20050525171644....@anonymous.org...
> On 24 May 2005 23:22:16 -0700 jk79_do_...@123mail.org wrote:
>
>> Could clipped-wing Spitfires still outturn all German fighters by a
>> considerable margin (in the horizontal plane at least)? How did
>> clipped
>> wing Spits compare to US fighters when it came to rate of turn at
>> low/med altitudes?
>
> Even the "normal" Spitfire could NOT out-turn the Me109 (or the
> Hurricane for that matter):
>
> Spitfire Mk II - turning radius 880ft
> Hurricane - turning radius 800ft
> Me109E - turning radius 750ft
>
At what height and speed ?
The reports I've read suggested that the aircraft were
quite close matched but that at high speeds the
Spitfire had a slight edge and had a faster roll rate.
> These are theoretical limits - in practice a pilot's estimate of the
> G-force would limit the machines to much wider turns.
> --
> Mailman
With later marks the advantage lay with the Spitfire
Early in1944 the Air Fighting Development Unit at Duxford flew a
Mk XIV Spitfire in a comparative trial against a captured Messerschmitt
Bf109G.
The following are extracts from the official report.
SPITFIRE XIV VERSUS BF109G
Maximum Speed: The Spitfire XIV is 40 mph [64 km/hr] faster at
all heights except near 16,000 feet [4878 m] - where it is
only 10 mph [16 km/hr] faster.
Maximum Climb: The same result - at 16,000 feet [4878 m] the
two aircraft are virtually identical, otherwise the Spitfire XIV
outclimbs the 109. The zoom climb is practically identical
when the climb is made without the throttle open. Climbing at
full throttle, the Spitfire XIV draws away from the 109 quite easily.
Dive: During the initial part of the dive, the 109 draws away slightly,
but when a speed of 380 mph [611 km/hr] is reached the
Spitfire XIV begins to gain on the 109.
Turning Circle: The Spitfire XIV easily out-turns the 109 in either
direction.
Rate of Roll: The Spitfire XIV rolls much more quickly.
Keith
Jukka O. Kauppinen
> The reports I've read suggested that the aircraft were
> quite close matched but that at high speeds the
> Spitfire had a slight edge and had a faster roll rate.
> Early in1944 the Air Fighting Development Unit at Duxford flew a
> Mk XIV Spitfire in a comparative trial against a captured Messerschmitt
> Bf109G.
>
> The following are extracts from the official report.
A good example of poor quoting of official report.
The extract fails to remind, that the Bf 109 G-6 was in fact a night
fighter variant, with wing cannon gondolas and night fighting equipment.
It was not a standard day fighter and any comparisons or judgements
made from it are not valid, if one wants to compare the standard models
of the planes.
It's yet another case where such comparisons use poor data or omit
information about the actual test conditions for the Messerschmitts.
Disinformation, that's what it is.
jok
Mailman
<keit...@kwillshaw.nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> "Mailman" <mai...@anonymous.org> wrote in message
> news:20050525171644....@anonymous.org...
> > On 24 May 2005 23:22:16 -0700 jk79_do_...@123mail.org wrote:
> >
> >> Could clipped-wing Spitfires still outturn all German fighters by a
> >> considerable margin (in the horizontal plane at least)? How did
> >> clipped
> >> wing Spits compare to US fighters when it came to rate of turn at
> >> low/med altitudes?
> >
> > Even the "normal" Spitfire could NOT out-turn the Me109 (or the
> > Hurricane for that matter):
> >
> > Spitfire Mk II - turning radius 880ft
> > Hurricane - turning radius 800ft
> > Me109E - turning radius 750ft
> >
>
> At what height and speed ?
>
> The reports I've read suggested that the aircraft were
> quite close matched but that at high speeds the
> Spitfire had a slight edge and had a faster roll rate.
10 000 ft, 300mph, vertical banking turn. The Spit had indeed a faster
roll rate (probably), but was hampered by the carburator engine when
going into a dive.
--
Mailman
Alan Dicey
Eric Brown's book "Wings of the Luftwaffe" includes his experiences in
the G-6, and the accompanying photographs show that the wing cannon were
removed for the trials. The aircraft was a Bf 109G-6/U2, Werke-Nr 41
2951 that had landed at Manston in error. He mentions that the AFDU flew
the G-6 against a Spitfire LF IX, a Spitfire XIV and a Mustang III. All
three are reported to have out-turned the 109, the Mustang being the
most clearly superior.
He mentions testing the effect of the automatic slats by dummy attacks
on a Lancaster and a Mustang, and reports that the slipstream of both
aircraft caused intermittent slat operation so that accurate sighting
became an impossibility. Stall testing also showed the slats operating
unevenly resulting in aileron snatching. I have read other reports that
mention the uneven slat deployment in maximum-rate turns as a factor
which kept pilots away from exploiting the full performance of the
airframe, as slat deployment was not gentle and could even break the
aircraft out of the turn, if not handled carefully.
Keith W
> On Wed, 25 May 2005 16:32:40 +0100 "Keith W"
> <keit...@kwillshaw.nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> "Mailman" <mai...@anonymous.org> wrote in message
>> news:20050525171644....@anonymous.org...
>> > On 24 May 2005 23:22:16 -0700 jk79_do_...@123mail.org wrote:
>> >
>> >> Could clipped-wing Spitfires still outturn all German fighters by a
>> >> considerable margin (in the horizontal plane at least)? How did
>> >> clipped
>> >> wing Spits compare to US fighters when it came to rate of turn at
>> >> low/med altitudes?
>> >
>> > Even the "normal" Spitfire could NOT out-turn the Me109 (or the
>> > Hurricane for that matter):
>> >
>> > Spitfire Mk II - turning radius 880ft
>> > Hurricane - turning radius 800ft
>> > Me109E - turning radius 750ft
>> >
>>
>> At what height and speed ?
>>
>> The reports I've read suggested that the aircraft were
>> quite close matched but that at high speeds the
>> Spitfire had a slight edge and had a faster roll rate.
>
> 10 000 ft, 300mph, vertical banking turn. The Spit had indeed a faster
> roll rate (probably), but was hampered by the carburator engine when
> going into a dive.
> --
Again that depends on when the test is done, Mrs Schilling's
orifice modification alleviated this considerably and later marks
used the Bendix-Stromberg pressure diaphragm carburettor.
Keith
Geoffrey Sinclair
>About how negatively was turning rate effected on Spitfires equiped
>with clipped wings vs Spitfires of the same type with non-clipped
>wings?
The AFDU reported on a Mark Vb, the clipped wing meant it was
8 mph at 10,000 feet, 5 mph at 20,000 feet, unchanged at 25,000
feet. Longer take off run and landing speed went up 5 mph. The
clipping improved rate of roll and aileron lightness, which helps
start a turn, it also "altered direction faster", and was barely
controllable at 35,000 feet. It was easy to droop a wing when
flying low.
>Was it negligible or significant? What did the pilots who flew
>Spitfires with both standard and clipped wings have to say about the
>differences in flight characteristics (other than the obviously higher
>rate of roll in the clipped-wing spits)?
>
>Could clipped-wing Spitfires still outturn all German fighters by a
>considerable margin (in the horizontal plane at least)? How did clipped
>wing Spits compare to US fighters when it came to rate of turn at
>low/med altitudes?
The Spitfire retained best turning circle of the allied land based
fighters, but I think the Hellcat could out turn it. The Spitfire could
expect to out turn the Fw190 and Bf109.
For roll rates,
http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/282_1094123735_nacaroll.gif
Geoffrey Sinclair
Remove the nb for email.
Geoffrey Sinclair
>On 24 May 2005 23:22:16 -0700 jk79_do_...@123mail.org wrote:
>
>> Could clipped-wing Spitfires still outturn all German fighters by a
>> considerable margin (in the horizontal plane at least)? How did
>> clipped
>> wing Spits compare to US fighters when it came to rate of turn at
>> low/med altitudes?
>
>Even the "normal" Spitfire could NOT out-turn the Me109 (or the
>Hurricane for that matter):
>
>Spitfire Mk II - turning radius 880ft
>Hurricane - turning radius 800ft
>Me109E - turning radius 750ft
>
>These are theoretical limits - in practice a pilot's estimate of the
>G-force would limit the machines to much wider turns.
I presume this is the figures from Len Deighton's book Fighter.
This is interesting given data like that reported in Bungay's
The Most dangerous Enemy which gives the theoretical
turning circles as Hurricane I, 660 feet, Spitfire I, 700 feet,
Bf109E 860 feet, speed and altitude not given.
It is also interesting because the German pilots did not engage
in turning fights with Spitfires or Hurricanes and the Bf109 roll
rate was slower than the Spitfire's at high speed.
See
http://www.geocities.com/jheleno/flybf109.html
For a summary of the RAF report on the Bf109E, which rates the
turning circle as larger than the Spitfire.
Guy Alcala
I presume you meant most superior overall, not most superior in a turn. While
all three could out turn a109G, the Spits out-turned (and out-climbed,except
possibly in zoom) the Mustang.
Guy
Keith W
"Jukka O. Kauppinen" <jukka.NOSP...@jmp.SPAMMITPOIS.fi> wrote in
message news:d72s3o$9le$1...@phys-news1.kolumbus.fi...
>
>> The reports I've read suggested that the aircraft were
>> quite close matched but that at high speeds the
>> Spitfire had a slight edge and had a faster roll rate.
>
>> Early in1944 the Air Fighting Development Unit at Duxford flew a
>> Mk XIV Spitfire in a comparative trial against a captured Messerschmitt
>> Bf109G.
>>
>> The following are extracts from the official report.
>
> A good example of poor quoting of official report.
>
> The extract fails to remind, that the Bf 109 G-6 was in fact a night
> fighter variant, with wing cannon gondolas and night fighting equipment.
> It was not a standard day fighter and any comparisons or judgements made
> from it are not valid, if one wants to compare the standard models of the
> planes.
>
However the book it was extracted from mentions it clearly. It
also states the wing cannon gondolas were removed for the test.
> It's yet another case where such comparisons use poor data or omit
> information about the actual test conditions for the Messerschmitts.
>
Or people leap to an unwarranted conclusion based on a
lack of data.
> Disinformation, that's what it is.
>
Indeed.
Keith
Guy Alcala
Formore, go here:
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit1.html
and scroll down to the last three reports as well as the links.
Guy
J DUDLEY
"Geoffrey Sinclair" <gsinc...@froggy.com.au> wrote in message
news:429582e9$0$19528$5a62...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
Len Deighton's book is the only place I have ever seen the Bf 109 quoted as
having a smaller turn radius than the Spitfire, and he didn't give any
reference as to where he got his figures. Every other reference I have seen
to the Bf 109 has commented that its turn was not as good as a Spitfire.
Admittedly all English language books, but not all British/Allied authors -
start with the classic quote by Adolf Galland.
Eunometic
controversial.
Firstly it depends on the version of Me 109 versus spitfire, secondly
it depends on the speed and altitude the comparrisons are made and
thirdly it sometimes seems to depend on analysis by RAE/RAF on damaged
and tired German airframes and engines with extra equipement that
burdens the aircraft.
While it is true that the Spitfire had lower wing loading the thicker
wing of the Me 109 when equiped with automatic slats could generate
considerably higher coefficients of lift. Thus on the basis of lift
loading (Cl or coefficient of lift x wing loading) the me 109
apparently wins. The Me 109 only looses out at higher speeds. What we
may also be seeing is that the spitfire wing is more efficient in
higher speed turning flight at the same lift so it washes of less speed
and thus has higher sustained turn rates. I believe maximum Cl of the
Spitfire wings NACA root 2213 to tip 2209.2 was 1.2 while that of the
Me 109 with slats was 1.6 due to its slats and higher angle of attack.
While the spitfire apparently gave warning of a stall once it came it
was viscious while that of the 109 was mild.
>From your line
"At full throttle at 12,000 feet the minimum radius of steady turn
without height loss is about 890 feet in the case of the Bf.109E, with
its wing loading of 32 lb/sq ft. The corresponding figure for a
comparable fighter with a wing loading of 25 lb/sq ft, such as the
Spitfire I or Hurricane I, is about 690 feet"
Note these are sustained not instanataneous turn rates and they would
change as power at altitude and speed altered with engine type and even
that is disputed by many.
Eunometic
Whoops,
I think "Lift Loading" is given by wing loading/Cl, where Cl =
coefficient of lift.
Thus if the max Cl of the spitfire profile is 1.2 and that of the Me
109 is 1.6 (working from memory here) then for the Emil versus Mk II.
Me 109E 32 /1.6 = 20
Spitfire 25/ 1.2 = 20.83
Ofourse other factors come in such as the effect of washout quite high
on the spit 4 degree, aspect ratio and the effect of the spits
elliptical wings, slat lenght as well as power which would allow the
aircraft to hang on to its propeller.
The Fw 190D had higher sustained turn rates than an Fw 190A simply due
to the higher power.
I think in reality to take advantage of this slightly higher lift the
Me 109 would loose energy (height and or speed) and this would place
the 109 at a disadvantage.
The Me 109F/G/G had Frise type ailerons so would have had less aileron
force at speed than Me 109E used in the report on the Me 109E where the
'rock solid ailerons' claim is made.
Guy Alcala
> Claims of Me 109 versus Spitfire turning circles are always
> controversial.
>
> Firstly it depends on the version of Me 109 versus spitfire, secondly
> it depends on the speed and altitude the comparrisons are made and
> thirdly it sometimes seems to depend on analysis by RAE/RAF on damaged
> and tired German airframes and engines with extra equipement that
> burdens the aircraft.
>
> While it is true that the Spitfire had lower wing loading the thicker
> wing of the Me 109 when equiped with automatic slats could generate
> considerably higher coefficients of lift. Thus on the basis of lift
> loading (Cl or coefficient of lift x wing loading) the me 109
> apparently wins. The Me 109 only looses out at higher speeds. What we
> may also be seeing is that the spitfire wing is more efficient in
> higher speed turning flight at the same lift so it washes of less speed
> and thus has higher sustained turn rates. I believe maximum Cl of the
> Spitfire wings NACA root 2213 to tip 2209.2 was 1.2 while that of the
> Me 109 with slats was 1.6 due to its slats and higher angle of attack.
No, see here,where Clmax is given for both a/c at 1 to 6g under the
conditions given:
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit109turn.gif
and here:
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit109turn18.gif
and sustained or instantaneous rates can be calculated. Note too the stall
boundaries, and the fact that the Spit is only using +6.5 lb. boost while
the 109 appears to be using a boost rating that the engine wasn't cleared
for, because the power output is far higher than standard: see
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit1vrs109e.html
> While the spitfire apparently gave warning of a stall once it came it
> was viscious while that of the 109 was mild.
> >From your line
> "At full throttle at 12,000 feet the minimum radius of steady turn
> without height loss is about 890 feet in the case of the Bf.109E, with
> its wing loading of 32 lb/sq ft. The corresponding figure for a
> comparable fighter with a wing loading of 25 lb/sq ft, such as the
> Spitfire I or Hurricane I, is about 690 feet"
>
> Note these are sustained not instanataneous turn rates and they would
> change as power at altitude and speed altered with engine type and even
> that is disputed by many.
See engine power data in the third link I gave above.
Guy
Geoffrey Sinclair
>Claims of Me 109 versus Spitfire turning circles are always
>controversial.
No, they are quite straight forward, it is rather like someone making
the silly claim the clipped wing Spitfire could out roll an Fw190 so
others can then claim the roll rates are "controversial".
>Firstly it depends on the version of Me 109 versus spitfire, secondly
>it depends on the speed and altitude the comparrisons are made and
>thirdly it sometimes seems to depend on analysis by RAE/RAF on damaged
>and tired German airframes and engines with extra equipement that
>burdens the aircraft.
And so far the reality is the tests that were run show the Spitfire
out turning the Bf109. Note the allies captured a steady number
of Bf109s during the war it was not just the one Bf109 test.
And as for "extra equipment" is the idea the Bf109s were not
flying with this equipment in combat? Think the performance
advantage if the Spitfire is stripped of some of its armament.
By the way add the possibility the Spitfire being caught early
in its sortie with full fuel and the Bf109 caught late, with little
fuel and therefore some weight advantage to add to the obvious
causes of out turning, the Spitfire moving faster than the Bf109.
>While it is true that the Spitfire had lower wing loading the thicker
>wing of the Me 109 when equipped with automatic slats could generate
>considerably higher coefficients of lift. Thus on the basis of lift
>loading (Cl or coefficient of lift x wing loading) the me 109
>apparently wins. The Me 109 only looses out at higher speeds.
So all you need to do is show in the real battles of WWII why the
Bf109 pilots avoided turning fights with Spitfires given they should
have noticed this claimed advantage. The Luftwaffe was quite
good at working out the strengths and weaknesses of opposing
types, hence the dive away from Spitfires given their initially poor
acceleration in a dive.
By the way the Bf109 loses out on all three axes at high speeds
compared with the Spitfire, and things like roll rate matter when
it comes to starting turns.
>What we
>may also be seeing is that the spitfire wing is more efficient in
>higher speed turning flight at the same lift so it washes of less speed
>and thus has higher sustained turn rates. I believe maximum Cl of the
>Spitfire wings NACA root 2213 to tip 2209.2 was 1.2 while that of the
>Me 109 with slats was 1.6 due to its slats and higher angle of attack.
Theory is fine but appears incorrect, practice indicates the real result.
>While the spitfire apparently gave warning of a stall once it came it
>was viscious while that of the 109 was mild.
This claim keeps being made when the literature reports the Spitfire
stall was good and probably better than the Bf109.
>>From your line
>"At full throttle at 12,000 feet the minimum radius of steady turn
>without height loss is about 890 feet in the case of the Bf.109E, with
>its wing loading of 32 lb/sq ft. The corresponding figure for a
>comparable fighter with a wing loading of 25 lb/sq ft, such as the
>Spitfire I or Hurricane I, is about 690 feet"
>
>Note these are sustained not instanataneous turn rates and they would
>change as power at altitude and speed altered with engine type and even
>that is disputed by many.
So let me understand this correctly, some people are going to dispute
the turning circles would vary by altitude and engine power?
Note also "instantaneous" turn rates require things like good ailerons
to initiate the turn, and it looks like the advantage normally resided
with the Spitfire.
I will take this text from the other response post,
"The Me 109F/G/G had Frise type ailerons so would have had less aileron
force at speed than Me 109E used in the report on the Me 109E where the
'rock solid ailerons' claim is made."
Then be aware in 1941 the Spitfire changed over from fabric
to metal covered ailerons. The trials were done in November
1940, with Spitfire R6718, and it was a major improvement,
"excellent" was the service pilots description from trials with
266 squadron in December 1940, "aileron control was now
as light as the elevators". As the war went on the wings were
further stiffened, partly to enable bombs to be carried, which
had the advantage of improving roll rate.
Also note the test pilots reported the poor Bf109 aileron
performance at high speeds in the Bf109G. You are aware
the narrow cockpit made it hard for the pilot to provide the
stick force to move the ailerons?
Christian Seitz
> the G-6 against a Spitfire LF IX, a Spitfire XIV and a Mustang III. All
> three are reported to have out-turned the 109, the Mustang being the
> most clearly superior.
Mark Hannah got different results. Spitfire>Bf109>Mustang. He said that
the Bf109 clearly outmanuvers the P51 in a slow manuvering/turning battle.
Christian Seitz
Eunometic
Early Me 109E-1.
A Me 109E has the following wing:
Roots NACA 2R1 14.2 Tips NACA 2R1 11
A Me 109F/G/K had redesigned wings; they had rounded tips and a changed
profile:
Roots NACA 2R1 14.2 Tips NACA 2R1 11.35
Presumably that means a thickness chord ratio of 14.2% and 11.35%.
For comparison the spifire was:
Spitfire wings NACA root 2213 to tip 2209.2 with a 6° dihedral with a
2.5° washout. The Me 109 I believe had no washout but relied on the
slats to ensure the tips stalled last (thus probably compromising lift
less). The 13% and 9.2% thick spifire wings are clearly going to have
a higher critical mach, particularly at the wing tips.
The 109F/G/K also had Friese ailerons. These have edges that dip into
the opposing side thus reducing ailerons forces by what I suspect is a
factor of 2 for speeds around 300-350 as full deflection could be
obtained with 20lbs force.
Some 109G and 109K also had flettner servo ailerons where a tab on the
back of the aileron was engineered to deflect in the opposing direction
of the aileron with the jystic thus reducing control forces. (not to be
confused with trim tabes that have seperate control). These apparently
had some problems intially with excessive deflection at speed as well
as reduced effectiveness a low speed.
Any comparisons made on the Me 109E have no relevence to Me 109F/G/K.
Thus from what I gather a Me 109F could pull a complete turn in 18-19
seconds compared to a Mk V Spitifre in 17-18 which meant that the
relative turning circle was greatly reduced while the 109E is often
credited with 24 seconds for a complete turn.
Here are some quotes that show that the differences were less than your
data might suggest.
"I tried to fire on a '109' that I spotted in the chaos. Not possible,
I couldn't get the correct angle. My plane juddered on the edge of a
stall. It was comforting that the Spitfire turned better than the
'109'! Certainly at high speed - but not at low speed."
-Pierre Clostermann's "The Big Show"
"Indeed many fresh pilots thought they were pulling very tight turns
even when the slots were still closed against the wing. For us, the
more experienced pilots, real manouvering only started when the slots
were out. For this reason it is possible to find pilots from the period
(1940) who will tell you that the Spitfite turned better than the Bf
109. That is not true. I myself had may dogfights with Spitfires and I
could always out-turn them.
One had to enter the turn correctly, then open up with the engine. It
was a matter of feel. When one noticed the speed becoming critical- the
aircraft vibrated- one had to ease up a bit, then pull back again, so
that in plan the best turn would have looked like an egg or a
horizontal ellipse rather than a circle. In this way one could out-turn
the Spitfire-and I shot down 6 of them doing it. "
- 109 E "experte", Erwin Leykau
**********************
Note here the tactic of a 109 Expert (german for ace) using the tactic
of washing of speed to increase turn rate at the apex of the ellipse to
do a tight elliptical turn inside a spitfire.
**********************
"In personally facing the RAF in the air over the Dunkirk encirclement,
I found that the Bf 109 E was faster, possessed a higher rate of climb,
but was somewhat less manouverable than the RAF fighters. Nevertheless,
during the campaign, no Spitfire or Hurricane ever turned inside my
plane, and after the war the RAF admitted the loss of 450 Hurricanes
and Spitfires during the Battle of France."
Oberst Herbert Kaiser, 68 victories, Bf 109 :
Page 470, 'The Great Book of WW2 Airplanes'.
*********
"I like it as an aeroplane, and with familiarity I think it will give
most of the allied fighters I have flown a hard time, particularly in a
close, hard turning, slow speed dog-fight. It will definitely
out-maneuver a P-51 in this type of flight, the roll rate and slow
speed characteristics being much better. The Spitfire on the other hand
is more of a problem for the '109 and I feel it is a superior close in
fighter. Having said that the aircraft are sufficiently closely matched
that pilot abilty would probably be the deciding factor."
-Mark Hanna'
Flying a Spanish Me 109G post war.
*************
"The Me 109 was exceptional in turning combat. If there is a fighter
plane built for turning combat , it has to be the Messer! Speedy,
maneuverable (especially in the vertical) and extremely dynamic."
- Major Kozhemyako, Soviet fighter pilot of the VVS
***********
The impression I have is that for the 109F/G/K series that it could
match even excede in turn and roll rate all allied fighters below
300-350 including tempest, mustang suffering only in comparison to the
spitfire in that area. It could apparently also outdive the P-51D
becuase with the introduction of the bubble cannopy came shockwave
formation that limited dives speed and controllabillity.
Nele VII
Geoffrey Sinclair wrote in message
<42996f14$0$24290$5a62...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>...
>Eunometic wrote in message <1117247985....@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>...
>Also note the test pilots reported the poor Bf109 aileron
>performance at high speeds in the Bf109G. You are aware
>the narrow cockpit made it hard for the pilot to provide the
>stick force to move the ailerons?
>
Reading Pokrishkin's memoirs, there was also a "feature" of the Bf-109 such is "lag" in
vertical maneuvre at high speeds. I think that has something to do with the streching of
the steel cables (four of them) used to move horizontal stabilizer (as well as the
vertical). Dan Ford described how wires feel like (well, in Piper Cub).
Per manual (Bf-109E-3) turn radiuses are 170m (120m with flaps extended) at 0m and 320m at
6,000m (regardless of flaps deployment). No speed given, but note that max speed with
exteteded flaps is 250kph.
Nele
NULLA ROSA SINE SPINA
Eunometic
ailerons from the Me 109F onwards and the heaviness associated with the
Me 109E was considerably reduced or at least delayed untill somewhat
higher speeds. Some 109s that came from some manufacturers had
Flettner Control/Servo Tabs on the ailerons not to be confused with
trim tabs. These greatly reduced aileron forces but appear to have had
some downsides such as allowing such large aileron deflections at speed
that safety issues came up. (wing warping and control reversability,
structural issues). I have found little about the effectiveness of
these except that the gearing on them was reduced to deal with the high
speed issues.
Earlier RAF tests on 109E's claimed the ailerons became stiff at 400mph
yet this is the level speed of the 109F/G/K.
Geoffrey Sinclair
>That's all very nice however you are comparing a Spitfire I to a very
>Early Me 109E-1.
Since the deleted information is clearly marked as Spitfire 1 versus
Bf109E this is stating the obvious
>A Me 109E has the following wing:
>Roots NACA 2R1 14.2 Tips NACA 2R1 11
>A Me 109F/G/K had redesigned wings; they had rounded tips and a changed
>profile: Roots NACA 2R1 14.2 Tips NACA 2R1 11.35
>Presumably that means a thickness chord ratio of 14.2% and 11.35%.
The Bf109E-3 had a wing area of 174 square feet and an empty
weight of 4,421 pounds, with a 1,100 HP engine
The Bf109F-3 had a wing area of 173 square feet and an empty
weight of 4,321 pounds, with a 1,300 HP engine.
The general consensus is the F model was the best to fly, lightest
(or more correctly best power to weight ratio) and better
aerodynamically than the E model.
>For comparison the spifire was:
>Spitfire wings NACA root 2213 to tip 2209.2 with a 6° dihedral with a
>2.5° washout. The Me 109 I believe had no washout but relied on the
>slats to ensure the tips stalled last (thus probably compromising lift
>less). The 13% and 9.2% thick spifire wings are clearly going to have
>a higher critical mach, particularly at the wing tips.
>The 109F/G/K also had Friese ailerons. These have edges that dip into
>the opposing side thus reducing ailerons forces by what I suspect is a
>factor of 2 for speeds around 300-350 as full deflection could be
>obtained with 20lbs force.
Why is it we are left with a whole lot of I suspects leading to a
solid conclusion?
>Some 109G and 109K also had flettner servo ailerons where a tab on the
>back of the aileron was engineered to deflect in the opposing direction
>of the aileron with the jystic thus reducing control forces. (not to be
>confused with trim tabes that have seperate control). These apparently
>had some problems intially with excessive deflection at speed as well
>as reduced effectiveness a low speed.
> Any comparisons made on the Me 109E have no relevence to Me 109F/G/K.
Remarkably no one has said this, instead going to the relevant test
reports for the later model Spitfires versus the later model Bf109s,
which still show the Spitfire out turning the Bf109.
>Thus from what I gather a Me 109F could pull a complete turn in 18-19
>seconds compared to a Mk V Spitifre in 17-18 which meant that the
>relative turning circle was greatly reduced while the 109E is often
>credited with 24 seconds for a complete turn.
Thus from what you can gather? Is this a long winded way of saying
"I guess"? Where exactly is the test data for this with the relevant
speed and altitude data?
Which Bf109F? The F-1, F-2 or F-3 or later, it makes a difference.
>Here are some quotes that show that the differences were less than your
>data might suggest.
So we have the impressions of some pilots versus the actual test
results.
>"I tried to fire on a '109' that I spotted in the chaos. Not possible,
>I couldn't get the correct angle. My plane juddered on the edge of a
>stall. It was comforting that the Spitfire turned better than the
>'109'! Certainly at high speed - but not at low speed."
>-Pierre Clostermann's "The Big Show"
Spitfire type? Bf109 type? Altitude? speed? and so on.
>"Indeed many fresh pilots thought they were pulling very tight turns
>even when the slots were still closed against the wing. For us, the
>more experienced pilots, real manouvering only started when the slots
>were out. For this reason it is possible to find pilots from the period
>(1940) who will tell you that the Spitfite turned better than the Bf
>109. That is not true. I myself had may dogfights with Spitfires and I
>could always out-turn them.
>One had to enter the turn correctly, then open up with the engine. It
>was a matter of feel. When one noticed the speed becoming critical- the
>aircraft vibrated- one had to ease up a bit, then pull back again, so
>that in plan the best turn would have looked like an egg or a
>horizontal ellipse rather than a circle. In this way one could out-turn
>the Spitfire-and I shot down 6 of them doing it. "
>- 109 E "experte", Erwin Leykau
So in other words Leykau was one of those who flew the Bf109
right to the edge of its performance, entered a turn at low engine
power, applied power and out turned a Spitfire. Sort of like
the IJAAF tactics except they used combat flaps.
Now all we need is an idea of the speed the Spitfire was going,
given Leykau implies he was at medium to low speed given
his engine open up speed and indeed the course he says he flew.
>Note here the tactic of a 109 Expert (german for ace) using the tactic
>of washing of speed to increase turn rate at the apex of the ellipse to
>do a tight elliptical turn inside a spitfire.
In other words rather than out turning the Spitfire it out decelerated
the Spitfire, thereby gaining turn performance.
There is a big difference between using various ideas to out turn an
opponent under combat conditions and doing so under the equal
conditions of a test flight.
Newsflash, some allied fighters out turned Zeros in combat, there
fore we can claim they had comparable or better turning performance,
correct?
>"In personally facing the RAF in the air over the Dunkirk encirclement,
>I found that the Bf 109 E was faster, possessed a higher rate of climb,
>but was somewhat less manouverable than the RAF fighters. Nevertheless,
>during the campaign, no Spitfire or Hurricane ever turned inside my
>plane, and after the war the RAF admitted the loss of 450 Hurricanes
>and Spitfires during the Battle of France."
>Oberst Herbert Kaiser, 68 victories, Bf 109 :
>Page 470, 'The Great Book of WW2 Airplanes'.
So again we have an expert German pilot but no idea of how often
he encountered the Spitfire or for that matter how often he tried
turning tactics.
By the way the Luftwaffe lost some 257 Bf109s May and June 1940
to all causes.
>"I like it as an aeroplane, and with familiarity I think it will give
>most of the allied fighters I have flown a hard time, particularly in a
>close, hard turning, slow speed dog-fight. It will definitely
>out-maneuver a P-51 in this type of flight, the roll rate and slow
>speed characteristics being much better. The Spitfire on the other hand
>is more of a problem for the '109 and I feel it is a superior close in
>fighter. Having said that the aircraft are sufficiently closely matched
>that pilot abilty would probably be the deciding factor."
>-Mark Hanna'
>Flying a Spanish Me 109G post war.
So the claim is the Bf109G had a low speed advantage over the Mustang.
The other claim is the Spitfire (no model given) was the superior close in
fighter and that the two types were closely matched, but of course the
match is overall performance, with each having advantages over the
other, no mention of turning circles. Eric Brown and the ADFU tend to
disagree once you use the Spitfire IX or later.
By the way the Spanish Bf109Gs were G-2 airframes mated to
French or British engines and the Merlins seem to have given a
performance boost, at least at low altitudes.
>"The Me 109 was exceptional in turning combat. If there is a fighter
>plane built for turning combat , it has to be the Messer! Speedy,
>maneuverable (especially in the vertical) and extremely dynamic."
>- Major Kozhemyako, Soviet fighter pilot of the VVS
So what exactly is being compared here, not the I-15 or I-16,
given their turning performance. The Zero could out turn the
Spitfire, which meant different tactics in the Pacific. It all
depends on what the other side has. Substitute the major
above for a similar rank IJNAF pilot.
So what is the Soviet aircraft being used and which model of
the Bf109?
>The impression I have is that for the 109F/G/K series that it could
>match even excede in turn and roll rate all allied fighters below
>300-350 including tempest, mustang suffering only in comparison to the
>spitfire in that area. It could apparently also outdive the P-51D
>becuase with the introduction of the bubble cannopy came shockwave
>formation that limited dives speed and controllabillity.
The impression I have is someone fitting evidence into the
preferred conclusion. No evidence is provided, only a whole
lot of suppositions.
For example how many Bf109Fs were around in 1944 to fight the
Tempests and P-51Ds?
How about roll rate charts? Where is the Bf109F, G , K roll rate
information? Tempest?
Also just how many dog fights were taking place at 300 mph
or below in 1944?
And again, can you show the Luftwaffe trying to use the tactic of
out turning the Spitfire as opposed to diving away from it.
By the way, additional quotes, since the above Luftwaffe pilots
mainly come from 1940.
Adolf Galland on the Spitfire in 1940,
"Was 10 to 15 mph slower than our fighters but could perform
steeper and tighter turns."
Heinz Knocke on a Spitfire combat in 1940
" [they] can make such infernally tight turns ; there seems to
be no way of nailing them. Grunert spends several minutes
trying to catch two of the Tommies flying close together ; but
they always break away and vanish into the overcast."
Johannes Steinhof, about the battle of Britain,
" the 109 had a certain advantage, except for its turning radius,
but the later Spitfire had a higher ceiling and better climb"
Fundamentally turning radius depended on the machine but also
the speed and how close to stalling speed the pilot was prepared
to go. So I do not doubt stories of Bf109s out turning Spitfires,
in combat but the reality is under the same conditions the Spitfire
could out turn the Bf109.
Geoffrey Sinclair
To quote Eric Brown, testing a Bf109G-6, after noting the controls
were good at 240 mph.
"in a dive at 400 mph the controls felt as if they had seized."
He reported things were better above 25,000 feet, "performed
efficiently both in dog fighting and as an attacker of bomber
formations"
He also notes if you were in a Spitfire V you needed to reply
on manoeuvrability to cope with a Bf109G.
Why exactly is it assumed that the Bf109 ailerons had to be good
to at least the level flight top speed?
Eunometic
Geoffrey Sinclair wrote:
> Eunometic wrote in message <1117677591....@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>...
> >Stick forces decreased markedly with the introduction of Friese
> >ailerons from the Me 109F onwards and the heaviness associated with the
> >Me 109E was considerably reduced or at least delayed untill somewhat
> >higher speeds. Some 109s that came from some manufacturers had
> >Flettner Control/Servo Tabs on the ailerons not to be confused with
> >trim tabs. These greatly reduced aileron forces but appear to have had
> >some downsides such as allowing such large aileron deflections at speed
> >that safety issues came up. (wing warping and control reversability,
> >structural issues). I have found little about the effectiveness of
> >these except that the gearing on them was reduced to deal with the high
> >speed issues.
> >
> >Earlier RAF tests on 109E's claimed the ailerons became stiff at 400mph
> >yet this is the level speed of the 109F/G/K.
>
>
> To quote Eric Brown, testing a Bf109G-6, after noting the controls
> were good at 240 mph.
>
> "in a dive at 400 mph the controls felt as if they had seized."
Ok, bit of a cut and paste from me after bit of a boozie meal:
http://www.virtualpilots.fi/feature/articles/109myths/
" AFDU 28 October 1941: TACTICAL TRIALS - Me.109F AIRCRAFT
- 7. No manoeuvrability trials were carried out against other aircraft
but the Me.109F was dived up to 420 m.p.h., I.A.S., with controls
trimmed for level flight and it was found that although the elevators
had become heavy and the ailerons had stiffened up appreciably, fairly
tight turns were still possible. [...] It is considered that recovery
from a high speed dive near the ground would be difficult, as the loss
of height entailed is considerable. This may account for occasional
reports of Me.109F being seen to dive straigth into the ground without
apparently being fired at. Please see sections diving and stick forces
for pilot comments on the subject. "
(NB aircraft trimed for a dive needed to be untrimed for recovery)
- How difficult was it to control the 109 in high velocities, 600 kmh
and above?
The Messerschmitt became stiff to steer not until the speed exceeded
700kmh. The control column was as stiff as it had been fastened with
tape, you could not use the ailerons. Yet you could control the plane."
- Kyösti Karhila, Finnish fighter ace. 32 victories. Source: Interview
by Finnish Virtual Pilots Association.
- This give an important clue why there is very large differencies in
opinion about the heaviness of the 109. In high speeds the plane
stiffened - but 109 pilots could still control if. So why the Allied
test pilots have so different opinion? Simple. They were not used to
the plane.
"Messerschmitt Bf 109 A-E, Development - Testing - Production" by Willy
Radinger & Walter Schick. In the foreword it states that work on the
book was begun in 1994 and Walter Schick died in 1995. It states he is
writing the book to correct the many errors that have crept into
aviation books over the years.
In reference to the 109E he quotes Messerscmitt data as:
Tightest turn radius at ground level = 125 m = 410 ft
Tightest turn radius at 6km = 230 m = 754 ft
Quite different from the RAF data of 890 feet turning radious?
As far as Eric Brown goes here is his impression of the 'supersonic'
P47
- The Me 109 was dived to Mach 0.79 in instrumented tests. Slightly
modified, it was even dived to Mach 0.80, and the problems experimented
there weren't due to compressility, but due to aileron overbalancing.
Compare this to Supermarine Spitfire, which achieved dive speeds well
above those of any other WW2 fighter, getting to Mach 0.89 on one
occasion. P-51 and Fw 190 achieved about Mach 0.80. The P-47 had the
lowest permissible Mach number of these aircraft. Test pilot Eric Brown
observed it became uncontrollable at Mach 0.73, and "analysis showed
that a dive to M=0.74 would almost certainly be a 'graveyard dive'."
- Source: Radinger/Otto/Schick: "Messerschmitt Me 109", volumes 1 and
2, Eric Brown: "Testing for Combat".
>From the same site in reference to the 109E
"- An often quoted British report made of a Me 109 E talks about the
"short stick travel", "due to the cramped cockpit a pilot could only
apply about 40 pounds side force on the stick" and "at 400 mph with 40
pounds side force and only one fifth aileron displaced, it required 4
seconds to get into a 45 degree roll or bank. That immediately
classifies the airplane as being unmaneuverable and unacceptable as a
fighter."
- The report claims that The 109-E needed 37lb stick force for a 1/5
aileron deflection at 400mph. Coincidentally, the Spitfire 1 required
57 lb stick force from the pilot for similar deflection at similar
speed. This is a 54% higher stickforce for the Spitfire pilot.
- The British test is taken as gospel by many, while it is just one
test, made by the enemy, using a worn out and battle damaged airframe.
German flight tests report pilots using aileron forces of over 45 lbs
and 109's stick was designed for elevator stick forces of up to or over
85kg, over 180 lbs. So it was more matter of the pilot and the test
procedures, than maneuverability of the Bf 109. Several details of that
test are suspicious and German chief test pilot Heinrich Beauvais
disagreed with it and with Eric Brown. Beauvais tried to get into
contact after the war with Eric Brown to discuss the matters, but Brown
refused to discuss the 109 with him. This being the case, it seems that
Brown wasn't willing to listen a pilot who'd flown more on the 109 than
he ever had, and was more interested on believing his negative findings
of the 109 than being proven wrong by an expert."{
>
> He reported things were better above 25,000 feet, "performed
> efficiently both in dog fighting and as an attacker of bomber
> formations"
>
> He also notes if you were in a Spitfire V you needed to reply
> on manoeuvrability to cope with a Bf109G.
>
> Why exactly is it assumed that the Bf109 ailerons had to be good
> to at least the level flight top speed?
One would assume that in designing an aircraft to fly at over 400mph
(not withstnading British tests the Me 109G achieved only 386 this and
the 109f was shy of 400 at about 392mph) that they would engineer
reasonable control forces. Diving a Me 109E would have taught the
Germans the problems of flight at 400mph in terms of aileron forces.
It seems implausible that that efforts would not be put in to make it
more manageable. Frise ailerons and Fletner Control Tabs show an
attempt at this.
While I believe the Me 109 still lagged allied fighters I'm begining to
think that it wasn't anywhere as near as much. tests seem to have been
on aircraft whose engines were in poor condition and damaged by
incorrect coolants and lubricants. In the case of the British tests of
the Me 109 F-4 it seems it possibly never reached the power output of
the 109E. The German tests compared to the fw190 give an subjective
comparision of the 109 versus the Fw 190 and show up some of the same
issues the Allied test came up with.
http://www.beim-zeugmeister.de/zeugmeister/index.php?id=21&L=1
Corey C. Jordan
>- The Me 109 was dived to Mach 0.79 in instrumented tests. Slightly
>modified, it was even dived to Mach 0.80, and the problems experimented
>there weren't due to compressility, but due to aileron overbalancing.
>Compare this to Supermarine Spitfire, which achieved dive speeds well
>above those of any other WW2 fighter, getting to Mach 0.89 on one
>occasion. P-51 and Fw 190 achieved about Mach 0.80. The P-47 had the
>lowest permissible Mach number of these aircraft. Test pilot Eric Brown
>observed it became uncontrollable at Mach 0.73, and "analysis showed
>that a dive to M=3D0.74 would almost certainly be a 'graveyard dive'."
>- Source: Radinger/Otto/Schick: "Messerschmitt Me 109", volumes 1 and
>2, Eric Brown: "Testing for Combat".
>
"analysis showed that a dive to M=3D0.74 would almost certainly be a
'graveyard dive'."
Too bad their analysis was horribly flawed. Test pilot Herb Fisher proved
it wrong at least 150 times.....
"The desire to develop a propeller that maintained its efficiency at transonic
speeds led the Curtiss Propeller Division to design and test several different
concepts. Herb Fisher was the logical choice to fly the test aircraft. Curtiss
was able to obtain a P-47D-30-RE from the Air Corps. Fitted with one of several
different "supersonic propellers", Fisher undertook a long and risky flight test
program that incorporated high Mach dives from high altitudes. Typically, Fisher
would climb above 35,000 ft. He would then push over into a steep dive, allowing
his airspeed to build beyond 560 mph (true airspeed). He would then execute a
pullout at 18,000 ft. Several of these dives resulted in speeds of Mach .83.
However, that was as fast as the P-47 could go."
To see actual dive test data, go here:
http://home.att.net/~Historyzone/DiveChart.html
Fisher reached Mach 0.79 on this particular dive... Clearly not a "graveyard"
experience. In fact, Fisher regarded these dives as being not especially
dangerous, even to the degree that he took his 3-year old todler along on one of
the test dives ( I have a photo of this given to me by Fisher's son).
Sources: Herb Fisher, Herb Fisher Jr., and Curtiss-Wright.
My regards,
Widewing (C.C. Jordan)
http://www.aerial-combat.com
http://www.netaces.org
http://www.hitechcreations.com
"If it's red, it's dead." - Mike "Hammer" Harris
Geoffrey Sinclair
Geoffrey Sinclair wrote:
> Eunometic wrote in message <1117677591....@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>...
>> >Stick forces decreased markedly with the introduction of Friese
>> >ailerons from the Me 109F onwards and the heaviness associated with the
>> >Me 109E was considerably reduced or at least delayed untill somewhat
>> >higher speeds. Some 109s that came from some manufacturers had
>> >Flettner Control/Servo Tabs on the ailerons not to be confused with
>> >trim tabs. These greatly reduced aileron forces but appear to have had
>> >some downsides such as allowing such large aileron deflections at speed
>> >that safety issues came up. (wing warping and control reversability,
>> >structural issues). I have found little about the effectiveness of
>> >these except that the gearing on them was reduced to deal with the high
>> >speed issues.
>> >
>> >Earlier RAF tests on 109E's claimed the ailerons became stiff at 400mph
>> >yet this is the level speed of the 109F/G/K.
>>
>>
>> To quote Eric Brown, testing a Bf109G-6, after noting the controls
>> were good at 240 mph.
>>
>> "in a dive at 400 mph the controls felt as if they had seized."
>
>Ok, bit of a cut and paste from me after bit of a boozie meal:
>
>http://www.virtualpilots.fi/feature/articles/109myths/
This is an interesting read, basically a person who really likes the
Bf109 has put up a web page that attacks any performance
data detrimental to the Bf109, attaches labels to call into doubt
other aircraft advantages, does things like use wartime kill claims.
A good way to summarise the site is the critique of the performance
of the Bf109E versus Spitfire I testing. There is great complaint
about the Spitfire using a Merlin III and constant speed propeller
as 1940 technology, versus the 1939 Bf109E, this is claimed to
make the Spitfire unrepresentative, it should be 1939 standard.
The Merlin III and II basically differed by what propeller they could
take, in any case only the first 74 aircraft had the earlier engine,
that is everything delivered from May 1939 onwards was Merlin
III. And of course we know in 1940 the RAF had a crash conversion
program to fit constant speed propellers to their fighters to match
the ones the Bf109s were using.
Apparently it is unfair to do this for tests. Much better it seems to
match the Bf109E versus a Spitfire without a similar propeller. I
presume the extra weights added to the Spitfire, like pilot armour
should be removed as well to match the 1939 Spitfire specification,
including the 1940 bullet proof windscreen costing 6 mph in top speed.
We are to presume there was a major performance leap made by the
various Bf109E sub types between 1939 and mid 1940.
Basically a nice idea of a site that ruins its presentation by making
the above sorts of claims. It wants to dispel the myths about the
Bf109 but is happy to do the above.
By the way the RAF did not, when testing, produce the performance
figures to match the USAAF figures on a number of occasions, it
seems the RAF had more conservative ideas on engine power
settings, which would be consistent across RAF testing.
>" AFDU 28 October 1941: TACTICAL TRIALS - Me.109F AIRCRAFT
>- 7. No manoeuvrability trials were carried out against other aircraft
>but the Me.109F was dived up to 420 m.p.h., I.A.S., with controls
>trimmed for level flight and it was found that although the elevators
>had become heavy and the ailerons had stiffened up appreciably, fairly
>tight turns were still possible.
Which is rudder with some ailerons.
[...] It is considered that recovery
>from a high speed dive near the ground would be difficult, as the loss
>of height entailed is considerable. This may account for occasional
>reports of Me.109F being seen to dive straigth into the ground without
>apparently being fired at. Please see sections diving and stick forces
>for pilot comments on the subject. "
>
>(NB aircraft trimed for a dive needed to be untrimed for recovery)
And the heavy elevators were real, the RAF pilots even came up with
the idea of high speed dives down low to force the Bf109 to break off.
>- How difficult was it to control the 109 in high velocities, 600 kmh
>and above?
Depends on the model.
>The Messerschmitt became stiff to steer not until the speed exceeded
>700kmh. The control column was as stiff as it had been fastened with
>tape, you could not use the ailerons. Yet you could control the plane."
>- Kyösti Karhila, Finnish fighter ace. 32 victories. Source: Interview
>by Finnish Virtual Pilots Association.
So do not try a roll and do not expect sudden course changes but
you are not in the compressibility region yet, at around 440 mph,
the controls will answer.
>- This give an important clue why there is very large differencies in
>opinion about the heaviness of the 109. In high speeds the plane
>stiffened - but 109 pilots could still control if. So why the Allied
>test pilots have so different opinion? Simple. They were not used to
>the plane.
Additional text
"Many of them had flown planes, that had for example hydraulically
enhanced controls."
Nice piece of speculation, which shows what the site is all about,
only nice things on the Bf109 are allowed, reasons will be found
why other tests fail to match the better tests, not the other way
around The claim is also the Axis pilots exercised more to
overcome the stick forces for example.
Alternatively the allied test pilots were used to the performance of
many different types and were comparing the Bf109 to those.
Oh yes, given the average combat lifetime the allied test pilots
would be more representative of the experience of the Bf109
pilot than the various axis experts quoted.
>"Messerschmitt Bf 109 A-E, Development - Testing - Production" by Willy
>Radinger & Walter Schick. In the foreword it states that work on the
>book was begun in 1994 and Walter Schick died in 1995. It states he is
>writing the book to correct the many errors that have crept into
>aviation books over the years.
>
>In reference to the 109E he quotes Messerscmitt data as:
>Tightest turn radius at ground level = 125 m = 410 ft
>Tightest turn radius at 6km = 230 m = 754 ft
>
>Quite different from the RAF data of 890 feet turning radious?
This depends on things like the speed of entry to the turn. You need
to compare like with like.
>As far as Eric Brown goes here is his impression of the 'supersonic'
>P47
So now we jump to the P-47 in an apparent attempt to discredit
Brown on the Bf109.
>- The Me 109 was dived to Mach 0.79 in instrumented tests. Slightly
>modified, it was even dived to Mach 0.80, and the problems experimented
>there weren't due to compressility, but due to aileron overbalancing.
>Compare this to Supermarine Spitfire, which achieved dive speeds well
>above those of any other WW2 fighter, getting to Mach 0.89 on one
>occasion. P-51 and Fw 190 achieved about Mach 0.80. The P-47 had the
>lowest permissible Mach number of these aircraft. Test pilot Eric Brown
>observed it became uncontrollable at Mach 0.73, and "analysis showed
>that a dive to M=0.74 would almost certainly be a 'graveyard dive'."
>- Source: Radinger/Otto/Schick: "Messerschmitt Me 109", volumes 1 and
>2, Eric Brown: "Testing for Combat".
This would depend on the P-47 model again, the USAAF found it
was a problem during the first deployments in the US, pilots were
not recovering from high speed dives.
Later models had behaviour thanks to metal covered control surfaces
plus the pilots had the warnings.
>>From the same site in reference to the 109E
>"- An often quoted British report made of a Me 109 E talks about the
>"short stick travel", "due to the cramped cockpit a pilot could only
>apply about 40 pounds side force on the stick" and "at 400 mph with 40
>pounds side force and only one fifth aileron displaced, it required 4
>seconds to get into a 45 degree roll or bank. That immediately
>classifies the airplane as being unmaneuverable and unacceptable as a
>fighter."
>- The report claims that The 109-E needed 37lb stick force for a 1/5
>aileron deflection at 400mph. Coincidentally, the Spitfire 1 required
>57 lb stick force from the pilot for similar deflection at similar
>speed. This is a 54% higher stickforce for the Spitfire pilot.
Just before the above extract.
"Spitfire and a 109 had equal roll rates at up to 400 mph speeds. "
Yet the claim is the Spitfire required more stick force to do this?
>- The British test is taken as gospel by many, while it is just one
>test, made by the enemy, using a worn out and battle damaged airframe.
Yes folks, so far all the RAF tests have been made on worn out and
battle damaged aircraft. It seems the average Bf109 was going to
fall to pieces quickly and could not be properly repaired.
Which if that was the case makes the tests quite representative
of the Bf109s in actual Luftwaffe service.
>German flight tests report pilots using aileron forces of over 45 lbs
>and 109's stick was designed for elevator stick forces of up to or over
>85kg, over 180 lbs.
So how many people can actually apply this much sideways force?
How about when in a Bf109 cockpit?
The USAAF roll rate comparisons were done at a standard 50 pounds.
>So it was more matter of the pilot and the test
>procedures, than maneuverability of the Bf 109.
Alternatively we have the usual attempts to deflect unwanted facts.
>Several details of that
>test are suspicious and German chief test pilot Heinrich Beauvais
>disagreed with it and with Eric Brown. Beauvais tried to get into
>contact after the war with Eric Brown to discuss the matters, but Brown
>refused to discuss the 109 with him. This being the case, it seems that
>Brown wasn't willing to listen a pilot who'd flown more on the 109 than
>he ever had, and was more interested on believing his negative findings
>of the 109 than being proven wrong by an expert."{
Of course what Brown did is not given, we have one side of the story.
Sort of the summary of the web page being referenced.
>> He reported things were better above 25,000 feet, "performed
>> efficiently both in dog fighting and as an attacker of bomber
>> formations"
>>
>> He also notes if you were in a Spitfire V you needed to reply
>> on manoeuvrability to cope with a Bf109G.
>>
>> Why exactly is it assumed that the Bf109 ailerons had to be good
>> to at least the level flight top speed?
>
>One would assume that in designing an aircraft to fly at over 400mph
>(not withstnading British tests the Me 109G achieved only 386 this and
>the 109f was shy of 400 at about 392mph) that they would engineer
>reasonable control forces.
Theory is wonderful, mass production another.
>Diving a Me 109E would have taught the
>Germans the problems of flight at 400mph in terms of aileron forces.
>It seems implausible that that efforts would not be put in to make it
>more manageable. Frise ailerons and Fletner Control Tabs show an
>attempt at this.
What seems to be ignored is the idea the solutions could be quickly
found and incorporated into the design. You need to firstly figure
out solutions then figure out how you can change over the wing design
to use the solutions.
Not easy given the usual problems altering a mass production setup.
>While I believe the Me 109 still lagged allied fighters I'm begining to
>think that it wasn't anywhere as near as much. tests seem to have been
>on aircraft whose engines were in poor condition and damaged by
>incorrect coolants and lubricants. In the case of the British tests of
>the Me 109 F-4 it seems it possibly never reached the power output of
>the 109E.
You are not beginning to think, you have been continually telling
the world it is your conclusion then announcing you have found the
evidence to prove it.
Secondly we have yet again "seem to" and "possibly" which are then
rolled into a definite conclusion.
Guy Alcala
C.C., late model P-47s like the D-30 had dive flaps, which made it possible to pull
out at much higher mach numbers. Does anyone know what model P-47 Brown was flying
(razorback or bubble, with/without dorsal fin, with/without underwing pylons) and if
it had dive flaps? Judging by the illustration Fisher was flying a clean a/c, not
one in typical combat configuration.
Guy
Guy Alcala
So? You are forgetting the difference between TAS and IAS. At the kind of
altitudes that a 109F/G/K could reach that speed in level flight, 400TAS is
only going to be about 280-290IAS.
Guy
Jukka O. Kauppinen
> Also note the test pilots reported the poor Bf109 aileron
> performance at high speeds in the Bf109G. You are aware
> the narrow cockpit made it hard for the pilot to provide the
> stick force to move the ailerons?
No, it didn't. Another urban myth based on one British test pilot's opinion.
An often quoted British report made of a Me 109 E talks about the "short
stick travel", "due to the cramped cockpit a pilot could only apply
about 40 pounds side force on the stick" and "at 400 mph with 40 pounds
side force and only one fifth aileron displaced, it required 4 seconds
to get into a 45 degree roll or bank. That immediately classifies the
airplane as being unmaneuverable and unacceptable as a fighter."
But...
The report claims that The 109-E needed 37lb stick force for a 1/5
aileron deflection at 400mph. Coincidentally, the Spitfire 1 required 57
lb stick force from the pilot for similar deflection at similar speed.
This is a 54% higher stickforce for the Spitfire pilot.
The British test is taken as gospel by many, while it is just one test,
made by the enemy, using a worn out and battle damaged airframe. German
flight tests report pilots using aileron forces of over 45 lbs and 109's
stick was designed for elevator stick forces of up to or over 85kg, over
180 lbs. Finnish Bf 109 G-2 test revealed that at 450 km/h the stick
could be still fully taken to the limit with ~10 kg force (20 pounds).
Aileron roll without rudder could be performed to both direction from
400-450 km/h in 4-5 s. This is better than the Spitfire with fabric
ailerons, about the same as Spitfire with metal ailerons and slightly
below clipped wing Spitfire. So it was more matter of the pilot and the
test procedures, than maneuverability of the Bf 109. Several details of
that test are suspicious and German chief test pilot Heinrich Beauvais
disagreed with it and with Eric Brown. Beauvais tried to get into
contact after the war with Eric Brown to discuss the matters, but Brown
refused to discuss the 109 with him. This being the case, it seems that
Brown wasn't willing to listen a pilot who'd flown more on the 109 than
he ever had, and was more interested on believing his negative findings
of the 109 than being proven wrong by an expert.
Strange that not one of the 109 combat pilots have found, even when
spesifically asked, trouble with moving the aelerons in high speeds.
jok
Geoffrey Sinclair
>> Also note the test pilots reported the poor Bf109 aileron
>> performance at high speeds in the Bf109G. You are aware
>> the narrow cockpit made it hard for the pilot to provide the
>> stick force to move the ailerons?
>
>No, it didn't. Another urban myth based on one British test pilot's opinion.
So I gather you are the author of the web page,
http://www.virtualpilots.fi/feature/articles/109myths/
Since the post is a simple copy of the text.
>An often quoted British report made of a Me 109 E talks about the "short
>stick travel", "due to the cramped cockpit a pilot could only apply
>about 40 pounds side force on the stick" and "at 400 mph with 40 pounds
>side force and only one fifth aileron displaced, it required 4 seconds
>to get into a 45 degree roll or bank. That immediately classifies the
>airplane as being unmaneuverable and unacceptable as a fighter."
>
>But...
>
>The report claims that The 109-E needed 37lb stick force for a 1/5
>aileron deflection at 400mph. Coincidentally, the Spitfire 1 required 57
>lb stick force from the pilot for similar deflection at similar speed.
>This is a 54% higher stickforce for the Spitfire pilot.
Just before the above extract.
"Spitfire and a 109 had equal roll rates at up to 400 mph speeds. "
Yet the claim is the Spitfire required more stick force to do this?
>The British test is taken as gospel by many, while it is just one test,
>made by the enemy, using a worn out and battle damaged airframe.
The Bf109E was a worn out airframe?
The reports of the G model testing reporting the same thing are
also of worn out and battle damaged types?
>German
>flight tests report pilots using aileron forces of over 45 lbs and 109's
>stick was designed for elevator stick forces of up to or over 85kg, over
>180 lbs.
So how many people can actually exert this force, and why so high
if the ailerons were so light?
>Finnish Bf 109 G-2 test revealed that at 450 km/h the stick
>could be still fully taken to the limit with ~10 kg force (20 pounds).
In other words at around the speed the pilots report it as being
nice to handle, in this case 280 mph.
>Aileron roll without rudder could be performed to both direction from
>400-450 km/h in 4-5 s. This is better than the Spitfire with fabric
>ailerons, about the same as Spitfire with metal ailerons and slightly
>below clipped wing Spitfire.
Spitfire V, IX , XII or XIV? And how often was roll rate at 250 to
280 mph that important when all the types in 1942 were pushing
through the 400 mph, 640 km/hr mark?
>So it was more matter of the pilot and the
>test procedures, than maneuverability of the Bf 109. Several details of
>that test are suspicious and German chief test pilot Heinrich Beauvais
>disagreed with it and with Eric Brown. Beauvais tried to get into
>contact after the war with Eric Brown to discuss the matters, but Brown
>refused to discuss the 109 with him. This being the case, it seems that
>Brown wasn't willing to listen a pilot who'd flown more on the 109 than
>he ever had, and was more interested on believing his negative findings
>of the 109 than being proven wrong by an expert.
It would be good to hear Brown's side of this.
>Strange that not one of the 109 combat pilots have found, even when
>spesifically asked, trouble with moving the aelerons in high speeds.
"The Messerschmitt became stiff to steer not until the speed exceeded
700kmh. The control column was as stiff as it had been fastened with
tape, you could not use the ailerons. Yet you could control the plane."
- Kyösti Karhila, Finnish fighter ace. 32 victories. Source: Interview
by Finnish Virtual Pilots Association."
On the same web page.
Jukka O. Kauppinen
>>http://www.virtualpilots.fi/feature/articles/109myths/
>
>
> This is an interesting read, basically a person who really likes the
> Bf109 has put up a web page that attacks any performance
> data detrimental to the Bf109, attaches labels to call into doubt
> other aircraft advantages, does things like use wartime kill claims.
And if you read what the introduction says:
"This article is primarily a collection of pilot's anecdotes that relate
to actual flying of the plane. The quotes are from interviews, articles
and books. They are complemented with some additional technical bits and
other comments. It is not a serious study - mainly just bunch of pilot
opinions that might be conflicting to each other. Pilot's comments are
always "their facts" and may contradict. Terminology may be faulty at
times or the pilots use terms in different way than we're used to today.
I do not guarantee 100% that the other materials are always completely
correct. Errors may and most likely remain, but you can send corrections
- the author is admits to be clueness about technical subjects, so all
those bits have been written by others."
>>- How difficult was it to control the 109 in high velocities, 600 kmh
>>and above?
> Depends on the model.
Yes, and as it says on the answer: Me 109 G
> Oh yes, given the average combat lifetime the allied test pilots
> would be more representative of the experience of the Bf109
> pilot than the various axis experts quoted.
Amusing claim. So you claim that a pilot who has had one or a few
flights on a certain type knows more about it than pilots, who have
flown dozens or hundreds of hours on it?
That page was put together to give a collection about what real Bf 109
pilots experienced and thought about the plane. That's it. Simple as that.
Or should we take as gospel what Luftwaffe or other pilots thought about
their opponents? Ok. P-38 was the easiest Allied plane to shoot down and
Me 109 turned better than the Spitfire. Were we go!
>>- The British test is taken as gospel by many, while it is just one
>>test, made by the enemy, using a worn out and battle damaged airframe.
>
> Yes folks, so far all the RAF tests have been made on worn out and
> battle damaged aircraft. It seems the average Bf109 was going to
> fall to pieces quickly and could not be properly repaired.
> Which if that was the case makes the tests quite representative
> of the Bf109s in actual Luftwaffe service.
The British tests were often made on battle damaged and repaired
aircraft, yes. Especially the early Bf 109 tests. That's a fact. Another
case was the Focke Wulf 190 that was captured in good condition, but had
poor spark plugs. Also, British did not have the same fuel and
lubricants that the DBs required.
Which makes the British tests quite suspectible on their performance
numbers.
>>German flight tests report pilots using aileron forces of over 45 lbs
>>and 109's stick was designed for elevator stick forces of up to or over
>>85kg, over 180 lbs.
>
> So how many people can actually apply this much sideways force?
> How about when in a Bf109 cockpit?
Any 109 pilot?
> Alternatively we have the usual attempts to deflect unwanted facts.
More like give the real facts?
>>While I believe the Me 109 still lagged allied fighters I'm begining to
>>think that it wasn't anywhere as near as much. tests seem to have been
>>on aircraft whose engines were in poor condition and damaged by
>>incorrect coolants and lubricants. In the case of the British tests of
>>the Me 109 F-4 it seems it possibly never reached the power output of
>>the 109E.
Yup.
As the article introduction says,
"I've regularly seen same "reports", that are practically pure fantasy
and filled with errors and disinformation, being quoted as facts in
various bulletin boards and even articles. And it is very exhausting to
see them again and again, needing to repeat same correcting statements
again and again. Therefore this is an attempt to correct few of the
worst myths. Most importantly, I'll try to round up important
subjects/details about the Me 109 and quote actual pilot views about them."
Your reply is a good proof that this article is needed on giving
alternative viewpoints and food for thought - and to reveal for example
the defects in the British tests.
After all, the page is about Bf 109 and what it was really like - and
not about repeating the fouls of the Allied tests or invalid claims of
Allied test pilots.
jok
Geoffrey Sinclair
>>
>> This is an interesting read, basically a person who really likes the
>> Bf109 has put up a web page that attacks any performance
>> data detrimental to the Bf109, attaches labels to call into doubt
>> other aircraft advantages, does things like use wartime kill claims.
>
>And if you read what the introduction says:
>
>"This article is primarily a collection of pilot's anecdotes that relate
>to actual flying of the plane. The quotes are from interviews, articles
>and books. They are complemented with some additional technical bits and
>other comments. It is not a serious study - mainly just bunch of pilot
>opinions that might be conflicting to each other.
It is not a serious study but you are using it as a serious study?
>Pilot's comments are
>always "their facts" and may contradict.
Yet the pro Bf109 claims are treated as facts.
>Terminology may be faulty at
>times or the pilots use terms in different way than we're used to today.
>I do not guarantee 100% that the other materials are always completely
>correct. Errors may and most likely remain, but you can send corrections
>- the author is admits to be clueness about technical subjects, so all
>those bits have been written by others."
So we have a collection of writings that the author has put together
complete with opinions of his own.
What really turned me off was the attempt to claim the 1940 comparison
between a Spitfire I and Bf109 was unfair because the Spitfire was
supposed to be 1940 and the Bf109 1939.
>>>- How difficult was it to control the 109 in high velocities, 600 kmh
>>>and above?
>> Depends on the model.
>Yes, and as it says on the answer: Me 109 G
To repeat myself it depends on the model.
deleted text about another reason why the allied tests are suspect,
"Additional text
"Many of them had flown planes, that had for example hydraulically
enhanced controls."
Nice piece of speculation, which shows what the site is all about,
only nice things on the Bf109 are allowed, reasons will be found
why other tests fail to match the better tests, not the other way
around The claim is also the Axis pilots exercised more to
overcome the stick forces for example.
Alternatively the allied test pilots were used to the performance of
many different types and were comparing the Bf109 to those."
>> Oh yes, given the average combat lifetime the allied test pilots
>> would be more representative of the experience of the Bf109
>> pilot than the various axis experts quoted.
>
>Amusing claim. So you claim that a pilot who has had one or a few
>flights on a certain type knows more about it than pilots, who have
>flown dozens or hundreds of hours on it?
Ah, amusing editing, try the fact the average Bf109 pilot was not
very experienced, given the attrition rates and his experience
with the type meant he was not flying it to the limits the very
experienced pilots did.
Try the fact people with long term experience on a given type
tend to accept the behaviour as normal, whereas test pilots
can do better comparisons. Try the fact the above average
pilots tend to end up with the above average aircraft.
>That page was put together to give a collection about what real Bf 109
>pilots experienced and thought about the plane. That's it. Simple as that.
So why all the "opinions" added by the author?
>Or should we take as gospel what Luftwaffe or other pilots thought about
>their opponents? Ok. P-38 was the easiest Allied plane to shoot down and
>Me 109 turned better than the Spitfire. Were we go!
Ah yes, the all or nothing exaggeration. Just remember the allied
pilots at times reported out turning Zeros.
>>>- The British test is taken as gospel by many, while it is just one
>>>test, made by the enemy, using a worn out and battle damaged airframe.
>>
>> Yes folks, so far all the RAF tests have been made on worn out and
>> battle damaged aircraft. It seems the average Bf109 was going to
>> fall to pieces quickly and could not be properly repaired.
>
> > Which if that was the case makes the tests quite representative
> > of the Bf109s in actual Luftwaffe service.
>
>The British tests were often made on battle damaged and repaired
>aircraft, yes. Especially the early Bf 109 tests. That's a fact.
And these would seriously affect the ability to calculate turn rates?
Which was the original claim, also roll rates?
Is the claim the Bf109s in Luftwaffe service were retired as soon
as they had battle damage? After all there are plenty of examples
of test performances being higher than in service numbers, in all
countries?
Also note the RAF received a large supply of Bf109 components
etc in 1940. See the pictures of near intact Bf109s in English fields.
So we should take the German etc. test flights as being unrepresentative
because they were of newly manufactured airframes serviced by very
experienced maintenance men?
Where is the evidence the allied comparison studies used higher
performance Spitfires for the comparisons?
>Another
>case was the Focke Wulf 190 that was captured in good condition, but had
>poor spark plugs. Also, British did not have the same fuel and
>lubricants that the DBs required.
So the RAF improved the Fw190 by fitting better spark plugs?
The Fw190A performance in service was lower because of
poor spark plugs?
>Which makes the British tests quite suspectible on their performance
>numbers.
By definition build quality makes it a problem to come up with
typical performance, before we mention any damage taken.
By definition all performance tests have their problems.
A neat way to ignore the bad tests.
>>>German flight tests report pilots using aileron forces of over 45 lbs
>>>and 109's stick was designed for elevator stick forces of up to or over
>>>85kg, over 180 lbs.
>>
>> So how many people can actually apply this much sideways force?
>> How about when in a Bf109 cockpit?
>
>Any 109 pilot?
So you want to claim every Bf109 pilot was capable of exerting
a lateral force of over 180 pounds? That is you know lots of men
who can effectively lift their own body weight laterally, not like a
weight lifter doing it vertically but sitting down can exert this sort
of force horizontally?
In any case if the ailerons were so good why the need for such
forces?
The deleted text I respond to below,
">So it was more matter of the pilot and the test
>procedures, than maneuverability of the Bf 109."
>> Alternatively we have the usual attempts to deflect unwanted facts.
>
>More like give the real facts?
I think most people would prefer to evaluate the above claim with the text
I was responding to left in.
The editorials on the web page make it hard to give the site any
major credibility.
>>>While I believe the Me 109 still lagged allied fighters I'm begining to
>>>think that it wasn't anywhere as near as much. tests seem to have been
>>>on aircraft whose engines were in poor condition and damaged by
>>>incorrect coolants and lubricants. In the case of the British tests of
>>>the Me 109 F-4 it seems it possibly never reached the power output of
>>>the 109E.
>
>Yup.
So you agree with yourself and "it seems it possibly" is a conclusive
fact?
>As the article introduction says,
>
>"I've regularly seen same "reports", that are practically pure fantasy
>and filled with errors and disinformation, being quoted as facts in
>various bulletin boards and even articles. And it is very exhausting to
>see them again and again, needing to repeat same correcting statements
>again and again. Therefore this is an attempt to correct few of the
>worst myths. Most importantly, I'll try to round up important
>subjects/details about the Me 109 and quote actual pilot views about them."
By the way the above paragraph can be applied to most of the
combat types in WWII given the chauvinist writings. The
regular best fighter of WWII claims for example.
>Your reply is a good proof that this article is needed on giving
>alternative viewpoints and food for thought - and to reveal for example
>the defects in the British tests.
Your reply, deleting so many of my points, indicates you are into
advertising the site, not trying to deal with its problems.
>After all, the page is about Bf 109 and what it was really like - and
>not about repeating the fouls of the Allied tests or invalid claims of
>Allied test pilots.
Ah yes what the BF109 was really like,
"This article is primarily a collection of pilot's anecdotes that relate
to actual flying of the plane. The quotes are from interviews, articles
and books. They are complemented with some additional technical bits and
other comments. It is not a serious study - mainly just bunch of pilot
opinions that might be conflicting to each other. Pilot's comments are
always "their facts" and may contradict. Terminology may be faulty at
times or the pilots use terms in different way than we're used to today.
I do not guarantee 100% that the other materials are always completely
correct. Errors may and most likely remain, but you can send corrections
- the author is admits to be clueness about technical subjects, so all
those bits have been written by others."
This is supposed to be an endorsement of it being factual?
The authors additions to the reports make it clear the site is at
real risk of creating Bf109 myths, not dispelling them.
Given we are comparing Spitfires and Bf109s please show all the
reports of the axis pilots who flew both.
Alan Dicey
more significant difference between the Bf 109 and Spitfire in the
cockpit. The Messerschmitt control column is a full length stick,
pivoted at the floor level for both roll and pitch, i.e. aileron and
elevator control. The Spitfire column is pivoted at the floor for pitch
but at knee-level for roll. This gives a shorter control arm but longer
travel for roll control. This may help the Spitfire pilot have a more
precise control - or not, I'm no pilot.
I have read (but can't find a quotable source right now - grrr) that the
automatic slats on the Bf 109 were a mixed blessing, in that they
deployed unevenly (one wing before the other) and suddenly during high-G
turning fights, spoiling the aim of the pilot. I read that some Bf 109
pilots may have intentionally stayed away from the corner of the
envelope where the slats deployed, accepting a higher turn radius,
fearing the momentary loss of control.
Ah, here's a quote or two. Some from a source you may recognise: -
http://www.virtualpilots.fi/feature/articles/109myths/#slats
"I was particularly interested in the operation of the slats, the action
of which gave rise to aileron snatching in any high-G manoeuvres such as
loops or tigh turns so I did a series of stalls to check their
functioning more accurately. The stall with the aircraft clean, with
half fuel load and the engine throttled right back occurred at 105 MPH
(168 km/h). This was preceded by elevator buffet and opening the slats
about 20 mph (30 km/h) above the stall, these being accompanied by the
unpleasant aileron snatching as the slats opened unevenly. The stall
itself was fairly gentle with the nose dropping and the port wing
simultaneously dropping about 10 degrees."
- Eric Brown
"The fact is that when you pulled hard enough the wing leading edge
slats slammed open. After that the pilot could not tighten the turn. The
plane would have stalled. I don't know, I never tried to find out what
the plane would do after that. I never heard anybody else saying that he
would have banked so hard that the slats came out. I did that a few
times, for example once over the Isthmus I tried to turn after an enemy,
banking so hard that both slats came out, but I had to give up."
- Antti Tani, Finnish fighter ace. 21,5 victories.
"Unexperienced pilots hesitated to turn tight, bacause the plane shook
violently when the slats deployed. I realised, though, that because of
the slats the plane's stalling characteristics were much better than in
comparable Allied planes that I got to fly."
- Walter Wolfrum, German fighter ace. 137 victories.
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3897/is_199912/ai_n8870616
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3897/is_199912/ai_n8870616/pg_2
The roll rate is very good and very positive below about 400 km/h, and
the amount of effort needed to produce the relevant nose movement seems
exactly right. As the stall is reached, the leading-edge slats
deploy-together, if the ball is in the middle; slightly asymmetrically,
if you have any slip on. The aircraft delights in being pulled into hard
maneuvering turns at these slower speeds. As the slats pop out, you feel
a slight "notching" on the stick, and you can pull more until the whole
airframe is buffeting quite hard. A little more and you will drop a
wing, but you have to be crass to do it unintentionally.
- Mark Hanna
http://www.bf109.com/flying.html
"a. Owing to the cramped Bf 109 cockpit, a pilot can only apply about 40
lb sideway force on the stick, as against 60 lb or more possible if he
had more room.
b. The designer has also penalized himself by the unusually small
stick-top travel of four inches, giving a poor mechanical advantage
between pilot and aileron."
(This is the RAE report)
http://groups.msn.com/HistoryWarPolitics1775/aviationhistory.msnw?action=get_message&mview=0&ID_Message=30153&LastModified=4675500227381217145
Also there was severe lateral control problems at high speed, and in
fact the wing slats often opened up in high-stress combat maneuvres.
This avoided the feared Bf 109 stall, but it affected the ailerons and
would disturb the pilots' aim.
(MSN Groups article, unknown provenance)
http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/mantis/FW/Bob/Best.htm
"Second, when it was approaching its limits of low-speed handling, its
leading edge slats automatically deployed, with a loud bang clearly
audible over the engine roar! Although still having a considerable
margin before stalling once the slats deployed, most pilots would back
off their turn at that point, believing they were right on the verge of
stalling. Many others did not even reach this point, and used the point
of the slats deploying as the limit of safe performance, flying their
aircraft in order to prevent their deployment at all. In this way these
slats hindered their machines maneuverability, rather than being used to
enhance it as was intended. This was a deficiency of the pilots, rather
than of the designers, but when flown without the assistance of the
slats the Bf109 would certainly be less maneuverable than its opponents."
and also, regarding the RAE test -
"This is itself a factor to be considered in this comparison was the
captured Bf109 that the British tested. They did not have an oxygen
bottle for their captured Bf109, so tested it at only low to medium
altitudes, where they thought combat would take place anyway. At these
altitudes the result was indeed that both the Spitfire and Hurricane
could out-turn the Bf109, and this was reported to the squadrons, whose
pilots would have reacted in combat according to this perceived
strength. Later, well after the Battle was over, testing at higher,
"combat" altitudes showed the opposite to be true at these heights. Yet
pilots in the Battle had consistently confirmed what the initial testing
had told them, and claimed they were able to out-turn the German machine
at all altitudes!"
- an even-handed article, whose conclusion I broadly agree with - that
the aircraft were evenly matched, and that the quality of the pilot, not
the machine, would make the biggest differance in combat.
Evan Brennan
Jukka O. Kauppinen wrote:
> Beauvais tried to get into
> contact after the war with Eric Brown to discuss the matters, but Brown
> refused to discuss the 109 with him. This being the case, it seems that
> Brown wasn't willing to listen a pilot who'd flown more on the 109 than
> he ever had, and was more interested on believing his negative findings
> of the 109 than being proven wrong by an expert.
Good point about Eric Brown, but your effort is wasted on Mr. Sinclair
because no matter what you say, he will continue with his overlong,
quarrelsome retorts.
Nele VII
Reading this thread, I wonder are there Rechlin reports of captured West allied fighters
(i.e. Spitfire, any version) besde that of La-5FN? It would be interesting to see
"impressions" from German side. I know about that DB-powered Spit, but were there captured
Western Allied aircraft tested&made flyable in (more or less) original form (except
Fortresses)?
Jukka O. Kauppinen
Naturally there were. In past sense.
Most were destroyed in way or another in the end of the war or after it.
Unfortunately. The La-5FN report is one of the very few that survives.
jok