PDA

View Full Version : Spit vs ME109 Turning Performance



Pages : [1] 2 3 4 5 6

Richardsen
01-23-2007, 05:56 AM
Talked to a Norwegian pilot Rolf Meum who flies warbirds in England.
I asked abaut 109 vs Spit and he said defenatly spitfire, especially in sustaind turn spit had a marked advantage. Then i asked abaut the slats on the 109. They helped, but only in initial stages and speed drops rapidly.

Richardsen
01-23-2007, 05:56 AM
Talked to a Norwegian pilot Rolf Meum who flies warbirds in England.
I asked abaut 109 vs Spit and he said defenatly spitfire, especially in sustaind turn spit had a marked advantage. Then i asked abaut the slats on the 109. They helped, but only in initial stages and speed drops rapidly.

K_Freddie
01-23-2007, 06:05 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/sleepzzz.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/sleepzzz.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/sadeyes.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/sleepzzz.gif

MEGILE
01-23-2007, 06:11 AM
ME109 outturned Spitfire, this topic has been brought up 10,000 times, and that is always the conclusion

Bewolf
01-23-2007, 06:13 AM
109s only with pilots on the controls that really, I mean "REALLY" knew what they were doing AFAIK.

HayateAce
01-23-2007, 06:13 AM
For 5 years 109 apologists have lobbied their little wads off until they have successfully goaded Oleg and the some of the sim world that the 109 was some kind of turning fighter. In this game, when the slats come out, energy is not lost but the turn gets tighter. The Bleu game players simply became too lazy to stick with the real life tactics used by their Luften brethren, and found it much easier to prod Oleg for better turn times with each patch.

When Oleg is gone from the sim scene perhaps the maker of the next generation of flight sims won't be sucked into the trap of G A M E P L A Y.

http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h94/wingnut4life/ODDSnENDS/mrobvious.jpg

Brain32
01-23-2007, 06:15 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Megile:
ME109 outturned Spitfire, this topic has been brought up 10,000 times, and that is always the conclusion </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Naahh, you is wrong again be sure, P47 outturned the ME109 and killed Tiger tanks with mighty .50 cals http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Brain32
01-23-2007, 06:21 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> When Oleg is gone from the sim scene perhaps the maker of the next generation of flight sims won't be sucked into the trap of G A M E P L A Y. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I hope so too, because Allied fighters in this game are complete joke, a total clownwagons, and Oleg did all that just to please incompetent people like you that have 30min before they have to go to work, and they have to win the t3h war on the deck by themself, John Rambo style and the difficulty setting has to be set to "Realistic" so they can be pleased with themselfes.
It's really funny to see 6 tons heavy Allied fighter pwning in a turn on the deck while in reality it would be a suicide, it's even funnier when you pwn the turn boy. Bloddy Oleg, he armed the Luft planes http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

domenlovrec
01-23-2007, 06:27 AM
.50 killed tigers, and spitfire should have better climb and should be faster than bf109. In dive, spitfire should outdive even P47 (wait, they almost do that) and outroll FW190. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Brain32
01-23-2007, 06:31 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif Let's BURRRRN this thread!!!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif


http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

F0_Dark_P
01-23-2007, 06:33 AM
Ah love those threds, but anyway i have to take this up..

Me and my squad was flying some airquake with each other, my friend where in a Spitfire and i flew my trusty 109, we ended up in a turnfight and he was 100% sure that he would win it couse he was flying the Spit :P .
But he just could not gain on me and he ended up swearing to me, he was really upset when i outturned him and shoot him down, he could just not understand why a 109 could outperform his Spit in a level turn.

I have always said that the 109 turns better then the Spitfire as long as you know what you are doing. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

mynameisroland
01-23-2007, 06:38 AM
And the P38 out turned the zero and outclimbed the Spitfire IX

JG52Karaya-X
01-23-2007, 06:55 AM
Oh my, HayateFace has his day off from Zoo again, pls lock him up again will 'ya

HayateAce
01-23-2007, 07:16 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by F0_Dark_P:

I have always said that the 109 turns better then the Spitfire as long as you know what you are doing. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Your squaddie didn't know his Spitty, be sure.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

Whirlin_merlin
01-23-2007, 07:46 AM
I have a vague memory that some reference to P38s and flower-pots should go in this thread.

Brain32
01-23-2007, 07:47 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HayateAce:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by F0_Dark_P:

I have always said that the 109 turns better then the Spitfire as long as you know what you are doing. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Your squaddie didn't know his Spitty, be sure.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

joeap
01-23-2007, 07:52 AM
Real or sim world technical advantages (and they existed be sure) notwithstanding:

It's the pilot not the plane

It's the pilot not the plane

It's the pilot not the plane

It's the pilot not the plane

It's the pilot not the plane

It's the pilot not the plane

It's the pilot not the plane

It's the pilot not the plane

Zoom2136
01-23-2007, 07:54 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by domenlovrec:
.50 killed tigers, and spitfire should have better climb and should be faster than bf109. In dive, spitfire should outdive even P47 (wait, they almost do that) and outroll FW190. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You are not playing the same game that we play....

Richardsen
01-23-2007, 08:03 AM
The reason i posted this was because i wanted to see if some of you still belive the 109 is ber in turing compared to spitfires.

I knew this thread would get some beating http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

flox
01-23-2007, 10:14 AM
Well played, sir. Looks like you caught some big ones today!

Bellator_1
01-23-2007, 10:27 AM
Directly from the men flying the bird: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TFl8X4y9-94

BillyTheKid_22
01-23-2007, 10:35 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HayateAce:
For 5 years 109 apologists have lobbied their little wads off until they have successfully goaded Oleg and the some of the sim world that the 109 was some kind of turning fighter. In this game, when the slats come out, energy is not lost but the turn gets tighter. The Bleu game players simply became too lazy to stick with the real life tactics used by their Luften brethren, and found it much easier to prod Oleg for better turn times with each patch.

When Oleg is gone from the sim scene perhaps the maker of the next generation of flight sims won't be sucked into the trap of G A M E P L A Y.

http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h94/wingnut4life/ODDSnENDS/mrobvious.jpg </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif Iam <span class="ev_code_RED">LAUGH</span>!!!

DKoor
01-23-2007, 10:42 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bellator_1:
Directly from the men flying the bird: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TFl8X4y9-94 </div></BLOCKQUOTE>I knew it. 109 FTW. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Xiolablu3
01-23-2007, 10:52 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DKoor:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bellator_1:
Directly from the men flying the bird: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TFl8X4y9-94 </div></BLOCKQUOTE>I knew it. 109 FTW. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That guy once flew a Spitfire didnt he http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Guys, I love the 109, particularly the 109F4, but lets get real. In most cases the contemporary Spitfire is going to turn better.

Just like the Me109 is going to dive better.

WWMaxGunz
01-23-2007, 11:09 AM
Slats come with a price in drag, they don't open until AOA is already high.
But if you got enough power then you beat the drag and slower you go, drag becomes less.
Power high, AOA high, speed low, you are going to turn a small radius and......
be perfect target for some other plane moving not slow at all.

Show the flat turning full circle, time and speed together gets radius, for both planes
and end the nonsense of "I was in DF" where you don't know as much maybe more as you do.

flox
01-23-2007, 12:58 PM
That's an interesting vid Bellator_1. The only problem with testimonies like that is that they are flying vintage warbirds fitted with modern engines and components. Even things like hydraulically boosted controls are added when the original 1940s bird didn't have it, and so on. So it can become a matter of comparing apples to oranges a lot of the time.

Not to mention the fact each plane turns its tightest circle at a very specific altitude and airspeed.

fighter_966
01-23-2007, 01:19 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BillyTheKid_22:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HayateAce:
For 5 years 109 apologists have lobbied their little wads off until they have successfully goaded Oleg and the some of the sim world that the 109 was some kind of turning fighter. In this game, when the slats come out, energy is not lost but the turn gets tighter. The Bleu game players simply became too lazy to stick with the real life tactics used by their Luften brethren, and found it much easier to prod Oleg for better turn times with each patch.

When Oleg is gone from the sim scene perhaps the maker of the next generation of flight sims won't be sucked into the trap of G A M E P L A Y.

http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h94/wingnut4life/ODDSnENDS/mrobvious.jpg </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif Iam <span class="ev_code_RED">LAUGH</span>!!! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Ask Marseille

Bellator_1
01-23-2007, 02:35 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Slats come with a price in drag, they don't open until AOA is already high.
But if you got enough power then you beat the drag and slower you go, drag becomes less.
Power high, AOA high, speed low, you are going to turn a small radius and......
be perfect target for some other plane moving not slow at all.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, the slats themselves don't add any drag, the extra AoA they permit does however. All the slats do is prevent the wing from stalling until at a higher AoA, increasing the critical AoA and CLmax of the wing. As AoA goes up so does lift, however drag is a biproduct of lift so = the more lift, the more drag.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by flox:
That's an interesting vid Bellator_1. The only problem with testimonies like that is that they are flying vintage warbirds fitted with modern engines and components. Even things like hydraulically boosted controls are added when the original 1940s bird didn't have it, and so on. So it can become a matter of comparing apples to oranges a lot of the time.

Not to mention the fact each plane turns its tightest circle at a very specific altitude and airspeed. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

WWII vintage fighters are not fitted with hydraulically boosted controls, they behave exactly as they did when they flew around in the 40's.

tomtheyak
01-23-2007, 02:49 PM
Basing opinions from quantifiable OR interview data on Warbirds (i.e. rsetored a/c) is not valiid IMO.

1) Combat/loaded weights vary greatly from prototypes - no armour, armaments,MUCH lighter radio equipment and even pilot personal equipment. It all adds up to a MASSIVELY lighter a/c with inherent CofG ramifications and stability issues.

2) Available power - I was speaking to Anna Walker (one of two only women in GB and maybe the world solo qualified in the Spit) a couple of months ago at a presentation she made for our model flying club and I asked her what kind of power settings the Spitfire IX flew at for displays and max was +6Ib indicated!!!! You try that in game!!!

The much lightened a/c do not require as much power and advances in fuels from 60 years ago make things very different. Also there's a cost/safety angle in that flogging the engines reduces their life and reliability.

Thus the planes aren't being flown in circumstances anywhere near like those of combat - the a/c are effectively quite far removed from their bretheren in the war torn skies over Europe.

The analogy is like trying to deduce what'll happen to a soldiers accuracy on the battlefield by seeing how his brother the olympic marksman does on the range. Its very different.

HOWEVER, skips (and the other fellows) conversations are VERY interesting.

Bellator_1
01-23-2007, 02:53 PM
Agreed tomtheyak.

Richardsen
01-23-2007, 03:05 PM
It's what i tought, pepole still belive 109s outturns spits which isen't true.

Steve Hinton pointed out clearly that spits have MUCH better sustaind turn than MEs and Rolf Meum confirmd this when i talked to him.
Rolf flies Warbirds in england every year, same as Steve Hinton

Richardsen
01-23-2007, 03:09 PM
Copy-Paste from another forum.



Back in January I visited Chino with my younger brother (who lives in CA).

We walk around a hanger and some guy in dirty overalls comes up and starts to talk with us. I am polite, but maybe a bit condescending - I ask him which plane he liked best.

He says "well, I like the Bearcat".

And why do you like that one?

"Because I can out-turn any of the others 'cept maybe the Zero and then only at low speed"

I look down at the name on his overalls - STEVE HINTON! Holy cr@p!

My brother is laughing his butt off - he knew who it was all along.

I had a wonderful talk with him about EVERYTHING on WW2 aircraft - and Sabre vs MiG15.

The most interesting part of the conversation centered on the 109 vs Spitfire topic. I believe he flew the David Price 109E and even one of the Buchon/Daimler hybrids.

He flew the Buchons in the BofB sequences in Pearl Harbor Movie. I asked how that went.

Well... he does not like 109s (to put it mildly). I asked if the Buchons could turn with the Spit. He just laughed - said NO. I asked if the slats or flaps helped - He looked at me as though I was an idiot (no comments here please) and asked if I was a pilot...

He said that it was so bad that they had to run the Buchons at WOT and the Spits at 40% throttle (a Vb and a IX - see movie footage) to make it even look like a fight(!). Apparently the Buchons scrub E so fast that any maneuvering and they drop like stones. He said the Spits hang onto energy in the turns. He said that the Vb is functionally much faster than the Buchons in a dogfight (yet Buchons do 420mph or more in level flight @13k).

Hinton confirmed that the Buchons were fast - given enough time to get to speed, and he said they would pull away in a dive.

The Buchon compares favorably with G-2 (Buchon is slightly lighter and faster).

This is strange to me. The Buchon has same engine (basically) as the Spit IX yet it is significantly faster - meaning what? Lower frontal area? Less wetted surface area? Better Cd?

The Spit with more drag (?) still hangs onto E better in a turn because why? Wing shape makes that much difference? I can understand the turn rate/radius because of wingloading. But obviously there is a HUGE difference between the two wing designs.

One would think that the initial turn rate of the Buchon would be better than the Spit (perhaps it is?) if the Buchon scrubs speed faster because lower speed = tighter radius. This might explain why 109 pilots said they could turn inside a Spit - because at start of a turn they may well have turned tighter (if the Spit pilot did not chop throttle). The Spit pilot would get real busy trying to stay with the 109 at the start of a turn because he would have to cut throttle. But if the 109 stayed in a turn fight things would turn ugly for him fast.

I can see now why the Spit would do a CLIMBING spiral to evade a 109 - everything works against the 109 in this move.

BUT history shows the 109 had a better kill ratio (in most cases) because obviously that little advantages that Hinton hardly mentioned is what made all the difference. Dive performance... I would guess that combined with the 109s better high alt performance to give the same kind of advantage the AVG had over the better turning Oscars?

Hinton said he liked Vb better than IX or XIV because of torque effect - XIV being like flying a giant gyroscope! It turns tight but wants to roll with the engine rotation...

He said that the MkXVIII (counter rotating props) was great - probably better than the Bearcat - big smile on his face when he talked about the XVIII which they (Chino) had just sold.

He had lots to say about Corsair too...

flox
01-23-2007, 03:13 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bellator_1:
WWII vintage fighters are not fitted with hydraulically boosted controls, they behave exactly as they did when they flew around in the 40's. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's a pretty big blanket statemet to make. I still stand by my statement that just about any part of a flying WWII aircraft-- controls notwithstanding-- may have been replaced with modern-day equivalents.

Bellator_1
01-23-2007, 05:33 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by flox:
That's a pretty big blanket statemet to make. I still stand by my statement that just about any part of a flying WWII aircraft-- controls notwithstanding-- may have been replaced with modern-day equivalents. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Blanket statement ? No. Apart from a GPS system and a new communication device the vintage birds are the same as always. (Some have new props though)

Bellator_1
01-23-2007, 05:36 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Richardsen:
It's what i tought, pepole still belive 109s outturns spits which isen't true.

Steve Hinton pointed out clearly that spits have MUCH better sustaind turn than MEs and Rolf Meum confirmd this when i talked to him.
Rolf flies Warbirds in england every year, same as Steve Hinton </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Steve is a Spit fan for sure then, cause the Bf-109 will certainly out-turn the Spitfire - perhaps not in the early models, but in the later models for sure.

Btw AFAIK Hinton has only ever flown a Buchon, never any wartime 109.

Xiolablu3
01-23-2007, 05:41 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bellator_1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Richardsen:
It's what i tought, pepole still belive 109s outturns spits which isen't true.

Steve Hinton pointed out clearly that spits have MUCH better sustaind turn than MEs and Rolf Meum confirmd this when i talked to him.
Rolf flies Warbirds in england every year, same as Steve Hinton </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Steve is a Spit fan for sure then, cause the Bf-109 will certainly out-turn the Spitfire - perhaps not in the early models, but in the later models for sure.

Btw AFAIK Hinton has only ever flown a Buchon, never any wartime 109. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Lmao, what a load of rubbish.

I cant believe you still write this stuff after the 40 page 'best late war turnfighter' thread.

Did you not pay attention? That was YOUR thread!

hop2002
01-23-2007, 05:43 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Steve is a Spit fan for sure then, cause the Bf-109 will certainly out-turn the Spitfire - perhaps not in the early models, but in the later models for sure. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What on earth is such a ridiculous statement based on? It doesn't seem to be in accord with tests, pilot accounts or aerodynamic principles.

geetarman
01-23-2007, 05:51 PM
You guys turn fight?

Brain32
01-23-2007, 05:56 PM
Richardsen why did you bring this from another forum(I know which one is it and I think Hop can guess too)? We can make our own flamefests here, no problem about it. You did not get desired reaction there, so you try here http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> You guys turn fight? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Best post in the entire thread http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Richardsen
01-23-2007, 06:15 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Brain32:
Richardsen why did you bring this from another forum(I know which one is it and I think Hop can guess too)? We can make our own flamefests here, no problem about it. You did not get desired reaction there, so you try here http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have never made a topic like this on another forum. never!

The copypaste above is just somthing i found searching around for some info.

Bellator_1
01-23-2007, 06:50 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Lmao, what a load of rubbish.

I cant believe you still write this stuff after the 40 page 'best late war turnfighter' thread.

Did you not pay attention? That was YOUR thread! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You're the one who hasn't payed attention, I know very well how that thread ended.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by hop2002:
What on earth is such a ridiculous statement based on? It doesn't seem to be in accord with tests, pilot accounts or aerodynamic principles. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It is in very good agreement with pilot accounts and is not ridiculous at all Hop, and I dare you to disprove it in aerodynamic terms - but you can't, and I guarantee it.

Brain32
01-23-2007, 06:57 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Richardsen:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Brain32:
Richardsen why did you bring this from another forum(I know which one is it and I think Hop can guess too)? We can make our own flamefests here, no problem about it. You did not get desired reaction there, so you try here http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have never made a topic like this on another forum. never!

The copypaste above is just somthing i found searching around for some info. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
OK, then please accept my apology.

Richardsen
01-23-2007, 07:25 PM
Apology accepted! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

WWMaxGunz
01-23-2007, 08:08 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bellator_1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Slats come with a price in drag, they don't open until AOA is already high.
.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, the slats themselves don't add any drag, the extra AoA they permit does however. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Exactly that. Higher AOA gets more drag. Higher AOA gives higher coefficient of lift and
induced drag increases with the SQUARE of that coefficient as well as the square of speed.

So example; 4 degrees more than say 12 before the slats and you have (16/12)^2 at same speed.
That's 78% more drag, almost double and not 33% more.

However if the plane slows down by 33%, same drag at the higher AOA.

WWMaxGunz
01-23-2007, 08:19 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by flox:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bellator_1:
WWII vintage fighters are not fitted with hydraulically boosted controls, they behave exactly as they did when they flew around in the 40's. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's a pretty big blanket statemet to make. I still stand by my statement that just about any part of a flying WWII aircraft-- controls notwithstanding-- may have been replaced with modern-day equivalents. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not really. You have any idea what hydraulics involves? Not just in the weight but how
much slowwwwwer the controls respond? Why make a sportscar drive like a truck?

WWMaxGunz
01-23-2007, 08:26 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Richardsen:
It's what i tought, pepole still belive 109s outturns spits which isen't true.

Steve Hinton pointed out clearly that spits have MUCH better sustaind turn than MEs and Rolf Meum confirmd this when i talked to him.
Rolf flies Warbirds in england every year, same as Steve Hinton </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

In the right conditions they can outturn a Spitfire. But not sustained turning at the same
speed as best for the Spitfire, no.

The thing is that combat IRL is not about matching speeds and playing merry-go-round ala DF.

So the 109 comes in with extra smash and the Spit turns out a ways in front of him, the 109
can get inside turning less angle for long enough to make the shot, less than 90 deg and he
can say that he outturned the Spit... because he did in the very real sense.

Perhaps it's all down to not over-defining terms, online the Spit pilot will say he was
outturned too!

HelSqnProtos
01-23-2007, 08:34 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HayateAce:
For 5 years 109 apologists have lobbied their little wads off until they have successfully goaded Oleg and the some of the sim world that the 109 was some kind of turning fighter. In this game, when the slats come out, energy is not lost but the turn gets tighter. The Bleu game players simply became too lazy to stick with the real life tactics used by their Luften brethren, and found it much easier to prod Oleg for better turn times with each patch.

When Oleg is gone from the sim scene perhaps the maker of the next generation of flight sims won't be sucked into the trap of G A M E P L A Y. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Right on the money +1

There is NO way a plane with 30% more wing area is going to be taken out by a plane DESIGNED for bnz and known to be difficult to fly and unstable at low speeds. Oleg himself has often said that turning with spits is stupid.

Badsight-
01-23-2007, 09:52 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HelSqnProtos:
Right on the money +1

There is NO way a plane with 30% more wing area is going to be taken out . . . . . . . </div></BLOCKQUOTE>& in FB it doesnt

250 Kmh the Spit beats the 109

300 kmh the Spit beats the 109

350 kmh the Spit really beats the 109

but getting beaten is never down to your personal skill - its always the plane & the game thats "lacking"

WWMaxGunz
01-23-2007, 10:14 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HelSqnProtos:
There is NO way a plane with 30% more wing area is going to be taken out by a plane DESIGNED for bnz and known to be difficult to fly and unstable at low speeds. Oleg himself has often said that turning with spits is stupid. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

NO way?

HuninMunin
01-24-2007, 12:34 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Badsight-:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HelSqnProtos:
Right on the money +1

There is NO way a plane with 30% more wing area is going to be taken out . . . . . . . </div></BLOCKQUOTE>& in FB it doesnt

250 Kmh the Spit beats the 109

300 kmh the Spit beats the 109

350 kmh the Spit really beats the 109

but getting beaten is never down to your personal skill - its always the plane & the game thats "lacking" </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


True.
However, a 109 pilot worth his salt can make good use of the slow speed, high AoA abilitys (ingame).
A few weeks ago we played an Operation Husky map on UkD 2 and I was in the "hell I dont care wether to return alive or not" mood.
I engaged a Seafire near the eastern mountain cost on the Hawai map and shot him down...
next thing I know were his two angry mates trieing to scare the living bejeezus outa me and blazing away with Hispano shells all over the place.
I just slowed down to about 200 km/h and kept as close to the mountains as possible; shure enough the Spit pilots thought that this was exactly their territory- turnfighting on the edge.
It took about a minute and they both stalled and crashed.

As for reality: One can very well estimate that a leight and powerfull plane like the 109 equiped with slats can fly some extreme AoAs at low speed....but the impact of slats is somewhat optimistic in IL-2 overall - not just on the 109.

fighter_966
01-24-2007, 08:34 AM
As I said read what Marseille could do with Bf109

Kurfurst__
01-24-2007, 09:19 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by hop2002:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Steve is a Spit fan for sure then, cause the Bf-109 will certainly out-turn the Spitfire - perhaps not in the early models, but in the later models for sure. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What on earth is such a ridiculous statement based on? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Here's a site made by a trained (and practicing) aeronautics engineer, it analyses the change of liftloading between various fighter aircraft during their development based on known Cl coefficients. It suggesst at around the MkIX/109G, the liftloading ranking reversed.

http://mitglied.lycos.de/luftwaffe1/Carson/Carson.html

While I'd not say it's the final word, but it is certainly made by someone who unlike you actually makes his living from knowing aerodynamics, unlike you who, and who's opinion can be more trusted/valueable than yours. It certainly makes good food for though, and it certainly fits in the trend, ie. the Spitfire gained more weight and drag and more quickly during the war then any other fighter I can think of. We also know it's wing was rather thin, and of elliptical shape, ie. an unusually low lift coefficient. This was something choosen in the 1930s to produce the maximum possible speed to intercept the monoplane bombers. The 8 gun requirement, the RAF's 3-plane V-formation came from the notion that 'modern monoplane fighters' are too fast anyway to enable any sort of dogfight and they will only have a fraction of a second to fire while they zoom past each other. The plane(s of the era) itself was designed for speed above all, manouveribility was not a concern.

What is ridiculus is your Spitdweeb-attitude, dismissing right away everything without even considering the factors that would not start with 'Spitfire is superior...'. During the many years I've seen your posts, I've seen it in all variations from you... drag, climb, speed, dive, roll, firepower, hell even in range the Spitfire is superior to everything. It used to have a certain amount of fun factor, but the novelty wore off long ago. Maybe you should switch to something else, how about the Blenheim is superior to all? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">It doesn't seem to be in accord with tests, pilot accounts or aerodynamic principles. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Of which you know about nothing, I dare say.. There are plenty of pilot accounts of 109s outturning Spits, and Spits outturnning 109s. Hell there are even pilot accounts of FW 190s outturning Spits. Take your pick.

Turning performance can be described in many ways, ie.

- sustained or instananous?
- turn rate or turn radius?
- is the turn limited by pilot's G-resistance (ie. the 109s had reclined seat design which allowed them to pull more Gs than in an upright position without blacking out)
- what altitude?
- what airspeed?
etc.

For example I am pretty certain a Bf 109K would run circles around a Spit IX at 8000m and 650 km/h TAS. The latter is luckly if it can even reach 400mph in level flight at that altitude with backwind, and can't turn at all, as already at 1G (=level flight) it has 0, zero, nada excess thrust, while the former has many hundred horsepowers in reserve. Of course, the situation may be the reverse at other speeds, altitudes etc..

Sustained turn is basically an equotation between excess thrust and drag in turns. Where thrust = drag, it's the point of the sustained turn. However thurst, and drag also varies a lot with altitude, angle of attack etc.

Just an example of how the variables effect things. And then we haven't even got into tactics that can be used to improve turn rate.

Kurfurst__
01-24-2007, 09:25 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HuninMunin:
I engaged a Seafire near the eastern mountain cost on the Hawai map and shot him down...
next thing I know were his two angry mates trieing to scare the living bejeezus outa me and blazing away with Hispano shells all over the place.
I just slowed down to about 200 km/h and kept as close to the mountains as possible; shure enough the Spit pilots thought that this was exactly their territory- turnfighting on the edge.
It took about a minute and they both stalled and crashed. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Happens a lot to me as well, many times not even turnfights develop... Spitdweebs just spin off and pancake after half a turn. It's surprising at first considering the Spitdweeb tactical repertoir appears to be limited to the 'Bank 90 degrees, pull back on stick' http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif, you'd expect them to have some profiency at least at that. But handling comes in, and certainly the Spit's control characteristics (oversensitive elevators) make it rather hard for the rookie to ride his stall, it's easy to apply to much and find yourself in a dynamic stall, rolling violently before even knowing what happened.

Lack of rudder use by many just makes it worse.

Bellator_1
01-24-2007, 10:08 AM
Total drag (D) = Cd * A * .5 * r * V^2

The Coefficient of drag (Cd) = Cdo + Cdi

And the coefficient of induced drag (Cdi) = (Cl^2) / (pi * AR * e)

So lets try comparing latest Bf-109 (K-4) with the latest Spitfire (Mk.XIV):

Bf-109
Span: 9.92m
Wing Area: 16.15 m^2
CL: 1.30 - 1.46 *slats out* (Assumption, probably higher ~ 1.57)
Cd0: 0.0023
e: 0.85 (Assumption)
AR: 6.1

Cdi (0.103749918) - (0.1308600489)
+
Cd0 (0.023)
____________
Cd = 0.126749918 - 0.1538600489
*
A
____________
D = 2.0470111757 - 2.484839789
/
CL * A
____________
L/D = 10.25 - 8.44 *slats out* (CL = 1.57: L/D = ca. 7.5 -7.7)

Spitfire
Span: 11.23m
Wing Area: 22.48 m^2
CL: 1.3 (Assumption)
Cd0: 0.00229
e: 0.85 (Assumption)
AR: 5.6

Cdi (0.113013384)
+
Cd0 (0.0229)
____________
Cd = 0.135913384
*
A
____________
D = 3.055332871
/
CL * A
____________
L/D = 9.56


Note: This is without taking power-loading into consideration where the K-4's is lower - 1.7 kg/hp vs 1.88 kg/hp.

As you can see the Bf-109 has the advantage in energy retention until the slats are fully out and alot more AoA can be pulled (The higher the AoA the higher the energy loss and the lower the straight line speed = the faster your a/c banks), and this is where power-loading comes in as a way of restraining the energy loss associated with the increased AoA, and the K-4's power-loading is very low. = Its got the ability to hold its speed whilst pulling inside the Spitfire. However it would take a pilot who knew his aircraft to exploit this advantage - hence why so many experienced 109 pilots claim they out-turned the Spitfire.

PS: the drag measurements are using wing area (A) as a reference.

Zoom2136
01-24-2007, 10:12 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by fighter_966:
As I said read what Marseille could do with Bf109 </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

But what is better :

A - A plane that is stellar, but only in the hand of an expert pilot; or
B - A plane that is very good in the hand of an average pilot.

Get my drift... the Spit made even an average pilot look good and able to fight it out with better pilot flying the 109... so in my opinion the Spit was the better plane... as they were more average pilots in the air then experts...

Zoom2136
01-24-2007, 10:14 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HuninMunin:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Badsight-:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HelSqnProtos:
Right on the money +1

There is NO way a plane with 30% more wing area is going to be taken out . . . . . . . </div></BLOCKQUOTE>& in FB it doesnt

250 Kmh the Spit beats the 109

300 kmh the Spit beats the 109

350 kmh the Spit really beats the 109

but getting beaten is never down to your personal skill - its always the plane & the game thats "lacking" </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


True.
However, a 109 pilot worth his salt can make good use of the slow speed, high AoA abilitys (ingame).
A few weeks ago we played an Operation Husky map on UkD 2 and I was in the "hell I dont care wether to return alive or not" mood.
I engaged a Seafire near the eastern mountain cost on the Hawai map and shot him down...
next thing I know were his two angry mates trieing to scare the living bejeezus outa me and blazing away with Hispano shells all over the place.
I just slowed down to about 200 km/h and kept as close to the mountains as possible; shure enough the Spit pilots thought that this was exactly their territory- turnfighting on the edge.
It took about a minute and they both stalled and crashed.

As for reality: One can very well estimate that a leight and powerfull plane like the 109 equiped with slats can fly some extreme AoAs at low speed....but the impact of slats is somewhat optimistic in IL-2 overall - not just on the 109. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yep they are a few dumb Spits driver... if a 109 ever pull that **** on me... simple.... high-yo-yo... and he is out of there.... but thats just me... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Slow = dead .... and that goes for all planes http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

Zoom2136
01-24-2007, 10:22 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HuninMunin:
I engaged a Seafire near the eastern mountain cost on the Hawai map and shot him down...
next thing I know were his two angry mates trieing to scare the living bejeezus outa me and blazing away with Hispano shells all over the place.
I just slowed down to about 200 km/h and kept as close to the mountains as possible; shure enough the Spit pilots thought that this was exactly their territory- turnfighting on the edge.
It took about a minute and they both stalled and crashed. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Happens a lot to me as well, many times not even turnfights develop... Spitdweebs just spin off and pancake after half a turn. It's surprising at first considering the Spitdweeb tactical repertoir appears to be limited to the 'Bank 90 degrees, pull back on stick' http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif, you'd expect them to have some profiency at least at that. But handling comes in, and certainly the Spit's control characteristics (oversensitive elevators) make it rather hard for the rookie to ride his stall, it's easy to apply to much and find yourself in a dynamic stall, rolling violently before even knowing what happened.

Lack of rudder use by many just makes it worse. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

See you on WC... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

Kurfurst__
01-24-2007, 10:23 AM
I thought the Hurricane was the pilot's airplane, not the Spitfire. The latter got quite a few critical comments by NACA, the DVL, and hell even it's pilot manual about it's controls harmony (or the lack of it, elevators were extremely sensitve, the ailerons extremely unsensitive.. one Spitfire pilot described it like trying handle the stick with a light fingertip, while arm-wrestiling the ailerons.. certainly not a good setup to push the aircraft to the edge), even though stall characteristics were positive.

As for the 109, I've seen litereally dozens of pilots from all countries emphasizing how much it is a pilot's aircraft, but it had also a number of bad habits, namely it's low directional stability. On the ground it had to be treated with respect, and in the air it could be either a curse or a blessing (as lack of stability also translates into potentional manouveribilty).

One of the reason many praised the FW 190 handling so much is that it had a perfect harmony of the controls, it just felt 'natural', to fly it by your instincts.

Which bring us the biggest problem, whatever the paper specs of these planes were, few pilots were able to push to planes to the technical limits, it took great skill and few had it. It doesn't matter if your plane can technically outturn the other, if you can't push it to those limits, either because you s*ck or because it has difficult handling, but the other guy can.

WOLFMondo
01-24-2007, 11:01 AM
I've read pilot accounts saying there are negative aspects of the different Spitfire versions, but I've never once read any account of a pilot saying they didn't enjoy flying it.

These endless arguments about the Spit and the 109 are a bit daft. The truth is in the end result. Both really good aircraft, but the Spitfire pwnz0rs the 109. Fact. I wish you could all live with that as well as I do:P

Richardsen
01-24-2007, 11:10 AM
Kurfurst:
Why does pilots that flies this aeroplanes today say thats Spits are better turners, ecpesialy in sustaind turn? And you don't need to push the aeroplane to its limit to find out which has best sustaind turn?

Why do you compare ME109K with Spit IX? Take an XIX instead.

HuninMunin
01-24-2007, 11:40 AM
For christs sake just take a look at his website...

He may have an agenda but he for shure is no stupid Lufty.

And the myth that the 109 was a hard plane to handle does not touch the thruth.

It was a devil on the ground, the slats scared rookies, trim and flaps were overcomplicated to operate and the pit was "narrow" ( altough some pilots said that this was a good thing for "feeling" the plane).
Other then that it was sheer performence;
light, fast, agile -
it was the F-15 of the early 40s.

And despite it's flaws it was at least competetive even in 45 ( one on one hyptothetical that is).

tomtheyak
01-24-2007, 12:25 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HuninMunin:

And the myth that the 109 was a hard plane to handle does not touch the thruth.

It was a devil on the ground, </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I've heard all sorts of differing viewpoints on this one, some Finnish pilots in particular being quite unphased by it. To be honest any 1000-2000hp propeller driven fighter a/c is going to be a handful on the ground if its T:W is any good.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HuninMunin:

the slats scared rookies, </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

and some older hands as well if Rall is anything to go by; I think here we find the crux of the disagreement.

I put it to this community that the majority of 109 pilots rarely explored the edge of the envelope behavior characteristics of the 109, through a combination of intimidation (the slats banging open, buffeting and thinking this meant the a/c was about to stall when in reality they might have been able to go a little harder and tighten a fraction) and the simple fact prototypical tactics of the period advocated surprise attacks from superior altitude/speed. The ingredients for a classic dogfight rarely presented themselves. and if they did MOST and repeat MOST, that is is not ALL, 109 pilots were unwilling or rather ignorant of the ability of their a/c.

In game is another matter entirely - we have a spectrum of well educated and fearless flyers who have never been prematurely taken from this mortal coil thanks to their errors.

This is HUGELY important aspect - how many mistakes have you made in a fight that got you killed? You walked away able to learn what not to do. Many 109 jocks, or ANY fighter plane pilot for that matter, did not. We are in a VERY luxurious position.

You KNOW that when the slats pop you can go further. NO banging or trembling or buffeting. Its easy to pull these moves from an office chair. Different matter entirely in the real deal.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HuninMunin:

trim and flaps were overcomplicated to operate...

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

the only problem I see with 109 flyers dogfighting tactics at present is this aspect - 1 touch flap extension. The 109s RoT benefits highly from flaps, having fought in and against them I know when the 109 driver is using them and if he isnt. And using combat flaps has gained me a firing solution on a number of occasions when flying a 109.

Note that I am NOT saying that 109 drivers didn't or shouldn't have flaps available in fights - I have been recently made aware that a few notable pilots used its facility, I just have a problem with how they operate in game.

If it was as in reality, we'd be winding them down, in a similar manner to the I-16 or F4F undercarridge. I'd rather see that. But the insta-touch button flap, makes them very accessible. I'm sure if people had to crank it down we'd see it used less - and IMHO, that'd be more true to reality.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HuninMunin:

And despite it's flaws it was at least competetive even in 45 ( one on one hyptothetical that is). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, the trouble is when flown by a majority of inexperienced pilopts, and of suspect build quality or even sabotage then this truth is blurred. But the numbers of the K are impressive.

Too little of this game reflects the truth of History, not because of inherent flaws in the game but rather :

1) The way we exploit the differences to our advantage, and,

2) Very rarely do multiplayer setups reflect the tactics, numbers and/or aircraft types prototypically.

If we all flew online wars, with disciplined formations, mission objectives and appropriate tactics, with a mixture of pilot skills to boot will we see anything that even vaguely resembles what happened 60 years ago. And even then its gonna be wide of the mark.

Kurfurst__
01-24-2007, 12:27 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Richardsen:
Kurfurst:
Why does pilots that flies this aeroplanes today say thats Spits are better turners, ecpesialy in sustaind turn? And you don't need to push the aeroplane to its limit to find out which has best sustaind turn?

Why do you compare ME109K with Spit IX? Take an XIX instead. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Been there, done that. I won't post again half a dozen controversial pilot story. Pilot stories suck ***, they are for unrepeatable, uncomparable single cases, with different skilled pilots, altitude, starting E and so on. I am quite certain that certain Spit Marks were better turners, and some 109 models were also better turners. It depends heavily on the conditions, altitude and speed being a major factors.

Best sustained turn is valid data for a single given airspeed and altitude. Which means it's invalid for a large range of speeds and altitudes. Take for example, the Spit IXLF and G-2. The former measured 18.5 secs for a sustained turn, the latter 20 secs, for 360 degree sustained turn at 1000 meters.

Make that a IXF with 300HP less, contemporary to the G-2, I doubt it will shine, probably it will reverse.
Make that an uprated G-2 at 1.42ata vs. IXLF, and I tend to believe it will be rather similiar.
Make that a G-2 with GM-1 above 8000meter, and it's simply pawnage.
Make that a IXHF at the same altitude vs. a G-2, and the IXHF will show good advantage.
Make that a IXHF at between it's rated alts where it looses a lot of power, and it will be similiar again or reverse.
Make that any considerably faster model and it will have absolute advantage in turns at high speeds.
Make that a 109F vs. a MkV, and they'll show rather similiar, around 18 secs both.

'109' vs. 'Spit' makes no sense. It depends on the very specifics. Generally bellator is imho correct that there's a likelyhood reversing trend in turns with the later variants because all that rapide fat and drag dose the Spit had to suffer. The Spitfire is a rahter conservative solution for turns, ie. big wings, the 109 is more of a muscular type using high airframe effiency, ie. low drag, low weight, high power combined.

HuninMunin
01-24-2007, 12:31 PM
@ tomtheyak

I see we have a similar view onto this thing ( with the possible exeption that I am to lazy to type it down as extensive as you did http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif )

One thing though: Galland loved the slats and Rall is the only one I heard complaining about them ( and even then in his autobiography he states that they had both given him trouble and saved his life several times).

Kurfurst__
01-24-2007, 12:38 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by tomtheyak:
I put it to this community that the majority of 109 pilots rarely explored the edge of the envelope behavior characteristics of the 109, through a combination of intimidation (the slats banging open, buffeting and thinking this meant the a/c was about to stall when in reality they might have been able to go a little harder and tighten a fraction) and the simple fact prototypical tactics of the period advocated surprise attacks from superior altitude/speed. The ingredients for a classic dogfight rarely presented themselves. and if they did MOST and repeat MOST, that is is not ALL, 109 pilots were unwilling or rather ignorant of the ability of their a/c. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't think they were were ignorant, if you fly the aircraft as much as some 109 pilots did in real life, you'll learn it in and out sooner or later. As one Hungarian pilot I read put it, the Luftwaffe 109 guys though that the RHAF 109 guys tactical approach, the latter who did not shy from manouvering combat a bit, was chivalrous, but suicidal. I can understand why, most of the time they fought outnumbered enviroment (ie. Africa, Eastern Front, Home Defense being the worst), and being outnumbered and slow from being in a turnfight was a death sentence, because if your adversary did not get you, his buddies did. In a scharm of Mustangs, you won't stop and begin turnfighting if you have any brains. Such risks simply could not be taken, it was quite simply, tactically stupid, even if the numbers were seemingly equal. There could be always another enemy flight around ready jump on you, they did it themselves. Plus, early-to-mid in the war, generally they had a convincing superiority in speed and altitude, which made shooting down by dogfighting rather unneccesary. You have the advantage, why give it away? They had sh*tloads of engagements to study, and refine tactics to those that work, and those that are unneccesarily risky.

Add to that, most WW2 'air combats' were hit-or-miss affairs, surprise attacks from advantagous position on an unsuspecting enemy anyway.

Pollack2006
01-24-2007, 12:39 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by tomtheyak:
I put it to this community that the majority of 109 pilots rarely explored the edge of the envelope behavior characteristics of the 109, through a combination of intimidation (the slats banging open, buffeting and thinking this meant the a/c was about to stall when in reality they might have been able to go a little harder and tighten a fraction) and the simple fact prototypical tactics of the period advocated surprise attacks from superior altitude/speed. The ingredients for a classic dogfight rarely presented themselves. and if they did MOST and repeat MOST, that is is not ALL, 109 pilots were unwilling or rather ignorant of the ability of their a/c.

In game is another matter entirely - we have a spectrum of well educated and fearless flyers who have never been prematurely taken from this mortal coil thanks to their errors.

This is HUGELY important aspect - how many mistakes have you made in a fight that got you killed? You walked away able to learn what not to do. Many 109 jocks, or ANY fighter plane pilot for that matter, did not. We are in a VERY luxurious position.

You KNOW that when the slats pop you can go further. NO banging or trembling or buffeting. Its easy to pull these moves from an office chair. Different matter entirely in the real deal. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This needs repeating again and again (if not branded on peoples heads) when it comes to taking pilot accounts during the war as reliable data to build flight models out of.

Xiolablu3
01-24-2007, 12:46 PM
The main argument by the 109 fans for this '109 will outturn later Spits' was based on the fact that the later 109's power loading would make up for its much lower wibng loading.

I think it was Blutarski who calculated that even JUST TAKING JUST THE POWERLOADING for both planes, the Spitfire still had an advantage in about half of the cases.

Add wing loading into the equation and the Spitfire XIV has a big advantage.

So the best chance for the 109 outturning the Spitfire, the 109K4 vs the Spitfire XIV, still comes out with the Spitfire having the advantage.

I see this like a SPitfire fan trying to claim that the Spit dived faster than the 109 - its just not going to happen.

The contemporary 109 will usually out dive the Spitfire.

The contemporary Spitfire will usually out-turn the 109.

Its just common sense.

You would have to be a massive 109 fan or just prefer Luftwaffe planes to others, to try and claim otherwise. If you check who is saying that the 109 will outturn the Spitfire, and who is using language such as 'Spitdweebs' (cos they have a grudge against the plane) I am sure you can work it out for yourself. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

hop2002
01-24-2007, 12:47 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">As you can see the Bf-109 has the advantage in energy retention until the slats are fully out and alot more AoA can be pulled </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Bellator, you haven't calculated required cl, just maximum CL. Because the Spitfire has much lower wingloading, it requires a lower CL for the same turn performance.

Your figures give the Spitfire XIV a "lift loading" (wingloading divided by CL) of 26.7 lbs/sq ft, and the 109K4 (at 3400 kg) of 33 - 27.4 lbs/sq ft.

In other words, the Spitfire is turning harder in your comparison than the 109K4 with slats, and much harder than the 109K4 without slats.

You need to work out the drag when both are pulling the same turn, ie when both are generating the same lift/weight ratio. For that you need to work out actual lift generated:

L = Cl * area * .5 * density * speed^2

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">and the K-4's power-loading is very low. = Its got the ability to hold its speed whilst pulling inside the Spitfire. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

And yet climb rates are almost identical, indicating no useable power to weight advantage for the 109.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">While I'd not say it's the final word, but it is certainly made by someone who unlike you actually makes his living from knowing aerodynamics, </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Isegrim, it's a Luftwaffle fanboi site, don't give it pretensions of grandeur.

Xiolablu3
01-24-2007, 12:54 PM
The 109 is the newbie-Luftwaffe plane, as the SPitfire is to the Allies. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

These noobs should learn to fly a FW190 or Tempest . http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

WWMaxGunz
01-24-2007, 01:04 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HuninMunin:
And the myth that the 109 was a hard plane to handle does not touch the thruth.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Aye! There were some things to know especially takeoff and landing. I have read from modern
pilot who tried a Buchon out and was not ready for the torque, only flew tamer planes before.
He nearly wrecked the thing but it was his fault, not the machine's. Yeah, blah-blah about
it is not exactly the same plane but yadda-yadda it is close enough for a lesson about that!

As Oleg had stated about the 109, it is a very fine plane for control ability in flight.
The kid glove compared to the FW mailed fist, the rapier compared to sabre, the sports car
compared to muscle car.

It could do the finesse moves that some others could not, not exactly unstable, though for
sure **as with all others** there are speeds where it is maneuver limited. By the same way
though the series differs within and the envelope while stretching considerably -- well does
anyone expect to pull off the same lower speed performance in a K as in an F? I think no.

Why is it always some people want to take little words about parts of performance or handling
and make like they are much, most or all?

We have a tool that shows results of extremely controlled testing in admittedly limited
regimes (tests take time just to set up let alone fly, be happy you get anything and don't
play the exaggeration about it! there are only 24 hours in a day and that work is done free)
that is nonetheless a very good and solid basis to COMPARE performance.
I know there are some who see anyone quote the charts will try and beat that down by really
for these purposes those curves are better than every SWAG thrown up on these forums. If one
wants to tear it down then first let them do better! Same nitwits will post NACA and Rechlin
data with "they were there" words but those guys flew limited regimes, altitudes, etc, and
then the charts taken as extreme facts were drawn. Only difference I see is one was made
with the real planes by people in real world (ie varying) conditions while the other was
made with IL2 models by AI (more tightly controlled by far) in game world (not variance)
conditions. So which will tell me better about the planes in the game especially compared
each to the other? Remember that NEITHER WAY tells all that may be done and yet historic
charts are "the gold".

I look at those IL2 Compare charts and see compare turn times Spitfire VB vs Bf-109F-2 and
what do I see? At 340kph the curves cross, turn time is equal. Any faster and Bf is the
quicker around the circle.

Why do I get the feeling that if the pilots were to pull those planes to the gnarly edges
that the 109 might benefit just a tiny sliver more?

Look at the curves and say no way the 109 outturns but when the choice is go fast or be
overtaken in multiple airplane combat the choice to slow down by 1/3rd is not so good.

It is about conditions, gentlemen.

Bellator_1
01-24-2007, 01:11 PM
What the heck are you babbling about Hop ??

If it was overall lift-loading I wanted to compare I would've simply multiplied the CL figure with the wing area of each a/c - the rest in the true lift calculation is only good for finding out the lift produced at different speeds and altitudes.

Oh and btw, the K-4 weighes 3,362 kg which means a lift loading of 132 kg/m^2 if a CL of 1.57 is used, which is the same as the Spitfire. Now lets compare drag: (And this is using wing area as reference, using the entire wetted area would put the Spitfire at an even greater disadvantage)

Bf-109 (D) = 2.5
Spitfire (D) = 3.05

So the Bf-109 and Spitfire are equal in lift loading, but when it comes to drag the 109 has alot less to worry about.

And about climb rate, well you can't compare charts from different countries. But juding from time to climb figures the Bf-109 is a good deal faster - heck even the Dora-9 can pretty much follow the Spit XIV up to 20,000 ft.

Kurfurst__
01-24-2007, 01:17 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by hop2002:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">As you can see the Bf-109 has the advantage in energy retention until the slats are fully out and alot more AoA can be pulled </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Bellator, you haven't calculated required cl, just maximum CL. Because the Spitfire has much lower wingloading, it requires a lower CL for the same turn performance. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Appearantly you don't quite get that sustained turn performance also defined by drag.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">and the K-4's power-loading is very low. = Its got the ability to hold its speed whilst pulling inside the Spitfire. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

And yet climb rates are almost identical, indicating no useable power to weight advantage for the 109. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Such statements indicating ignorance on your side. Climb rates have rather little to do with turns. Climb rates for one occur at a single given speed, turn can occur at a wide range of speed.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">While I'd not say it's the final word, but it is certainly made by someone who unlike you actually makes his living from knowing aerodynamics, </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Isegrim, it's a Luftwaffle fanboi site, don't give it pretensions of grandeur. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>[/QUOTE]

And you're a British nationalist who spends his life with schoolboy bravado spreading on discussion forums, revisionism, and arguing that the British, the Spitfire, the RAF are superior to anyone. A fanboi, if you like, with very little moral restraint while doing that I might add. So what makes your word better than the one who you accuse with allaged fanboism...?

Even if your accusations would be true, you're still not an aerodynamically trained fanboi, just a barefoot natiolist fanboi; rather unlike Niklas who I believe works for the aviation armament industry, and very well understands these subjects. You simply in no position to challange his professionalism. Apart from that, he is quite simply much more credible than you.

I can see very little of the fanboism though on his site - it's largely about how aerodynamics work, technical desrciptions, drag polars, how stuff works, wartime theoretical reports and the like. It's in German and about aerodynamics, which is probably why you didn't get anything of it at all.

For the rest, a site worth checking out, Hop can bark the moon and miss it, his loss. :

http://mitglied.lycos.de/luftwaffe1/

HuninMunin
01-24-2007, 01:18 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
The 109 is the newbie-Luftwaffe plane, as the SPitfire is to the Allies. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

These noobs should learn to fly a FW190 or Tempest . http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

WWMaxGunz
01-24-2007, 01:21 PM
I read what Gunther Rall said to the Finns in interview when asked about slats in turns.

The slats come out, pssshht (not bang!), and he eases up on the stick a bit, they go back.

Perhaps Herr Rall did not believe in wasting speed?
I am sure no one thinks he was low-time on 109's?

hop2002
01-24-2007, 01:28 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">What the heck are you babbling about Hop </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What I am babbling about is the figures you have used show the Spitfire turning substantially tighter than the 109. Of course the Spitfire will have almost as much drag as the 109 if it's turning tighter than the 109.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">If it was overall lift-loading I wanted to compare I would've simply multiplied the CL figure with the wing area of each a/c </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Which wouldn't tell you anything about drag.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">So the Bf-109 and Spitfire are equal in lift loading, but when it comes to drag the 109 has alot less to worry about. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, the 109 has considerably more drag in the turn, as your figures show. They just don't show it very clearly, because you have given drag figures for planes at different turns.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
And about climb rate, well you can't compare charts from different countries. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Of course you can. You just have to know if they are corrected to similar atmospheric conditions.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">But juding from time to climb figures the Bf-109 is a good deal faster </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, it's actually a bit worse. Compare the time to climb for the Spitfire XIV at 18 lbs boost to the K4 at 1.8 ata, or the Spitfire XIV at 21 lbs boost to the 109K4 at 1.98 ata, and you will see what I mean. (about 4 mins 45 sec for the production Spitfire XIV, 4 mins 55 secs for the K4 at 1.8 ata)

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">heck even the Dora-9 can pretty much follow the Spit XIV up to 20,000 ft. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, I think it was rather conclusively demonstrated that you were reading the Dora chart wrong last time.

Are you going to try all your old arguments again now that the threads have disappeared?

Kurfurst__
01-24-2007, 01:32 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bellator_1:
What the heck are you babbling about Hop ?? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually if anyone wants to know, there was a discussion on the subject at butch's board, and Hop probably seen there the first time the formulae that shows Cdi in turns and rises quickly wit Cl. Ever since Hop happily posts the formulae itself like a child who learned a new word as the Ultimate Proof of Why the Spitfire is Superior.

Appearantly he still didn't get that superior coefficients of induced drag does not :

- coefficents mean anything at all by themselves
- they don't make make parasitic drag disappearing either
- drag can be overcome by thrust


Basically lower wingloading tends to lead to result in lower Cdi, though one would have to put in all the numbers and see what gives. Unfortunately, lower wingloading tends to come from a big wing area, with with in the end you'll have to mulitply the Cdi (since it's a coefficient) to get the actual amount of drag.

The case is quite similiar to the fact the Spitfire has a rather avarage Cd of 0.0229 or so, but in the end in absolute terms it will possess the worst drag in absolute terms of all because that Cd is goind to be multiplied with a huge f wing's areato get the actual eq. drag flat plate area. Which in the end is the thing that counts.

hop2002
01-24-2007, 01:35 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Appearantly you don't quite get that sustained turn performance also defined by drag. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes I do, that's the point.

Bellator has calculated drag at maximum CL. But with both planes flying at maximum CL, they will be turning at different rates.

To get a drag comparison when both are turning at the same rate, say 3G, you need to calculate the lift required, which will tell you the CL required, which will allow you to work out drag.

Brain32
01-24-2007, 01:38 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
The 109 is the newbie-Luftwaffe plane, as the SPitfire is to the Allies. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

These noobs should learn to fly a FW190 or Tempest . http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually I disagree 100%. I find 109 to be apsolutely the hardest plane to do good in, in late war. Flying Allied I find them on the very edge of being harmless, just don't drop below 300kmh and you can follow them in any kind of manouver in any Allied fighter...

Kurfurst__
01-24-2007, 01:39 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
I read what Gunther Rall said to the Finns in interview when asked about slats in turns.

The slats come out, pssshht (not bang!), and he eases up on the stick a bit, they go back.

Perhaps Herr Rall did not believe in wasting speed?
I am sure no one thinks he was low-time on 109's? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I tend to believe Herr Rall has this opinion, and in this question, he's rather alone with it amongst Luftwaffe pilots, ie. Stiegler or Leykauf are on another opinion. Rall is a great ace and man, but it's kinda boring to see his opinion repeated as the one and only gospel. Perhaps Rall was never the manouvering type, I don't know.

Reminds me a Messerschmitt test of rudder Flettners. Test pilot Schmid didn't liked the control forces, Test pilot Beuvais (sp?) did like them. Ta-da! Make justice from that.. I guess it's just human to have different preferences.

Kurfurst__
01-24-2007, 01:47 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by hop2002:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Appearantly you don't quite get that sustained turn performance also defined by drag. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes I do, that's the point.

Bellator has calculated drag at maximum CL. But with both planes flying at maximum CL, they will be turning at different rates.

To get a drag comparison when both are turning at the same rate, say 3G, you need to calculate the lift required, which will tell you the CL required, which will allow you to work out drag. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Then let's see your numbers.

Bellator_1
01-24-2007, 01:55 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by hop2002:
Yes I do, that's the point.

Bellator has calculated drag at maximum CL. But with both planes flying at maximum CL, they will be turning at different rates. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well we've got lift loading figures already so how about we figure out drag once again...

Bf-109 at CL 1.57

Cdi + Cd0 = Cd
0.15 + 0.023 = 0.173

Cd * A = D
0.173 * 16.15 = 2.79

Spitfire

Cdi + Cd0 = Cd
0.113 + 0.0229 = 0.1359

Cd * A = D
0.1359 * 22.48 = 3.05

Surprise ! Again the 109 comes out ahead.

WWMaxGunz
01-24-2007, 01:56 PM
And Marseilles would ride the flaps let alone the slats and he was hot!

I don't say slats was not used nor flaps. But the two highest scoring guys preferred
speed and slashing attacks and the highest scoring was dead set against the round and
round at all!

Also, Rall did not say bang about slats deploy but pssssht so I think that bang is just
another exaggeration by detractors.

I would like to see Bellator take his calculations clear through even noting the assumed
values and give total lift, total drag and G's of the turns and that is turns plural.
Then compare his SWAG to IL2C at some speeds.

Bellator_1
01-24-2007, 02:05 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
And Marseilles would ride the flaps let alone the slats and he was hot!

I don't say slats was not used nor flaps. But the two highest scoring guys preferred
speed and slashing attacks and the highest scoring was dead set against the round and
round at all!

Also, Rall did not say bang about slats deploy but pssssht so I think that bang is just
another exaggeration by detractors.

I would like to see Bellator take his calculations clear through even noting the assumed
values and give total lift, total drag and G's of the turns and that is turns plural.
Then compare his SWAG to IL2C at some speeds. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hartmann had this to say:

"Pilots, who liked turnfights, could use the Bf109 in that style. I avoided that."

Why is simple, B&Z is always the safest way...

Bellator_1
01-24-2007, 02:12 PM
And about the slats, well they actually do come out rather quickly - not at all in any *pssssht* way - Rall must have confused this with the many other a/c he has flown.

Walter Wolfrum:
""Unexperienced pilots hesitated to turn tight, bacause the plane shook violently when the slats deployed."

Mark Hanna:
"As CL max 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 manuevering 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."


And there are plenty more describing the same thing...

WWMaxGunz
01-24-2007, 02:25 PM
Bellator that buffeting is not from the weight of the slats banging.
Neither quote says that. How fast did Rall say psssht? Ask the Finns who were there!
That interview was just a few years ago. Have you read it?

What I see in those quotes is that the aerodynamics at deployment is not smooth which
btw is something to consider, what went before and during that change is not ideal at all.

Just what that comes to though, I will not fault 109 performance over, please understand
I make no inneundo or even try exaggeration of it. I have no 'side' about these issues.

Kurfurst__
01-24-2007, 02:39 PM
I'll give it a try, but I found the same as Bellator. I am using B's formulas and data for simplicity, but these are standard.

Basically checking Hop's suggestion here that since the Spitfire has lower wingloading, it needs lower Cl to turn the same. That's basically correct. Here we compare the Spit 14 and 109K-4 for the sake of simplicity, and also the check the 'late war trend reverse' suggestion of mine.

Formula

The Coefficient of drag (Cd) = Cdo + Cdi

where
Cd is the total drag
Cdi is induced drag (simply, resulted by making lift)
Cd0 is parasistic drag (skin friction etc)

And the coefficient of induced drag (Cdi) = (Cl^2) / (pi * AR * e)

The Spitfire wing area is ~40% larger (22.48/ 16.05 m2) =&gt; 1.4 factor
The Spitfire weight is 14.78% greater (3859 / 3362 kg) = &gt; 1,14 factor

Wingloading difference is the result of these two above factors : 1.4/1.14 = ~ 1.219 better wingloading of XIV

This means for the 109 needs to maintain 1.219 higher Cl to compansate. This was inserted into the formula.
Ie. if Spitfire Cl = 1 then 109 Cl = 1.219

Cdi calculations

CdiS14 = 1 / (3.14 * 5.6 * 0.85) = 0,0669

CdiK4 = 1.219^2 / (3.14 * 6.1 * 0.85) = 1.219^2 / 16,2809 = 0,0912

Cd0 (known from polars etc.)

Cd0_S14: 0.0229 (rather optimistic, this is for early Mk IX)
Cd0_K4 : 0.023 (109G)

Total drag

Cd = Cd0 + Cdi

Cd_S14 = 0.0229 + 0,0669 = 0,0898
Cd_K4 = 0.023 + 0,0912 = 0,1142

<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">Absolute drag flat plate area : Cd * A </span>

A for wing areas :

A109 = 16.05
ASpit= 22.48 m2

Total Drag :

Spit 14 : 2,018704 m2 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif

Bf109K4 : 1,83291 m2 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif

Lower the better. This shows ~9.6% lower total drag for the 109K in the same condition turn as the Spit XIV.
Under equal power, the 109K will possess better sustained turn, or can match the turn of the Spit XIV if it has more power.
Different Mark/subtype of course will alter things.

Correct if I SUd something, it's been a long day.


Dataset :


Bf-109
Span: 9.92m
Wing Area: 16.05 m^2
Cd0: 0.0023
e: 0.85 (Assumed the same)
AR: 6.1


Spitfire 14
Span: 11.23m
Wing Area: 22.48 m^2
Cd0: 0.00229
e: 0.85 (Assumed the same)
AR: 5.6

HellToupee
01-24-2007, 03:10 PM
Didnt in flight testing they found a spitfire XIV while carrying a 90gal tank could still outurn a 109.

Bellator_1
01-24-2007, 03:33 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Just what that comes to though, I will not fault 109 performance over, please understand
I make no inneundo or even try exaggeration of it. I have no 'side' about these issues. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I know WWMaxGunz, and thats what I like about you.

HuninMunin
01-24-2007, 03:33 PM
Adolf Galland said that he enjoyed and looked forward to outturning Spits.... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Xiolablu3
01-24-2007, 04:26 PM
Of COURSE the SPitfire XIV has more drag than the Me109, it has massive wings compared to the small wings of the Bf109.

This doesnt mean the Bf109 will outturn the SPitfire.

If lower drag and smaller wings meant better sustained turning then the FW190 and P51 would outturn everything else!


I am not a fan of getting data from pilot reports, as there are too many factors to consider, but the sheer amount of accounts from Spitfire pilots saying that they outturned 109s, and the very very few from 109 pilots saying they outturned 109s (Almost every historical book I have read talks about the Spitfires better turn, including those written by German pilots), you simply cannot ignore.

Xiolablu3
01-24-2007, 04:29 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Brain32:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
The 109 is the newbie-Luftwaffe plane, as the SPitfire is to the Allies. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

These noobs should learn to fly a FW190 or Tempest . http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually I disagree 100%. I find 109 to be apsolutely the hardest plane to do good in, in late war. Flying Allied I find them on the very edge of being harmless, just don't drop below 300kmh and you can follow them in any kind of manouver in any Allied fighter... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

ANd I find the Spitfire harder to do well in than the FW190.

I also find the earlier 109's better than the SPitfire V.

Does this mean the SPitfire is not a 'noob plane' anymore?

Axis Noobs generally take the 109 in the game, veterans usually take the FW190, thats just the way it is, whatever certain members think.

tomtheyak
01-24-2007, 04:38 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HellToupee:
Didnt in flight testing they found a spitfire XIV while carrying a 90gal tank could still outurn a 109. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thats the Air Fighting Development units test, and theres apparently several problems with using it as a benchmark

1) The a/c is supposedly a G with gunpods (extra weight etc) and as such cant be used to represent a stock a/c. Fair enough but having never seen the particular a/c in photos or any sources that indicate as such, I personally am not 100% convinced of this.

However, considering the wealth of conflicting reports this could well be true.

2) The a/c was a crashed/force landed/war damaged machine and badly repaired.

Likely but I personally feel that any a/c brought to flying condition must be well repaired, even considering the teams unfamiliarity. Optimal engine settings are however going to be problematic which leads us to:

3) Poor engine settings and/or fuel.

Most likely as this is a complex balance at the best of times.

4) Propaganda! They say this to make the RAF look better.

BS. The AFDs Job was to provide pilots with analysis and useful insight into the characteristics of the a/c they fought against and what advantage/disadvantage that places them in when fighting with their own. It makes NO sense to suggest or deliberately mislead pilots to fight in a manner that would endanger them or their a/c. To suggest anything of the nature is cynical, biased and just plain unrealistic.

For all we know, if their example was a gunpod equipped G, they may have believed at the time that this was a standard production fitment and that all 109s were thus equipped.

WWMaxGunz
01-24-2007, 04:57 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
I'll give it a try, but I found the same as Bellator. I am using B's formulas and data for simplicity, but these are standard.

Basically checking Hop's suggestion here that since the Spitfire has lower wingloading, it needs lower Cl to turn the same. That's basically correct. Here we compare the Spit 14 and 109K-4 for the sake of simplicity, and also the check the 'late war trend reverse' suggestion of mine.

Formula

The Coefficient of drag (Cd) = Cdo + Cdi

where
Cd is the total drag
Cdi is induced drag (simply, resulted by making lift)
Cd0 is parasistic drag (skin friction etc)

And the coefficient of induced drag (Cdi) = (Cl^2) / (pi * AR * e)

The Spitfire wing area is ~40% larger (22.48/ 16.05 m2) =&gt; 1.4 factor
The Spitfire weight is 14.78% greater (3859 / 3362 kg) = &gt; 1,14 factor

Wingloading difference is the result of these two above factors : 1.4/1.14 = ~ 1.219 better wingloading of XIV

This means for the 109 needs to maintain 1.219 higher Cl to compansate. This was inserted into the formula.
Ie. if Spitfire Cl = 1 then 109 Cl = 1.219

Cdi calculations

CdiS14 = 1 / (3.14 * 5.6 * 0.85) = 0,0669

CdiK4 = 1.219^2 / (3.14 * 6.1 * 0.85) = 1.219^2 / 16,2809 = 0,0912

Cd0 (known from polars etc.)

Cd0_S14: 0.0229 (rather optimistic, this is for early Mk IX)
Cd0_K4 : 0.023 (109G)

Total drag

Cd = Cd0 + Cdi

Cd_S14 = 0.0229 + 0,0669 = 0,0898
Cd_K4 = 0.023 + 0,0912 = 0,1142

<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">Absolute drag flat plate area : Cd * A </span>

A for wing areas :

A109 = 16.05
ASpit= 22.48 m2

Total Drag :

Spit 14 : 2,018704 m2 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif

Bf109K4 : 1,83291 m2 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif

Lower the better. This shows ~9.6% lower total drag for the 109K in the same condition turn as the Spit XIV.
Under equal power, the 109K will possess better sustained turn, or can match the turn of the Spit XIV if it has more power.
Different Mark/subtype of course will alter things.

Correct if I SUd something, it's been a long day.


Dataset :


Bf-109
Span: 9.92m
Wing Area: 16.05 m^2
Cd0: 0.0023
e: 0.85 (Assumed the same)
AR: 6.1


Spitfire 14
Span: 11.23m
Wing Area: 22.48 m^2
Cd0: 0.00229
e: 0.85 (Assumed the same)
AR: 5.6 </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Okay (within guessing limits but good guesses) so far but not the full taco.

Cl is per AOA and at speed AOA makes lift to give us ability to hold bank angle.
Bank angle and speed give us the turn do they not? And turn is what we not is it not?

The Spit XIV I have read from Brits and Amis both is a much heavier fighter than the early.
Not so great in turn in spite of more power. But I have read much like that with 109K
without saying the relation. My impression only is that the Spit put on more weight percent.
But then I look at the monster IX with 25lb boost and I see they still NEEDED faster!

HellToupee
01-24-2007, 08:00 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by tomtheyak:


1) The a/c is supposedly a G with gunpods (extra weight etc) and as such cant be used to represent a stock a/c. Fair enough but having never seen the particular a/c in photos or any sources that indicate as such, I personally am not 100% convinced of this.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

90gal external tank on spit is quite a bit of extra weight to

Bellator_1
01-24-2007, 08:13 PM
Also consider that the British test pilots nearly had a heart-attack every time the slats came out, thinking the airplane was about to stall, aborting the maneuver entirely.

Kurfurst__
01-24-2007, 11:18 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by tomtheyak:
4) Propaganda! They say this to make the RAF look better.

BS. The AFDs Job was to provide pilots with analysis and useful insight into the characteristics of the a/c they fought against and what advantage/disadvantage that places them in when fighting with their own. It makes NO sense to suggest or deliberately mislead pilots to fight in a manner that would endanger them or their a/c. To suggest anything of the nature is cynical, biased and just plain unrealistic. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

In 1940, the British trial establishments established that the Defiant is superior to the Bf 109E in every respect.
No comment.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">For all we know, if their example was a gunpod equipped G, they may have believed at the time that this was a standard production fitment and that all 109s were thus equipped. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't think they believed it, they've certainly captured many 109Gs in all sorts of conditions, but few were airworthy or in Britiai to test.

The-Pizza-Man
01-25-2007, 01:32 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
I'll give it a try, but I found the same as Bellator. I am using B's formulas and data for simplicity, but these are standard.

Basically checking Hop's suggestion here that since the Spitfire has lower wingloading, it needs lower Cl to turn the same. That's basically correct. Here we compare the Spit 14 and 109K-4 for the sake of simplicity, and also the check the 'late war trend reverse' suggestion of mine.

Formula

The Coefficient of drag (Cd) = Cdo + Cdi

where
Cd is the total drag
Cdi is induced drag (simply, resulted by making lift)
Cd0 is parasistic drag (skin friction etc)

And the coefficient of induced drag (Cdi) = (Cl^2) / (pi * AR * e)

The Spitfire wing area is ~40% larger (22.48/ 16.05 m2) =&gt; 1.4 factor
The Spitfire weight is 14.78% greater (3859 / 3362 kg) = &gt; 1,14 factor

Wingloading difference is the result of these two above factors : 1.4/1.14 = ~ 1.219 better wingloading of XIV

This means for the 109 needs to maintain 1.219 higher Cl to compansate. This was inserted into the formula.
Ie. if Spitfire Cl = 1 then 109 Cl = 1.219

Cdi calculations

CdiS14 = 1 / (3.14 * 5.6 * 0.85) = 0,0669

CdiK4 = 1.219^2 / (3.14 * 6.1 * 0.85) = 1.219^2 / 16,2809 = 0,0912

Cd0 (known from polars etc.)

Cd0_S14: 0.0229 (rather optimistic, this is for early Mk IX)
Cd0_K4 : 0.023 (109G)

Total drag

Cd = Cd0 + Cdi

Cd_S14 = 0.0229 + 0,0669 = 0,0898
Cd_K4 = 0.023 + 0,0912 = 0,1142

<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">Absolute drag flat plate area : Cd * A </span>

A for wing areas :

A109 = 16.05
ASpit= 22.48 m2

Total Drag :

Spit 14 : 2,018704 m2 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif

Bf109K4 : 1,83291 m2 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif

Lower the better. This shows ~9.6% lower total drag for the 109K in the same condition turn as the Spit XIV.
Under equal power, the 109K will possess better sustained turn, or can match the turn of the Spit XIV if it has more power.
Different Mark/subtype of course will alter things.

Correct if I SUd something, it's been a long day.


Dataset :


Bf-109
Span: 9.92m
Wing Area: 16.05 m^2
Cd0: 0.0023
e: 0.85 (Assumed the same)
AR: 6.1


Spitfire 14
Span: 11.23m
Wing Area: 22.48 m^2
Cd0: 0.00229
e: 0.85 (Assumed the same)
AR: 5.6 </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Your Cl's are relative, they can't be used to calculate an actual Cdi, causing everything from that point on to be flawed. Try plugging in some values for velocity and lift from the beginning.

WOLFMondo
01-25-2007, 02:13 AM
Two avid Spit hating 109 lovers will never post anything to degrade there beloved 109 will they? Cause not.

Kurfurst__
01-25-2007, 02:23 AM
Yes my Cls are relative, but I don't see how the approach is flawed. It takes account that to provide the same lift, corrected for the different weight of the aircraft (ie. the Spit XIV needs less Cl because of greater wing area to develop the same lift, at the same token it needs to produce more lift overall as it's heavier.) From that, the given drag amount for a lift neccesary for equal turn can be calculated, and the result will be relaviely correct. Of course the drag in turn would reverse if it's a much lighter Spit variant, ie. a IXLF.

It demonstrates that wingloading is not an only factor in sustained turns. It effects induced drag, but it's a balance of how much better Cdi you get from larger wings vs. how much greater drag those big wings will cause.

Plugging in some actual figures of course would be nicer, but we don't have much an actual figure at hand unfortunately. As for the actual Cdi, we can make only guesses, as it can be stated with fairly good certainity that the Spitfire's Cl shall be lower due to washout and thin wing profile, and the maximum Cl is likely lower, ie. no slats.

Kurfurst__
01-25-2007, 02:38 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Of COURSE the SPitfire XIV has more drag than the Me109, it has massive wings compared to the small wings of the Bf109.

This doesnt mean the Bf109 will outturn the SPitfire. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's just logically flawed. IF a given Spit Mark has more drag in the same turn, it means it cannot sustain it's turn at the same speed, it will loose speed and it's no longer a sustained turn - which generally it gets outturned. Sustained turn : drag = thrust, no speed or altitude loss. The latewar MkXIV is generally not fitting for turn performance, as it's very heavy and has high drag, while power is about the same. Of course if it would have hugely greater power to overcome it's greater turn, it's not a problem.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">If lower drag and smaller wings meant better sustained turning then the FW190 and P51 would outturn everything else! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The FW 190 has very high wingloading compared to the Spit or 109, which means it will need much more lift, for that it needs much more Cl, that means more drag. The power output of the 190 is appearantly not enough to overcome it's increased drag in turns. The P-51 is the same case, except it has less high wingloading, but less power as well. In the latter's case, there's also a possible limit of maximum Cl limiting best (hard) turn performance.

You need to look at the specifics, in short.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I am not a fan of getting data from pilot reports, as there are too many factors to consider, but the sheer amount of accounts from Spitfire pilots saying that they outturned 109s, and the very very few from 109 pilots saying they outturned 109s (Almost every historical book I have read talks about the Spitfires better turn, including those written by German pilots), you simply cannot ignore. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sheer amount, how many, a dozen, or two? So that because two dozen dogfights are known amongst the thousends that were fought in WW2, you make such a absolute statement? You cannot ignore either accounts of 109s outturning Spits, both from RAF and LW pilots. There are plenty of such accounts. You need to apply the same standards. Either accept both, that 109s would outturn Spits and Spits would outturn 109s, which is of course nonsense in an objective sense, or ignore both understanding that the samples are far too few and uncomparable because of unique set of conditions to make a conclusion based on pilot accounts.

fighter_966
01-25-2007, 02:39 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Zoom2136:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by fighter_966:
As I said read what Marseille could do with Bf109 </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

But what is better :

A - A plane that is stellar, but only in the hand of an expert pilot; or
B - A plane that is very good in the hand of an average pilot.

Get my drift... the Spit made even an average pilot look good and able to fight it out with better pilot flying the 109... so in my opinion the Spit was the better plane... as they were more average pilots in the air then experts... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Well Question in my opinion is which is better
airforce flown by average pilots or experts Btw finns didnt have prolems with Bf109 when take off or landing as often as did Germans ....Experten made little minority of Luftwaffe meaning pilots who get 100+plane http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Kurfurst__
01-25-2007, 02:42 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
Two avid Spit hating 109 lovers will never post anything to degrade there beloved 109 will they? Cause not. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What does physics have to do with hate or love ?
What does your post have to do with this thread?
Spitting out your frustration or what?
Showing that you're a good keeper of the faith who don't get effected by rational? Trying to demonstrate that strenght of belief is stronger than rational?

Sorry m8, the Dark Ages are over. At least for me.

The-Pizza-Man
01-25-2007, 02:47 AM
The approach is flawed because you can't add a relative value to an absolute value, which is what you've done (Cdi + Cdo).

If you do the calculations, I recommend with a spreadsheet, you'll see that depending on what load the aircraft is under, what velocity it's at, it's Oswald efficiency factor is and what sub model it is the absolute drag advantage the 109 has goes down with load. Depending on the variables the drag is sometimes greater than the Spits.

But yes, wing loading is far from the only factor that effects turn performance. Power to weight would have just as much effect if not greater effect on turn rate.

EDIT: I just realised I forgot to multiply the mass of the aircraft by 9.81 in my spreadsheet to get a required lift force. The induced drag is greatly increased by this. Anyway, I also graphed the absolute drag for both aircraft at 70 m/s. I gave the Spit a higher Oswald efficiency number rather than just .85 for both. I felt this may be representitive of reality due to the spits elliptical wing. I freely admit though that with the same e, the 109's drag is less than the spits. It also varies with speed, with induced drag being a greater factor at low speed and parasitic drag being the more important at high speed.

http://img254.imageshack.us/img254/2871/spitvs109drag5ex.jpg
To find the turning performance of the aircraft (at the speed shown) you'd follow the line up until you get to the point where the aircraft doesn't have enough thrust to counter act the drag force, then go down to the load factor. From that you can figure, rate and radius of turn for that velocity.

Richardsen
01-25-2007, 05:15 AM
Kurfurst an Bellator1:
At Duxford a 109G flew together with Spit IX MH434 and the spit was better in both sustaind and turing radius.

It's quite easy to find out which one has best sustaind turn and spits always wins.

Monty_Thrud
01-25-2007, 06:09 AM
But you're missing the point Richardsen, this is the final patch whine...these are the on-whiners trying to improve their chosen love so that it helps their Stats on-line...fact...Spitfires out-turns Biffers easily...fact...NEXT!

Brain32
01-25-2007, 06:15 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Spitfires out-turns Biffers easily...fact </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
What doesen't? 109's don't outturn anything in this game, nothing, nada, they simply have lower stall speed than some planes, that's it. As for a turn by itself, they can't outturn anyting at any speed...

Monty_Thrud
01-25-2007, 06:31 AM
I'm talking IRL not in-game.

In IL2, use teh G2 if though wishest to turneth inside yon Spitty.

Brain32
01-25-2007, 06:39 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> In IL2, use teh G2 if though wishest to turneth inside yon Spitty. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Well although I'm usually in the late war 109 like G10, or G6AS where even turning with P47 goes into - rather NOT category. I do fly 109G2 every once in a while, but even more so I fly other planes AGAINST 109G2.
NEVER ever did any 109 or any German plane for that matter turn into my Spitfire, I can't imagine how can that happen, same goes for Yak9 while on eastern front. I don't know how is that happening to you guys but I find it rather strange...

Xiolablu3
01-25-2007, 06:47 AM
If we are bringing Mark Hanna into the discusion, he said most definitely that he thought the Spitfire was a superior close in dogfighter than the Bf109, so if this does not mean better turning ability, just what does he mean?

[By the way, it was a 109 which he was killed flying, after years safely thrashing Spitfires. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif]


Apparantly wing loading is a VITAL factor in sustained turning ability.

From the F15 Eagle site :-

'[The F15's]....superior maneuverability and acceleration are achieved through high engine thrust-to-weight ratio and low wing loading. Low wing-loading (the ratio of aircraft weight to its wing area) is a vital factor in maneuverability and, combined with the high thrust-to-weight ratio, enables the aircraft to turn tightly without losing airspeed'

We all know that the SPitfire has a far better wingloading.

Xiolablu3
01-25-2007, 07:02 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:

Sheer amount, how many, a dozen, or two? So that because two dozen dogfights are known amongst the thousends that were fought in WW2, you make such a absolute statement? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Do you REALLY want me to quote as many pilot accounts from books and reports that I can find? I would be here all night! There are so many!

Not a dozen, I am talking hundreds, more than hundreds, taking the books written by LW and RAF pilots, RAF test reports, Pilot combat reports, quotes from interviews.

From Mark HAnna saying the SPitfire was 'A superior close in dogfighter'

To Heinz Knocke 'The bastards can make such incredibly tight turns, there seems to be no way of nailing them'

and Gunther Rall
'You couldnt follow a SPitfire in a tight turn upwards, you couldnt follow it...'

Theres too many to even think about quoting...If you dispute this then you are just kidding yourself.

I have seen maybe 5 or 6 quotes of 109's outturning SPitfires, and then they often state, 'only just' or 'only at very low speeds'.

I have seen ONE RAF pilot say that the 109 could outturn the SPitfire, and that was Pierre Clostermann from above.

Thats why I am taking notice of these accounts, because the evidence is pretty overwhelming, and even coming from the German side as well as controlled tests and people who have flown both planes.

WOLFMondo
01-25-2007, 07:05 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:

I have seen ONE RAF pilot say that the 109 could outturn the SPitfire, and that was Pierre Clostermann from above.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The funny thing is he does say that but when he gets into a turning battle at high altitude with a 109, the 109 stalls out cause of its stubby little wings allowing Closterman to shoot it down.

JG14_Josf
01-25-2007, 08:48 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">From Mark HAnna saying the SPitfire was 'A superior close in dogfighter'

To Heinz Knocke 'The bastards can make such incredibly tight turns, there seems to be no way of nailing them'

and Gunther Rall
'You couldnt follow a SPitfire in a tight turn upwards, you couldnt follow it...'

Theres too many to even think about quoting...If you dispute this then you are just kidding yourself. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

X3,

If Fighter Combat is viewed from a Sustained Level Turn performance ONLY perspective, then, the concept of Fighter Combat is bound to be misunderstood.

One at a time:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">From Mark HAnna saying the SPitfire was 'A superior close in dogfighter'
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Translation: The Spitfire can turn more degrees of turn in less time while maintaining altitude and will therefore win a prolonged sustained level turn or stall fight' against a contemporary Me 109 all else being equal.

What was not said nor implied: The Spitfire XIV is the superior close in dogfighter compared to the 109E.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">To Heinz Knocke 'The bastards can make such incredibly tight turns, there seems to be no way of nailing them'
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I've read: "I flew for the leader (murderous liar)" by Heinz Knocke but my copy is missing.

One thing Heinze Knock did describe is how to play the game' and any of his victims, according to him, could easily be seen as a NOOB by how they fly mistakes are lethal.

Perched over a turning NOOB or group of NOOBs in a defensive circle did cause the attacker some serious problems tactically. See how the Star of Africa solved that problem: dives and zooms with high deflection shooting.

If Knocke wrote those words then:

The bastards can make such incredibly tight turns while sustaining altitude in a slow speed minimum radius turn that there seems to be no way of nailing them without having to resort to dive and zooms and high deflection shots.

Knocke was an innovator. He was the one who came up with the timed fuse bomb drop on the B-17 formations idea. I seriously doubt that the words quoted are to be all encompassing as proof that the Spitfires held all turn advantages at all speeds always. Knocke had a working perspective of Fighter Combat Tactics and Maneuvering and not just a superficial one that saw only hit and run tactics or sustained level turn tactics.

Even if a Spitfire is turning a maximum performance level sustained turn at 24 degrees per second a plane with a corner speed rate of 22 degrees per second can dive inside or climb inside from higher speed than the slow turning Spitfire and gain enough lead for a shot. Tactics understands the nature of turn performance at high speed as well as slow speed and all the deceleration and acceleration in between. Turn rate is maximized at corner speed. Turn radius is minimized at corner speed. Corner speed can't be maintained in level flight. If the tactician doesn't know this fact, then, the tactician my not understand Fighter Combat. The plane with the lower corner velocity has the higher turn rate and the smaller turn radius; when loss of altitude is not a consideration. When loss of altitude is a consideration, then, the plane with the better sustained turn performance has the advantage. A plane with a sustained turn performance advantage does not necessarily mean that it will have a lower corner speed. It is entirely possible that the Spitfire held the sustained turn performance envelope while the 109s and 190s held the advantage in high speed turn performance including aileron turns barrel rolls - high and low yo yos and other vertically oriented NON SUSTAINING tactical turns during fighter combat maneuvering not just level sustained stall fight angles tactics.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
'You couldnt follow a SPitfire in a tight turn upwards, you couldnt follow it...'
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Again; when stall fighting, where inertia is gone, and both planes depend upon sustaining altitude or gaining altitude with engine power and slow speed lift production, in those situations, then, of course, the fight is going to favor light planes with big and efficient wings and lots of engine power; however any plane having more energy or an energy acceleration and or deceleration advantage can follow the other plane up in a decelerating climbing turn such as the nose high scissors turn. The plane that can decelerate quicker by converting the excess overshoot' velocity into rapid vector change will follow the tighter turn upwards' and get the shot before overshooting. If you have no concept of tactics then you won't see any meaning in the quotes written by the people who must have had a clear understanding of Fighter Combat Tactics and Maneuvering where Sustained Level Flight Turn Performance does not equate to High Speed Deceleration Turn Performance. Looking at Fighter Combat Tactics and Maneuvering from ONLY the sustained viewpoint is myopic superficial.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
Theres too many to even think about quoting...If you dispute this then you are just kidding yourself. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you are just kidding yourself, then, you are just kidding yourself. Thinking real hard or saying something over and over again won't make it real. If I thought that disputing the myopic and superficial viewpoint was kidding my self, then, I'd get in line and start spouting the sustained turn performance numbers like gospel. I don't. There is more to it.

Here is a quote for ya:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> The Focke-Wulf 190 was undoubtedly, the best German fighter. We were puzzled by the unfamiliar silhouette, for these new German fighters seemed to have squarer wingtips and more tapering fuselages than the Messerschmitts we usually encountered. We saw that the new aircraft had radial engines and a mixed armament of cannons and machine-guns, all firing from wing positions.

Whatever these strange fighters were, they gave us a hard time of it. They seemed to be faster in a zoom climb than the Me 109, and far more stable in a vertical dive. They also turned better. The first time we saw them we all had our work cut out to shake them off, and we lost several pilots.

Back at our fighter base and encouraged by our enthusiastic Intelligence Officers, we drew sketches and side views of this strange new aeroplane. We were all agreed that it was superior to the Me 109f and completely outclassed our Spitfire Vs. Our sketches disappeared into mysterious Intelligence channels and we heard no more of the matter,. But from then on, fighter pilots continually reported increasing numbers of these outstanding fighters over northern France.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Linking the source (http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/2WWfocke190.htm)

That quote can go in one ear, disappear, and go out the other ear. It makes perfect sense to me. The Fw 190 held the high speed turn advantage.

What were the numbers?

--------------------1g accelerated stall speed---------Va (corner speed)--------g load
Spitfire VB-------------blank--------------------------------blank-----------------blank
Me 109F----------------blank--------------------------------blank-----------------blank
Fw190A-4--------------204 km/h-------------------------433 km/h--------------blank

No one knows? If not then the high speed turn performance question is unknown.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> They also turned better.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Bellator_1
01-25-2007, 09:15 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by The-Pizza-Man:
The approach is flawed because you can't add a relative value to an absolute value, which is what you've done (Cdi + Cdo).

If you do the calculations, I recommend with a spreadsheet, you'll see that depending on what load the aircraft is under, what velocity it's at, it's Oswald efficiency factor is and what sub model it is the absolute drag advantage the 109 has goes down with load. Depending on the variables the drag is sometimes greater than the Spits.

But yes, wing loading is far from the only factor that effects turn performance. Power to weight would have just as much effect if not greater effect on turn rate.

EDIT: I just realised I forgot to multiply the mass of the aircraft by 9.81 in my spreadsheet to get a required lift force. The induced drag is greatly increased by this. Anyway, I also graphed the absolute drag for both aircraft at 70 m/s. I gave the Spit a higher Oswald efficiency number rather than just .85 for both. I felt this may be representitive of reality due to the spits elliptical wing. I freely admit though that with the same e, the 109's drag is less than the spits. It also varies with speed, with induced drag being a greater factor at low speed and parasitic drag being the more important at high speed.

http://img254.imageshack.us/img254/2871/spitvs109drag5ex.jpg
To find the turning performance of the aircraft (at the speed shown) you'd follow the line up until you get to the point where the aircraft doesn't have enough thrust to counter act the drag force, then go down to the load factor. From that you can figure, rate and radius of turn for that velocity. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

There's nothing flawed about our calculations at all The-Pizza-Man. Our calculations represent the a/c at the highest load - CLmax.

And about the Oswald efficiency factor, well it just so happens that the Spitfire doesn't have an elliptical lift distribution - not even close to.(Unlike the FW-190 which has) And since the 109F and onwards features elliptical wing tips it is therefore right to assume that the 109 actually has a higher e value than the Spitfire.

I choose a value of 0.85 for both for comparative reasons.

Kurfurst__
01-25-2007, 09:30 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
If we are bringing Mark Hanna into the discusion, he said most definitely that he thought the Spitfire was a superior close in dogfighter than the Bf109, so if this does not mean better turning ability, just what does he mean? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

He said that the Spanish Buchon he flew, on limited power :

First, let me say that all my comments are based on operations below 10,000 feet and at power settings not exceeding 40 inches and 2,600rpm. I like the airplane, 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, low-speed dogfight. It will definitely out-maneuver a P-51 in this type of fight because the roll rate and slow-speed characteristics are 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 ability would probably be the deciding factor.

Of course, it depends on the Mark we're speaking of. Specifics, specifics..

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">[By the way, it was a 109 which he was killed flying, after years safely thrashing Spitfires. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif] </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Mark Hanna died in a Merlin power spanish Buchon, quite probably due to exhaust intoxication (the Merlin had the exhaust pipes on top, the original DB down low and shielded, a mismatch of engine and airframe IMHO). It's a said accident, really.

OFF : Who was that Spit pilot who so pancaked himself to the ground on an airshow after performing a loop btw?


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Apparantly wing loading is a VITAL factor in sustained turning ability. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's one factor of course, but far from vital, all capital. Feel free to think otherwise, as there's a pretty good agreement on this here.. sustained turns are rather drag vs. thrust issues.

Yak 3 is the classic example. ****ty engine, tiny wings, insanely low drag yet still extremely low turn times.

Tator_Totts
01-25-2007, 09:41 AM
It is time.

http://home.carolina.rr.com/squad/fish.jpg

Kurfurst__
01-25-2007, 09:45 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by The-Pizza-Man:
The approach is flawed because you can't add a relative value to an absolute value, which is what you've done (Cdi + Cdo).

If you do the calculations, I recommend with a spreadsheet, you'll see that depending on what load the aircraft is under, what velocity it's at, it's Oswald efficiency factor is and what sub model it is the absolute drag advantage the 109 has goes down with load. Depending on the variables the drag is sometimes greater than the Spits. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I didn't really want to get into deeper in this, as data is lacking and from that onwards, the results are just pure guesses, largely pre-determined by the dataset we choose to believe. Oswald-e for example allows a lot of play..

Rather, I took a generic model, understanding it's limitations.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">But yes, wing loading is far from the only factor that effects turn performance. Power to weight would have just as much effect if not greater effect on turn rate. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Agreed totally. Some Messerschmit Kurvenbericht I've seen strongly underlines this, power is omnipotent - diving turns...! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">EDIT: I just realised I forgot to multiply the mass of the aircraft by 9.81 in my spreadsheet to get a required lift force. The induced drag is greatly increased by this. Anyway, I also graphed the absolute drag for both aircraft at 70 m/s. I gave the Spit a higher Oswald efficiency number rather than just .85 for both. I felt this may be representitive of reality due to the spits elliptical wing. I freely admit though that with the same e, the 109's drag is less than the spits. It also varies with speed, with induced drag being a greater factor at low speed and parasitic drag being the more important at high speed.

http://img254.imageshack.us/img254/2871/spitvs109drag5ex.jpg
To find the turning performance of the aircraft (at the speed shown) you'd follow the line up until you get to the point where the aircraft doesn't have enough thrust to counter act the drag force, then go down to the load factor. From that you can figure, rate and radius of turn for that velocity. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Good stuff, I was just going to ask for some graphical presentation, it sounded curious. It's a bit hard to read the scales though - at any load where sustained turn has any possibilty (2-3 G), they look exactly the same. This ignores different thrust available, of course.

What I would disagree with is the high Oswald effiency and 'elliptic' wings. The Spitfire, aerodynamic wise, did not have elliptic wings (with which high Oswald is usually associated), so the high Oswald effiency you used is not justified IMHO. (If it had elliptic wings, it would possess some very ugly stall characteristics. What it had otoh was a rather pronounced washout - no good for Herr Oswald but good for gentle stall characteristics, which the Spit possessed). The choosen speed (70 m/sec) is a bit low, it's actually below climb speed, what I have for the Spit IXLF as best turning speed is 82m/sec, and it's certainly somewhat higher for the later Marks and 109s. Still, considering the margin of error we work with..

ie. we lack the aerodynamic data, esp. relating to Oswald effiency, and then any Oswald number is good as another..! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Hence why I really didn't want to use absolute, 'real' figures - why pretend we know them when we don't. Then there's propeller effiency, ie. thrust varying with speed...etc.

Xiolablu3
01-25-2007, 10:08 AM
Josf, I completely agree that the FW190A outclassed the SPitfire V, so what the hell is the point of your quote?

Again, its COMMON SENSE. There are so many quotes, tests etc that show from both sides that the FW190 was the better overall plane, just like htere are so many German pilots,RAF reports, RAF pilot reports, quotes, docimentries who agree that the SPitfire could outturn the 109.

Sure you may find a few pilots hwo preferred the Spitfire V over the FW190, but generally, its true that the FW190 is the better plane!

We are talking about Spitfire vs Me109 turning ability, not FW190A vs Spitfire V, and here the Spitfire generally outturns the contemporary Bf109.


FW190A is generally superior to the Spitfire V - FACT

Spitfire could generally outurn the Me109 - FACT.

Bf109 was generally faster on the same power than the SPitfire - FACT

Bf109 could generally outdive the Spitfire - FACT

Only real fanboys, will dispute these things as we see here.

Kurfurst__
01-25-2007, 10:09 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Do you REALLY want me to quote as many pilot accounts from books and reports that I can find? I would be here all night! There are so many! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So tell me, how did the RAF lost 400+ very manouverable fighters in France in May 1940, and 1000+ in a few months in BoB..?
Let me guess, they were all surprised?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Not a dozen, I am talking hundreds, more than hundreds, taking the books written by LW and RAF pilots, RAF test reports, Pilot combat reports, quotes from interviews. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sure. 'The overwhelming evidence'. Plus, the Spit had a magic rune on it that prevented enemy fighters outturning it. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">From Mark HAnna saying the SPitfire was 'A superior close in dogfighter' </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Says to a Spanish Buchon with a derated MkV Merlin engine, and adds the difference is so little that pilots make the difference. I don't doubt it's true.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">To Heinz Knocke 'The bastards can make such incredibly tight turns, there seems to be no way of nailing them' </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Says the young Knocke on one of his first combat missions. I guess the Spits in this engagement owned the battle, didn't they? Or was just the usual, both sides shooting the air to pieces excercise vainly attempting to get into postion - as Knoke describes further? Knoke also says the 109G is undoubtely superior to the Spitfire. Sic.

'The connection between Overwhelming Evidence and Selective Quoting' By X. O. Lablu.

Clostermann says the same about the 109 : "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."

109 would outturn Spits, Spits would outurn 109s, it is then.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
and Gunther Rall
'You couldnt follow a SPitfire in a tight turn upwards, you couldnt follow it...' </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Says Rall who scored 99.9% of his victories on the Eastern Front, and did not score but 2-3 Spitfires (MkV), all in Russia, not until 1943. Perhaps he's pleasing the audience?

*strong British middle-class accent*
'Herr Rall, is it true the Messersmith could not follow the Spittfire in a tight turn upwards?'
What would you answer?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Theres too many to even think about quoting...If you dispute this then you are just kidding yourself. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The overwhelming evidence. Me kidding myself? Look in the mirror. This was discussed many times, as you always say the same : The overwhelming evidence. A Keeper of Faith. Is a Mac better than a PC...?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I have seen maybe 5 or 6 quotes of 109's outturning SPitfires, and then they often state, 'only just' or 'only at very low speeds'. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

1400 RAF fighters shot down in a few months of 1940, and all were shot down by being surprised, right?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I have seen ONE RAF pilot say that the 109 could outturn the SPitfire, and that was Pierre Clostermann from above.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Johhny Johnson says the FW 190 can outturn the Spitfire, too. Uncontestable truth, isn't it.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Thats why I am taking notice of these accounts, because the evidence is pretty overwhelming, and even coming from the German side as well as controlled tests and people who have flown both planes. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The overwhelming evidence again.

Xiolablu3
01-25-2007, 10:15 AM
I cant be bothered to go through every question, I just dont care about this as much as you do...I see you will do anything to protect 'Your love' from any bad words.

I will answer the first one for you -

Turning doesnt win battles, maybe thats why the RAF lost so many planes in whatever time you were talking about?

Also don't now pretend you are fishing/trolling, you have spent far more time on the hook than I have typing these quick 2 minute replies.

I have read Johnnie Jonsons book - 'The Story Of Air Fighting' , and at no point does he say that the FW190 could outturn the Spitfire.

Oh , and Rall was speaking in Finland in that interview http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

stathem
01-25-2007, 10:23 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
If we are bringing Mark Hanna into the discusion, he said most definitely that he thought the Spitfire was a superior close in dogfighter than the Bf109, so if this does not mean better turning ability, just what does he mean? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

He said that the Spanish Buchon he flew, on limited power :

First, let me say that all my comments are based on operations below 10,000 feet and at power settings not exceeding 40 inches and 2,600rpm. I like the airplane, 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, low-speed dogfight. It will definitely out-maneuver a P-51 in this type of fight because the roll rate and slow-speed characteristics are 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 ability would probably be the deciding factor.

Of course, it depends on the Mark we're speaking of. Specifics, specifics..

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif[/img]] </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Mark Hanna died in a Merlin power spanish Buchon, quite probably due to exhaust intoxication (the Merlin had the exhaust pipes on top, the original DB down low and shielded, a mismatch of engine and airframe IMHO). It's a said accident, really.

OFF : Who was that Spit pilot who so pancaked himself to the ground on an airshow after performing a loop btw?

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh dear.

Oh dearie dearie me.

You having problems with your memory again? OR is it as I suspect that you are just a inveterate liar?

Mark Hanna died because...

we've been down this road before Kurfurst, do you not remember? You are still prepared to [B]lie about the death of a well-respected warbird aviator to futher your own agenda? Even after I'd blown your lies before? Are you going to disappear from this thread too? You must be making up stories about a man's death (and stories which would be particularly upsetting to his family and the people who maintained that aircraft) because I've addressed a post to you disabusing you of the notion before.

This is why I never believe anything you write any more, I always look for your agenda. Because if you are prepared to lie about this...what else are you prepared to do?

Here is the crash report, and associated letters, from Mark Hanna's fatal accident.

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/griffnav/Gallery/Hanna1.JPG

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/griffnav/Gallery/Hanna2.JPG

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/griffnav/Gallery/Hanna3.JPG

If I could could ask everyone to read all the text in the three images carefully. MAybe a discussion can develop about LE slats and vortices.

Here (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/63110913/m/4671018323/p/1) is the thread in which Kurfurst makes his claim about the 'exhaust gasses'. My response is on page 3. At that time Kurfurst MAY have had the benefit of the doubt that he was just ill-informed, and together with his natural bias against anything British, come to a poor conclusion.

However, for him to post it again, today...draw your own conclusions.

I await his response with interest.

Kurfurst__
01-25-2007, 10:30 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stathem:
OR is it as I suspect that you are just a inveterate liar?

...

I await his response with interest. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Here's it : You may go **** yourself. And welcome to my ignore list.

Brain32
01-25-2007, 10:32 AM
Let's not put the very misfortunate death of a real human being into this discussion PLEASE!!!

As for Kurfursts bias, where ever WW2 fighters are discussed oltars and chatedrals of Saint Spitfire just pop out of everywhere, so please don't speak about some biases here, because this forum as many if not all others are full of EXTREME, completely unobjective and extremely emotional bias towards the Spitfire...

Kurfurst__
01-25-2007, 10:37 AM
You post me a magazine article, and some old thread from two years ago, and call me a liar.

The only inveterable liar is you, and those goons who spawned you from whom you may have inherited the affection for it.

Welcome to my ignore list. I don't waste time on idiots who only think in conspiracies, black govermental helos and lies all the time.

Pinker15
01-25-2007, 10:41 AM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Kurfurst__:

So tell me, how did the RAF lost 400+ very manouverable fighters in France in May 1940, and 1000+ in a few months in BoB..?
Let me guess, they were all surprised? [QUOTE]

Its like askin why most scoring RAF squadron (303 sqn.) during Battle of Britan had 7 to 1 kill death ratio. 109's was turning not enougth ?

Xiolablu3
01-25-2007, 10:45 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Brain32:
Let's not put the very misfortunate death of a real human being into this discussion PLEASE!!!

As for Kurfursts bias, where ever WW2 fighters are discussed oltars and chatedrals of Saint Spitfire just pop out of everywhere, so please don't speak about some biases here, because this forum as many if not all others are full of EXTREME, completely unobjective and extremely emotional bias towards the Spitfire... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well said Brain, I will shut my mouth now. Having nothing to do this afternoon, I started posting in this thread between games - bad idea http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Still, that article PLoughman linked too, is very interesting reading. Especially the bit about the Leading edge slats causing the crash.

Kurfurst__
01-25-2007, 10:47 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
I cant be bothered to go through every question, I just dont care about this as much as you do... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What's the reason for the sudden change of course?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I see you will do anything to protect 'Your love' from any bad words. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Really? Is it me who keeps referring time to time to the 'overwhelming evidence' about his love not possible to be outturned?
You're wearing blinkers, man. Not my problem though..

In every thread where discussion is attempted and goes well, suddenly the Keepers of Faith appear. They are frustrated. The course of discussion does not follow the strict boundaries they'd set. Such discussions are harmful to the Cause and need to be torn apart by :

- spam
- mantra of Faith
- personal attacks

As Xio and stathem demonstrated here. On the second thought, I put Xio on the ignore list as well.

Kurfurst__
01-25-2007, 11:07 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Still, that article PLoughman linked too, is very interesting reading. Especially the bit about the Leading edge slats causing the crash. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Amazing how quickly such a hypothesis originating from a Scandiniavian opinon in a reader's letter rises to FACT status as opposed to the conclusion of the official Spanish investigation..

This is so stupid as it can get... Spitdweebs trying to dismiss professional crash investigation reports, Spitdweebs trying t o blame it on the plane, vorticles, leading edge slats, the Spanish or whatever other suspect. Do I sense right it's all the old evils to blame?

What's the saddest part is the sheer agressiveness they do it, the hypocrisy of posing as defenders of Hanna's memory i]right after bringing up his accidents themselves[/i], and casting out accusations based on the fact others did dare to ignore a their Overwhelming Evidence, ie. based on frigging reader letters to the editor who tell what the Real Cause was.. This is far too pathethic. Anyway, two dweebs less to read.

It's a pity that just two of them are enough to destroy a discussion though.

Xiolablu3
01-25-2007, 11:11 AM
FUnny how me saying that page is interesting, has Kurfurst calling me a 'Spitdweeb' and saying that I said it was fact? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif


Anyway - I found this interesting bit of info http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif


Before turning fights with the Bf 109 E type, it must be noted in every case, that all three foreign planes have significantly smaller turning circles and turning times.
An attack on the opponent as well as disengagement can only be accomplished on the basis of existing superiority in performance."
From : Kr.-Fernschr.Ob.d.L.,Fhr.Stab Ia Nr.8092/40 g.K. (II)
(only to Lfl.3)
Subject : Comparison flight between Bf 109 E, Bf 110 C, Spitfire, Hurricane and Curtiss.
(From Kurfursts' site)

Strange that you 'forgot' to show us such a relevant piece of info from your site, isnt it mate? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

(Braces for flood of excuses from Kurfy and Bellator)

JG14_Josf
01-25-2007, 11:27 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">FW190A is generally superior to the Spitfire V - FACT

Spitfire could generally outurn the Me109 - FACT.

Bf109 was generally faster on the same power than the SPitfire - FACT

Bf109 could generally outdive the Spitfire - FACT

Only real fanboys, will dispute these things as we see here. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

X3,

What you claim to be fact above is a ridiculous claim. Generally is a word used to describe generalities; not facts.

Example:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
Spitfire could generally outurn the Me109 - FACT.
. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is nonsense. It makes no sense. A Spitfire XIV is a Spitfire. An Me109E is an Me109. Which plane out turns the other plane?

Here are turn performance facts:

http://mysite.verizon.net/res0l0yx/IL2Flugbuch/Corner%20time.jpg

The higher wing-loaded, lower power-loaded, heavier plane has a 2 degree turn rate and a 500+ turn radius advantage in Maximum Turn performance over the lighter, lower wing-loaded, and higher power-loaded plane. FACT

I can use the word FACT because that is a FACT and because it is not a generality.

The actual planes were flown in actual turns and those actual performance numbers were recorded on one easy to read chart FACT.

See the difference?

Not FACT:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
Spitfire could generally outurn the Me109 - FACT.
. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actual FACT:
The higher wing-loaded, lower power-loaded, heavier plane has a 2 degree turn rate and a 500+ turn radius advantage in Maximum Turn performance over the lighter lower wing-loaded, higher power-loaded, plane. FACT

Example two:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
Only real fanboys, will dispute these things as we see here. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No more need to add FACT to that example of hyperbole. The absolute term ONLY is used to identify the ONLY ones who will dare to ever dispute these FACTS (actually meaningless generalities) as WE (mice in your pocket? the majority rule defense?) see here (my absolute claim of authority on all knowledge).

If the Spitfire XIV could turn better than the Me109E, then, such a FACT can be shown on an EM chart. My guess is that the Spitfire would have a high speed turn advantage and the 109 would be the better stall fighter having the better level sustained turn performance; that is opinion. An accurate EM chart based upon flight test data can separate fact from opinion.

If the real planes were really flight tested (in combat or mock combat), then, the real FACTS would be known by the person doing the testing.

Like this:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The Focke-Wulf 190 was undoubtedly, the best German fighter. We were puzzled by the unfamiliar silhouette, for these new German fighters seemed to have squarer wingtips and more tapering fuselages than the Messerschmitts we usually encountered. We saw that the new aircraft had radial engines and a mixed armament of cannons and machine-guns, all firing from wing positions.

Whatever these strange fighters were, they gave us a hard time of it. They seemed to be faster in a zoom climb than the Me 109, and far more stable in a vertical dive. They also turned better. The first time we saw them we all had our work cut out to shake them off, and we lost several pilots.

Back at our fighter base and encouraged by our enthusiastic Intelligence Officers, we drew sketches and side views of this strange new aeroplane. We were all agreed that it was superior to the Me 109f and completely outclassed our Spitfire Vs. Our sketches disappeared into mysterious Intelligence channels and we heard no more of the matter,. But from then on, fighter pilots continually reported increasing numbers of these outstanding fighters over northern France. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Arranging the above opinion' into graphical form as fact' can take on the form of an EM chart.

Saying, as fact, that the relative level sustained turn performance is the end all of turn performance is superficial myopic and missing the point.

Which plane turned better?

An EM chart is one effective way to present most of the facts in a way that answers the question accurately.

In the case of the F-86 vs. Mig -15 the clear winner is BOTH.

The Mig-15 turns much better in sustained level turns and turns where the plane is accelerating (climbing to a higher energy state).

The F-86 turns much better in decelerating turns where maximum turn rate and minimum turn radius is achieved (when altitude loss is not a consideration).

It is all there in an easy to read chart.

What for example is the relative turn performance between these two planes:

Spitfire IA
Spitfire IX (25lb)
Spitfire XIV

Both have the same wing (generally).

Which plane turns better?

No one knows?

Someone thinks that the answer is, generally speaking, that the Spitfire IA turns better?

How about this:

Which plane turns better?

Me 109E
Me 109G2
Me 109K4

No one knows?

Someone thinks that the 109G2 turns better generally speaking?

This:

Fw190A-3 (no more engine overheating problems)
Fw190A-8
Fw190D-9

Which plane turns better?

No one knows?

Someone thinks the answer is, generally speaking, the Fw190D-9 turns better?

Each plane has two specific turn performance speeds with corresponding g loads, turn rates, and turn radius.

A: Maximum performance sustained level turn speed
B: Corner speed

Focusing ONLY on A will limit the concept of Fighter Combat Tactics and Maneuvering is such a way that the perception fails to see, on purpose, a large part of the concept i.e. Energy Maneuverability. The myopic and superficial perspective views the concept of Fighter Combat as either hit and run tactics or slow speed stall fighting tactics.

These:

Boom and zoom

Turn and Burn

Those are game terms.

Much of energy fighting concerns vertical maneuvering from vertical maneuvering speed or corner velocity (which ever is higher) while employing maximum performance turns, maximum acceleration in unloaded dives, and minimum deceleration in unloaded vertical zoom climbs, where, the Energy Fighter bets the farm' on the ability to convert high speed inertia into an altitude and attitude advantage enabling a gravity assisted turn at the top of the Zoom climb such as a hammerhead. Other energy tactics include aileron turns like the Yo Yo high and low, lag displacement roll, Barrel Roll attack, and the Rolling scissors where high speed decelerating turn performance advantages are used to advantage.

If the energy performance margin is small, then, the hit (dive, guns pass, and vertical zoom) is only possible once from a much higher energy state. Leaving one more dive, guns pass, and run. Hit and run.

Like this:

http://mysite.verizon.net/res0l0yx/IL2Flugbuch/Vertical%20Zoom.jpg

Two chances of hit and run when engaging the much more efficient energy fighter (BLEEDS LESS ENERGY) from a much higher energy state, where, any comparable turn results is much greater loss of energy.

Because the game models this:

http://mysite.verizon.net/res0l0yx/images/WWIIEMgameerror.jpg

The light weight fighter is modeled with a much higher turn rate advantage at corner speed.

Corner speed is a decelerating turn where total energy is used up in the turn (KE and PE velocity, altitude, and engine power).

The light weight and lower powered fighters, like the Mig-15, were NOT the energy fighters.

When, or if, the game models the F-86 vs Mig-15, then, this will be a provable fact because the facts concerning high speed performance are documented for those planes.

The facts concerning high speed turn performance can be calculated (accurately?) for WWII planes. Currently those calculations are not accurate certain not in the game.

What does exist and is confirmed by many reinforcing reports are pilot accounts that describe both the advantages of slow speed level sustained turn performance and high speed decelerating performance; in WWII history.

There is if someone can find it a Spitfire I vs. Me109E dog house plot turn performance chart based upon calculation. That chart would be a good one for this topic.

Xiolablu3
01-25-2007, 11:29 AM
Josf, I am not a scientist, what I wrote makes sense to most normal people, I am sure.

In most cases, the Spitfire will outturn the Bf109, thats is a fact. Of course it makes sense.

Read the German report here :-

" Before turning fights with the Bf 109 E type, it must be noted in every case, that all three foreign planes have significantly smaller turning circles and turning times.
An attack on the opponent as well as disengagement can only be accomplished on the basis of existing superiority in performance."
From : Kr.-Fernschr.Ob.d.L.,Fhr.Stab Ia Nr.8092/40 g.K. (II)
(only to Lfl.3)
Subject : Comparison flight between Bf 109 E, Bf 110 C, Spitfire, Hurricane and Curtiss.
(From Kurfursts' site)


Nuff said.

Lmao Kurfurst has ignored me after reading that post above http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif Bet hes got his fingers in his ears and is singing 'Lalalala'.

Sorry I know I said I would shut up, but I was annoyed by his 'Spitdweeb' comment, and it drew me back in. (especially annoying because I love the Me109 and FW190 as much as the Spitfire. If someone was trying to say that the Spitfire was generally faster than the 109, I would argue for the 109. We KNOW that the 109F4 was generally a better plane than the Spitfire mkV - common sense)

JG14_Josf
01-25-2007, 11:51 AM
X3,

You are simply ignorant. That is nothing to be ashamed of.

You are ignorant concerning much of Fighter Combat Tactics and Maneuvering because you come up with false statements like this:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
In most cases, the Spitfire will outturn the Bf109, thats is a fact. Of course it makes sense. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is not fact and it only makes sense to someone who is as ignorant as you are concerning most cases' when one fighter plane is maneuvering against another fighter plane. The idea that Fighter Combat between most cases' of Spitfires vs. 109s can be accurately determined by me or you or anyone is IGNORANT.

Any 109 (during actual combat against any Spitfire) that turns from a higher energy state (higher velocity, mass, and or altitude) can and will turn a faster turn rate and a smaller turn radius if the 109 pilot and the plane can generate and sustain more g force. The lower energy state plane (any plane) will turn a slower turn rate and a larger turn radius because it doesn't have the energy to generate the acceleration on the lift vector, g force, nor maintain it.

In most cases, perhaps, the fighter pilot who won did so from an energy advantage when his plane had the capacity to turn a faster turn rate, a tighter turn radius, get the shot, kill the opponent, and get out of dodge.

You know dodge. That is what you do when confronted with a question that you can't answer because, frankly, you are ignorant.

When you say Nuff said' it is like reading a comic book character with his super power confidence. If you can discuss the topic, then, discuss it.

Like:

What is the lowest corner speed of any Spitfire or 109?

If you can't answer that question, then, you are ignorant concerning the questions.

If you see no reason to answer the question, then, you are ignorant concerning turn performance.

The plane with the lower corner speed is the plane that can turn the fastest turn rate and the smallest turn radius FACT.

Not generally speaking, not most people think it, I'm sure, not in most cases' but irrefutably factual:

The plane with the lower corner speed is the plane capable of turning the fastest turn rate and the smallest turn radius.

Which is it?

A. Ignorance
B. Knowledge?

A. Trolling
B. Adding to the discussion

A. Run and hide with your tail between your legs
B. Stand and own up

Bellator_1
01-25-2007, 11:51 AM
Why do threads like these always turn into personal attacks http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

JG14_Josf
01-25-2007, 12:05 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Why do threads like these always turn into personal attacks </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Because it is allowed

The topic is generating much to ponder in my opinion. I'm very curious about how CLMax is accurately identified.

Attacks get in the way.

If a personal attack is ignored, then, the attacker can and often does continue. The attacker often blames the victim when the victim defends. Soon enough the moderators blame everyone - collective punishment.

It's a mess. It happens in almost every forum.

If you have an interest in the topic, then, you may need to utilize the ignore button.

I've learned to attack right back as per the suggestions from the moderator, who told me, in so many words: don't be a baby.

In the past I tried to get the moderator to see who starts up.

Look moderator, here is the quote, this guys is STARTING a personal attack.

I got:

You need to grow thicker skin.

Personal attacks are allowed on this forum. That is the way it is.

How about Josf Goebels?

I don't easily lose my temper. I've yet to strike anyone out of anger; however - if some of the comments aimed at me on this forum were said in person, then, that person would find a need to defend him self one way or the other.

Sticks and stones...

Xiolablu3
01-25-2007, 12:09 PM
SO Josf, how do you explain that Luftwaffe report stating that the Spit and Hurri ALWAYS outturned the 109E?

At least I put in 'generally', as in the Bf109 may have the advantage in a few cases. Of course I mean at similar speeds, energy and AOA, not at vastly different speeds, thats just obvious - except to you it seems.

'Before turning fights with the Bf 109 E type, it must be noted in EVERY case, that all three foreign planes have significantly smaller turning circles and turning times.'


It seems I am being more generous to the 109E's turn than the Luftwaffe.

I cant believe I am still debating this - Have I nothing better to do?

crazyivan1970
01-25-2007, 12:50 PM
Guys, if you keep taking swings on each other, i`ll suspend all of you just for the hell of it, i promise.

And Josf, personal attacks are not allowed, not sure who told you otherwise.

Pollack2006
01-25-2007, 01:09 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:At least I put in 'generally', as in the Bf109 may have the advantage in a few cases. Of course I mean at similar speeds, energy and AOA, not at vastly different speeds, thats just obvious - except to you it seems. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Apparently the normal laws of conversation have no relevance with some people.

When you're arguing that Plane-A could turn inside Plane-B then any normal person would assume that you're comparing aircraft with similar initial energy states.

Non-normal people will counter your common sense conclusion with "But if Plane-B has a higher initial energy state....blah....blah" as if they're making a valid point.

It's a classically poor debating tactic.

Bellator_1
01-25-2007, 01:16 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
SO Josf, how do you explain that Luftwaffe report stating that the Spit and Hurri ALWAYS outturned the 109E?

At least I put in 'generally', as in the Bf109 may have the advantage in a few cases. Of course I mean at similar speeds, energy and AOA, not at vastly different speeds, thats just obvious - except to you it seems.

'Before turning fights with the Bf 109 E type, it must be noted in EVERY case, that all three foreign planes have significantly smaller turning circles and turning times.'


It seems I am being more generous to the 109E's turn than the Luftwaffe.

I cant believe I am still debating this - Have I nothing better to do? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh you guys love that report don't you ?

The problem is however that its an Emil which is known to have issues with its slats, second its from 1940, at which point most German pilots didn't dare go past the deployment of the slats.

Erwin Leykauf
""The Bf 109s also had leading edge slats. When the 109 was flown, advertently or inadvertently, too slow, the slats shot forward out of the wing, sometimes with a loud bang which could be heard above the noise of the engine. Many times the slats coming out frightenened young pilots when they flew the Bf 109 for the first time in combat. One often flew near the stalling speed in combat, not only when flying straight and level but especially when turning and climbing. Sometimes the slats would suddenly fly out with a bang as if one had been hit, especially when one had throttled back to bank steeply. Indeed many fresh young pilots thought they were pulling very tight turns even when the slats were still closed against the wing. For us, the more experienced pilots, real manoeuvring only started when the slats were out.For this reason it is possible to find pilots from that period (1940) who will tell you that the Spitfire turned better than the Bf 109. That is not true. I myself had many dogfights with Spitfires and I could always out-turn them. "

JG14_Josf
01-25-2007, 01:25 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">'Before turning fights with the Bf 109 E type, it must be noted in EVERY case, that all three foreign planes have significantly smaller turning circles and turning times.' </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

A: In context the quote intends to report relative level flight sustained turn performance based upon EVERY case the author is aware of.
B: In context the quote intends to include corner speed turn performance.

Which is it?

In one case the 109E pilot can sustain a 7 g turn at 400 km/h while in this case the Spitfire pilot can sustain a 6 g turn at 400 km/h.

If such a case existed, then, the 109E turned 36 degrees per second around a 180 m turn while the Spitfire turned 30 degrees per second around 220 m turn.

What was the actual corner speed for the Spitfire (any model any weight any g load) and what was the actual corner speed for the 109?

Do you believe that your source proves that every Spitfire in every case has a lower corner velocity than every 109?

Do you believe that your quote proves that any Spitfire has a lower corner velocity than any 109?

The Sergeant Shultz defense:
I see nothing, I know nothing, I hear nothing

What is the procedure for dealing with personal attacks now?

I want to know. I don't need to go back and quote how personal attacks were treated in the past. What is the procedure now?

I want to abide by the actual, enforced, rules.

I sure don't want to be lumped into the group that gets banned when the personal attacks escalate to a point where the moderator steps in.

I'm willing to forget all the past attacks, every one, and start sticking to the enforced rules.

Let's go.

Pinker15
01-25-2007, 01:57 PM
Hopefully in game 109 do not outturn spit. At least it never happened to me. I got outclimbed or outdived but never outturned http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif I thrust that Mr. Maddox knows what was doing when modelled FM of spit and 109.

Richardsen
01-25-2007, 03:14 PM
Kurfurst:That Buchon had a DB engine not a merlin.

WWMaxGunz
01-25-2007, 03:24 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Yes my Cls are relative, but I don't see how the approach is flawed. It takes account that to provide the same lift, corrected for the different weight of the aircraft (ie. the Spit XIV needs less Cl because of greater wing area to develop the same lift, at the same token it needs to produce more lift overall as it's heavier.) From that, the given drag amount for a lift neccesary for equal turn can be calculated, and the result will be relaviely correct. Of course the drag in turn would reverse if it's a much lighter Spit variant, ie. a IXLF. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am sorry, I was very tired last night. I see your point and I think maybe it is good.
Answer is that with close guess from data values that the end of those series, the 109K seems
not only the faster but the better on ... is it all turns or maximal?

Why I am not sure is I see nada there covering how Cl varies with AOA while knowing that
the ratio of parasitic to induced drag varies hugely with AOA. Cd0 + Cdi running fast and
level compared to high G turning from one static equation that is not an integral just looks
too good and easy so please indulge my doubts!

WWMaxGunz
01-25-2007, 04:16 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Pollack2006:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:At least I put in 'generally', as in the Bf109 may have the advantage in a few cases. Of course I mean at similar speeds, energy and AOA, not at vastly different speeds, thats just obvious - except to you it seems. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Apparently the normal laws of conversation have no relevance with some people.

When you're arguing that Plane-A could turn inside Plane-B then any normal person would assume that you're comparing aircraft with similar initial energy states.

Non-normal people will counter your common sense conclusion with "But if Plane-B has a higher initial energy state....blah....blah" as if they're making a valid point.

It's a classically poor debating tactic. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It depends on the subject. I have never heard of a debate where assumptions were a good thing
but then I never was in any debating society or class so I am no expert on what is accepted.
Is it okay to bring up assumption as a debate continues and everyone says "oh, okay"?

When the statements are made that Plane A always outturns Plane B without specifying similar
energy states then the poor debating tactic is made right there. For what DEBATE is worth
it is very easy to debate out of reality playing such word games.

When writings of fighter pilots are brought up, do we keep the assumptions? It is stupid to
do that. When the subject is outturn, period, then all ways must count.

Perhaps I should assume that all turns are made at best turn speed of the slower plane as well?

No way. The ungiven "assumptions" become part of a trick to make one way into always.
Perhaps your "normal" people are just a bit slow or lazy? Whatever, between themselves they
can come away with conclusions and views entirely worthy of the worst Discovery Channel shows!

WWMaxGunz
01-25-2007, 04:19 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
You are simply ignorant. That is nothing to be ashamed of.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Works for you.

WWMaxGunz
01-25-2007, 04:28 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bellator_1:
Erwin Leykauf
""The Bf 109s also had leading edge slats. When the 109 was flown, advertently or inadvertently, too slow, the slats shot forward out of the wing, sometimes with a loud bang which could be heard above the noise of the engine." </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ah Ha! So sometimes they did make the bang! I never saw that before!
Maybe there was a rubber bumper missing or too hard a compound or just hard from cold?
Once I had lost such a thing in a shock tower on my Type-3 Squareback and every bump was
sounding like serious breakage till I got it into the shop. I really miss my Fastback
Type-3 more.

JG14_Josf
01-25-2007, 05:15 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Works for you. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sure does MaxGunz,

I'd like to fill in a few blanks:

--------------------1g accelerated stall speed---------Va (corner speed)--------g load
Spitfire VB-------------blank--------------------------------blank-----------------blank
Me 109F----------------blank--------------------------------blank-----------------blank
Fw190A-4--------------204 km/h-------------------------433 km/h--------------blank

If you know any of those values, then, you know and I remain ignorant.

hop2002
01-25-2007, 05:18 PM
Isegrim, ever hear the phrase "garbage in, garbage out". The figures you are using are, to put it simply, garbage.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Basically checking Hop's suggestion here that since the Spitfire has lower wingloading, it needs lower Cl to turn the same. That's basically correct. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Of course it's correct. I'm always correct http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Formula

The Coefficient of drag (Cd) = Cdo + Cdi

where
Cd is the total drag
Cdi is induced drag (simply, resulted by making lift)
Cd0 is parasistic drag (skin friction etc)

And the coefficient of induced drag (Cdi) = (Cl^2) / (pi * AR * e)

The Spitfire wing area is ~40% larger (22.48/ 16.05 m2) =&gt; 1.4 factor
The Spitfire weight is 14.78% greater (3859 / 3362 kg) = &gt; 1,14 factor

Wingloading difference is the result of these two above factors : 1.4/1.14 = ~ 1.219 better wingloading of XIV </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually it's 1.22, this is the first of your rounding errors (which always seem to favour the 109)

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Cdi calculations

CdiS14 = 1 / (3.14 * 5.6 * 0.85) = 0,0669

CdiK4 = 1.219^2 / (3.14 * 6.1 * 0.85) = 1.219^2 / 16,2809 = 0,0912 </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is where the garbage data starts to creep in. One Oswald number is not as good as another.

Oswald efficiency, for those who don't know, is a measure of the lift distribution of the wing. Perfect elliptical distribution (not achievable in a real world aircraft) gives a figure of 1, everything else is less.

The Spitfire does not have an Oswald number of 1, because it has washout, but according to David Lednicer it has better lift distribution than either the Mustang or 190.

More sensible values would be about .88 for the Spitfire, .77 for the 109 with slats in, more like .65 with slats out.

Also, why have you rounded the aspect ratio figures much more than the others? The Spitfire has become 5.6 when it's 5.61, the 109 6.1 when it's actually 6.06. Once again rounding is used to favour the 109.

The figures are therefore more like:

CdiS14 = 1 / (3.14 * 5.61 * 0.88) = 0.065

CdiK4 = 1.2^2 / (3.14 * 6.06 * 0.65) = 1.2^2 / 12.3685 = 0.116 (0.098 without slats deployed)

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Cd0 (known from polars etc.)

Cd0_S14: 0.0229 (rather optimistic, this is for early Mk IX)
Cd0_K4 : 0.023 (109G) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The K4 figure is extremely optimistic.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Total drag

Cd = Cd0 + Cdi

Cd_S14 = 0.0229 + 0,0669 = 0,0898
Cd_K4 = 0.023 + 0,0912 = 0,1142 </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

With the more accurate figures:

Cd_S14 = 0.0229 + 0.065 = 0.088
Cd_K4 = 0.023 + 0.116 = 0.139 (0.121 with slats in)

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Absolute drag flat plate area : Cd * A

A for wing areas :

A109 = 16.05
ASpit= 22.48 m2

Total Drag :

Spit 14 : 2,018704 m2 Truce

Bf109K4 : 1,83291 m2 Clap
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

And with the more accurate figures rather than the garbage:

Spit 14 = 1.98

Bf109K4 = 2.23 (1.94 with slats in)

As you can see, the Spitfire has a lot less total drag than the 109 when the slats are out in a hard turn, very slightly more when the slats are in.

However, that's total drag. Total drag must be measured against power, and the Spitfire XIV had more power than the 109K4 (the Spitfire at 18 lbs had more than the K4 at 1.8 ata, the Spitfire at 21 lbs had more than the K4 at 1.98 ata)

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">And about the Oswald efficiency factor, well it just so happens that the Spitfire doesn't have an elliptical lift distribution - not even close to.(Unlike the FW-190 which has) And since the 109F and onwards features elliptical wing tips it is therefore right to assume that the 109 actually has a higher e value than the Spitfire. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The 190 doesn't. See Lednicer. The 190 is pretty good, better than the Mustang iirc, but no practical aircraft has perfect eliptical lift distribution.

As to the 109, it's 100% wrong to assume it has a higher Oswald number than the Spitfire. The addition of slats make things much worse by changing lift distribution.

The-Pizza-Man
01-25-2007, 05:47 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bellator_1:
There's nothing flawed about our calculations at all The-Pizza-Man. Our calculations represent the a/c at the highest load - CLmax.

And about the Oswald efficiency factor, well it just so happens that the Spitfire doesn't have an elliptical lift distribution - not even close to.(Unlike the FW-190 which has) And since the 109F and onwards features elliptical wing tips it is therefore right to assume that the 109 actually has a higher e value than the Spitfire.

I choose a value of 0.85 for both for comparative reasons. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I said nothing about your calculations. My comments were in relation to Kurfurst's, which are invalid because they are using a relative Cl to find Cdi and then adding it to an absolute number, Cdo. This is akin to adding 75% to 50kg and saying it equals 125kg without knowing what the 75% is of. It says that the difference in drag would always be 9.6%, which is just wrong. It should have sent alarm bells ringing in the first place as the difference in drag would never be a constant percentage as the shape of the curves for the aircraft would have to be different.

Yours aren't much better due the amount of assumptions you have in them, especially assuming Cl, which is a squared term. How can you say your results have any validity when you are assuming a value, from data unspecified?

WRT Oswald efficiency. How could it be right to assume the 109 has a higher e than a Spitfire? Just because it has elliptical tips? You do realise that the Spitfire's entire wing was elliptical, even with washout it would still have a better lift distribution.

PS: I just realised I made another error in my spreadsheet, I used 6.5 instead of 6.1 for the AR of the 109. That previous graph has a 109 with an AR of 6.5. The lower AR makes it a little more draggy.

Bellator_1
01-25-2007, 06:40 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by hop2002:
As to the 109, it's 100% wrong to assume it has a higher Oswald number than the Spitfire. The addition of slats make things much worse by changing lift distribution. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

And that is officially the dumbest thing I have ever heard ! You really have no clue what you're talking about have you ?

Hop, the slats don't decrease the Oswald efficiency factor as it relies on the planform of the wing. And besides the slats only come out when the section it covers is about to stall, so in effect it actually increases the oswald efficiency factor by preventing the sudden an dramatic increase in drag the Spitfire's wing would experience in th same situation.

And about Lednicer, please show exactly where he has said that the Spitfire has a higher e value than the FW190 - I happen to have alot of his work but I have yet to find proof to your claim.

Anyway here's Lednicer's comparison in flat plate area's:
http://aycu35.webshots.com/image/8874/2000851360917505735_rs.jpg

Well what do you know, the Spitfire is again the most draggy of them all!

Ad about the Oswald efficiency factor for different planforms:
http://aycu21.webshots.com/image/9660/2000444677635795045_rs.jpg
As you can see not even an elliptical wing with absolutely zero aerodynamic twist has got a higher e value than a wing like the 109's with elliptical wing tips.

The-Pizza-Man
01-25-2007, 06:58 PM
What are you talking about, the elliptical wing has the highest experimental e with the exception of the slightly rear swept wing a quarter of the way down.

Bellator_1
01-25-2007, 07:03 PM
And about your calculations Hop, well they're complete fantasy.

Here's something much closer to reality:

Bf-109 at CL 1.57

(CL^2)/(pi*AR*e) = Cdi
(1.57^2)/(pi*6.1*0.85) = 0.15

Cdi + Cd0 = Cd
0.15 + 0.023 = 0.173

Cd * A = D
0.173 * 16.15 = 2.79

Spitfire CL 1.30

(CL^2)/(pi*AR*e) = Cdi
(1.3^2)/(pi*5.6*0.8) = 0.12

Cdi + Cd0 = Cd
0.12 + 0.0229 = 0.1429

Cd * A = D
0.1429 * 22.48 = 3.21

And why is the 109's e value higher ? Firstly its got no washout as it doesn't need it because of the slats, secondly its go elliptical shaped wingtips which helps reduce the amount of boundary layer seperation at the tips.

JG14_Josf
01-25-2007, 07:06 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The Spitfire does not have an Oswald number of 1, because it has washout, but according to David Lednicer it has better lift distribution than either the Mustang or 190. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hop,

Where does David Lednicer say that the Spitfire has better lift distribution than either the Mustang or the 190?

I'm re-reading an article by David Lendicer now:

WWII Fighter Aerodynamics (http://us.share.geocities.com/hlangebro/J22/EAAjanuary1999.pdf)

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Great strides in aircraft design were made in the era of 1935-1945, and this is most evident in the design of fighter aircraft of this period. For this reason, an evaluation of three prominent fighter aircraft of this era, the North American P-51 Mustang, the Supermarine Spitfire and the Focke Wulf Fw 190 is presented here. As so much misinformation has appeared on these aircraft, references will be cited to support the data discussed here. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

David Lednicer gave me permission to quote from his article.

Note:
Misinformation

Note:
References will be cited to support the data discussed here

Note:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The Spitfire does not have an Oswald number of 1, because it has washout, but according to David Lednicer it has better lift distribution than either the Mustang or 190. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'll try to find that reference now.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> The Spitfire, designed in the mid 1930s, used the NACA 220 series of airfoils, which was new at the time. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The Fw 190, which was designed at the end of the 1930s, used NACA 23000 series of airfoils. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>'

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The P-51's wing, designed in the early 1940s, uses an early laminar flow airfoil which is a NACA/NAA hybrid called the 45100. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Lift distributions for the three aircraft show the results of these twist distributions (Fig. 2). These lift distributions were calculated, using VSAERO, with the aircraft trimmed at 360 kts and 15,000 feet of altitude to representative Gross Weights and CG locations. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The Spitfire wing is famous for having an elliptic planform. Indeed, the chord distribution is elliptical. An examination of the resulting circulation distribution for the trimmed condition mentioned above, shows that the loading distribution is not elliptical, though it is probably the most optimum of the three aircraft from the induced drag standpoint. The reason for deviation from elliptical is the 2 degrees of washout that have been added to the elliptical planform, which shift the loading inboard. The elliptical wing planform appears to have been chosen primarily to provide greater wing depth in the inboard portion of he wing, while keeping the airfoil thickness-to-cord ratios low. This depth was necessary to house the outward retracting landing gear and gun ammunition boxes. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hop:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The Spitfire does not have an Oswald number of 1, because it has washout, but according to David Lednicer it has better lift distribution than either the Mustang or 190. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

David Lednicer:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> An examination of the resulting circulation distribution for the trimmed condition mentioned above, shows that the loading distribution is not elliptical, though it is probably the most optimum of the three aircraft from the induced drag standpoint </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hop:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The Spitfire...according to David Lednicer it has better lift distribution than either the Mustang or 190. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

David Lednicer:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> the loading distribution is not elliptical, though it is probably the most optimum of the three aircraft from the induced drag standpoint </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hop:
HAS better lift distribution according to David Lednicer.

David Lednicer:
Probably the most optimum from the induced drag standpoint

Could that be the information that was referred to?

I don't know.

I read this:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Focke Wulf Fw 190 Analysis
The results of an USAAF evaluation of the Fw 190 (Ref. 12 and 13) report the aircraft to have a gentle stall. However, these reports admit that the Fw 190 stalled abruptly when maneuvering. The reason for this reported difference in non-manuevering stall behavior is unknown. A comparison of the local wing lift coefficients, calculated by VSAERO, at stall with the estimated stalling lift coefficients of the air foils two-dimensionally (Fig.12) shows that approximately the inner 40% of the wing reaches Clmax at the same aircraft angle of attack. A wartime Focke Wulf report (Ref. 14) indicates that at higher loading conditions (i.e., when pulling more gs) elastic deformation of the Fw 190 outer wing shifts the load distribution outboard. This would cause even more of the wing to reach its stalling lift coefficient simultaneously. Combined with the sharp stalling features of the NACA 230XX airfoils, this would produce the harsh stall found by Capt. Brown. A gentle stall would be evidence by a more gradual progression of the 2D stall spanwise.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hop:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The Spitfire...according to David Lednicer it has better lift distribution than either the Mustang or 190. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

David Lednicer:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Focke Wulf Fw 190 Analysis
A wartime Focke Wulf report (Ref. 14) indicates that at higher loading conditions (i.e., when pulling more gs) elastic deformation of the Fw 190 outer wing shifts the load distribution outboard. This would cause even more of the wing to reach its stalling lift coefficient simultaneously. Combined with the sharp stalling features of the NACA 230XX airfoils, this would produce the harsh stall found by Capt. Brown. A gentle stall would be evidence by a more gradual progression of the 2D stall spanwise.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Spitfire = gentle stall
Fw 190 = harsh stall

Elliptical wing design (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elliptical_wing)

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">An elliptical wing is a wing planform shape, first seen on aircraft in the 1930s, which minimizes induced drag. Elliptical taper shortens the chord near the wingtips in such a way that all parts of the wing contribute equally to lift, improving aerodynamic efficiency due to a greater Oswald efficiency number in the induced drag equation.

The elliptical wing has seen only limited use, mainly because the compound curves involved are difficult and costly to manufacture. Furthermore, the wing's uniform lift distribution causes the entire span of the wing to stall simultaneously, potentially causing loss of control with little warning. To compensate, aircraft such as the Supermarine Spitfire used a modified elliptical wing with washout, though such compromises increase induced drag and reduce a wing's efficiency.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
Furthermore, the wing's uniform lift distribution causes the entire span of the wing to stall simultaneously, potentially causing loss of control with little warning. To compensate, aircraft such as the Supermarine Spitfire used a modified elliptical wing with washout, though such compromises increase induced drag and reduce a wing's efficiency.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hop:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The Spitfire...according to David Lednicer it has better lift distribution than either the Mustang or 190. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

David Lednicer:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> the loading distribution is not elliptical, though it is probably the most optimum of the three aircraft from the induced drag standpoint </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

David Lednicer:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> A comparison of the local wing lift coefficients, calculated by VSAERO, at stall with the estimated stalling lift coefficients of the air foils two-dimensionally (Fig.12) shows that approximately the inner 40% of the wing reaches CLmax at the same aircraft angle of attack. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Calculated 40% of the wing reaches CLmax using VSAERO

David Lednicer:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> A wartime Focke Wulf report (Ref. 14) indicates that at higher loading conditions (i.e., when pulling more gs) elastic deformation of the Fw 190 outer wing shifts the load distribution outboard. This would cause even more of the wing to reach its stalling lift coefficient simultaneously. Combined with the sharp stalling features of the NACA 230XX airfoils, this would produce the harsh stall found by Capt. Brown. A gentle stall would be evidence by a more gradual progression of the 2D stall spanwise.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

David Lednicer:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Lift distributions for the three aircraft show the results of these twist distributions (Fig.2). These lift distributions were calculated, using VSAERO...
An examination of the resulting circulation distribution for the trimmed condition mentioned above, shows that the loading distribution is not elliptical, though it is probably the most optimum of the three aircraft from the induced drag standpoint </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Calculated:

David Lednicer:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> the loading distribution is not elliptical, though it is probably the most optimum of the three aircraft from the induced drag standpoint </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Drag?

David Lednicer:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Experimentally, it was determined that the Spitfire cooling drag, expressed as the ratio of equivalent cooling-drag power to total engine power, was considerably higher than that of the other aircraft tested by the RAE. This was attributed to "the presence of a boundary layer ahead of the duct tends to precipitate separation and makes the ducting problem more difficult: (Ref. 8). Similar problems are present on the early model Messerschmitt Bf109, up through the E model. A complete redesign of the cooling system, during the development of the Bf 109F, resulted in the use of a boundary layer bypass duct, which significantly improved the pressure recovery at the radiator face (Ref. 9). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That additional drag is probably not calculated against the Spitfire IX nor is it calculated for the Me 109F, G, or K. Nor is that calculation not calculated for the Fw 190 since the Fw190 didn't have wing mounted cooling radiators. The Fw 190 had a cooling fan behind the prop.

More drag:

David Lednicer:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">It is interesting that the greatest suction on the entire aircraft [Spitfire IX] appears on the bulged canopy. Other strong suctions appear at the corners of the windshield, which was made up of panels of flat armor glass and had sharp corners.
One of the first things to come to light in the VSAERO analysis of the Spitfire is a region of separated flow at the base of the windscreen. The computation indicates that the boundary layer separates approximately 6 inches in front of the windscreen, due to the increasing pressure in this region (Fig. 8). The boundary layer races that stop at separation have been restarted on the windshield at the point where the static pressure is the same as that at separation. Such a separation is not present on either of the other two aircraft reviewed here. However, this is a feature quite common on automobiles and is related to the slope of the windscreen. The spitfire's windscreen is at a 35-degree angle to the forward deck, while the Fw 190's is at a 22-degree angle and the P-51's is at 31-degree angle. Evidently, the Spitfire's windscreen is too steep.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Note: Such a separation is not present on either of the other two aircraft reviewed here.

Drag caused by the radiator duct and the windscreen is not calculated into this:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The Spitfire does not have an Oswald number of 1, because it has washout, but according to David Lednicer it has better lift distribution than either the Mustang or 190. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It is not calculated against the Spitfire and it is not calculated for the Fw 190 or the Mustang.

And the lift distribution probability occurs at low g. At high g the Fw 190 lift distribution increases.

Low speed performance = Spitfire

High speed performance when Canopy and Radiator Drag really start DRAGGING the Spitfire is, in the game, gaining performance relative to the Fw 190 and everything else for that matter, because, it is a light plane.

Heavy planes BLEED ENERGY like stuck pigs, cause, they are heavy.

How about filling in some blanks:

--------------------1g accelerated stall speed---------Va (corner speed)--------g load
Spitfire VB-------------blank--------------------------------blank-----------------blank
Me 109F----------------blank--------------------------------blank-----------------blank
Fw190A-4--------------204 km/h-------------------------433 km/h--------------blank

hop2002
01-25-2007, 07:06 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">And that is officially the dumbest thing I have ever heard ! You really have no clue what you're talking about have you ?

Hop, the slats don't decrease the Oswald efficiency factor as it relies on the planform of the wing. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No. The Oswald efficiency factor is a measure of lift distribution across the wing.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">And besides the slats only come out when the section it covers is about to stall, so in effect it actually increases the oswald efficiency factor by preventing the sudden an dramatic increase in drag the Spitfire's wing would experience in the same situation.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I humbly suggest you go away and read up on what the "e" number is. It's a measure of the efficiency of lift distribution, not a measure of lift production.

Slats increase lift over the area of the wing they cover. They do not increase lift over the areas they do not cover. Tell me how evenly distributed you think lift will be when part of the wing has slats keeping the flow attached, and part doesn't.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">it actually increases the oswald efficiency factor by preventing the sudden an dramatic increase in drag the Spitfire's wing would experience in the same situation. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's the beauty of low wingloading. The Spitfire's wing does not have to pull the same AoA because it doesn't have to reach the same CL. Lower wingloading means lower AoA to reach the same turn.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">And about Lednicer, please show exactly where he has said that the Spitfire has a higher e value than the FW190 - I happen to have alot of his work but I have yet to find proof to your claim. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Lednicer wrote:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The Spitfire is famous for having an elliptical planform. Indeed, the chord distribution is elliptical. An examination of the resulting circulation distribution for a trimmed condition mentioned above, shows that the loading distribution is not elliptical, though it is probably the most optimum of the three aircraft from the induced drag standpoint. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Bellator_1
01-25-2007, 07:07 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by The-Pizza-Man:
What are you talking about, the elliptical wing has the highest experimental e with the exception of a the slightly rear swept wing a quarter of the way down. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Note that the wings with the same planform as the 109's wings have a value of 0.91. And yes this is with zero aerodynamic twist, and it just so happens that the 109's wings have got exactly zero aerodynamic twist as-well.

Bellator_1
01-25-2007, 07:36 PM
It is the planform which decides the 'e' buddy !

The Oswald efficiency factor is therefore a measure of wing planform efficiency.

And about the slats, well if you haven't noticed the root is always thicker than the tips, therefore it will have a higher Clmax and will stall at a higher AoA than the tips - washout and slats help to less'n this problem, mind you the slats do it far more effectively.

A wing with close to elliptical lift distribution will stall suddenly in a turn with little warning, just like the Fw-190, and totally unlike the Spitfire which gave lots of warning - again disproving the higher e value for the Spit theory.

Note what Lednicer said: "Probably" !

Why does he say this ?? Because he doesn't know ! He simply hasn't examined it yet.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">That's the beauty of low wingloading. The Spitfire's wing does not have to pull the same AoA because it doesn't have to reach the same CL. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You can forget the "It doesn't have to" attitude, cause the Spit simply CAN'T reach the same CL value. Why ? Because of its thin wings and low AR.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Lower wingloading means lower AoA to reach the same turn. That means when the 109s slats are out, and part of the wing is stalled and part isn't, the Spitfire is still at a lower AoA and none of the wing is stalled. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Complete rubbish !

Why do you think the Spitfire's wing has got 2 degree's of washout ?? To prevent the tips from stalling early before the roots ! (Preventing he onset of tip-stall just like the slats) - Hence the large amount of buffeting experienced by the Spit before depature, the exact same as experienced by the 109, except the 109 can pull more AoA as-well.

Bellator_1
01-25-2007, 07:46 PM
Btw Hop, when do you learn not to use wing-loading as a reference as its completely and utterly misleading ?

Its lift-loading vs drag which matters my friend, not wing-loading.

The-Pizza-Man
01-25-2007, 07:51 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bellator_1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by The-Pizza-Man:
What are you talking about, the elliptical wing has the highest experimental e with the exception of a the slightly rear swept wing a quarter of the way down. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Note that the wings with the same planform as the 109's wings have a value of 0.91. And yes this is with zero aerodynamic twist, and it just so happens that the 109's wings have got exactly zero aerodynamic twist as-well. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

And the slats have the same effect on the 109. They change the lift distribution so that more lift is created in the outboard of the wing, which increases induced drag.

MrMojok
01-25-2007, 08:00 PM
Perhaps some pilots were fitter than others, and on top of that had more of a tolerance for G loads?

Maybe this can explain why some 109 pilots said they could outturn Spits?

hop2002
01-25-2007, 08:12 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">It is the planform which decides the 'e' buddy !

The Oswald efficiency factor is therefore a measure of wing planform efficiency. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, it's still lift distribution.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">You can forget the "It doesn't have to" attitude, cause the Spit simply CAN'T reach the same CL value. Why ? Because of its thin wings and low AR. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

As I said, doesn't need to. Read what Isegrim wrote, for once he listened and got it (partly) right. The 109 needs higher CL to make the same turn as the Spitfire.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Btw Hop, when do you learn not to use wing-loading as a reference as its completely and utterly misleading ?

Its lift-loading vs drag which matters my friend, not wing-loading. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wingloading is a very good guide to lift/drag ratio. Higher wingloading means higher AoA which means higher drag, for the same turn.

To maintain the same turn performance as the Spitfire, the 109 has to pull higher CL. Bigger wings are more efficient in the turn (and if you don't believe it, calculate the figures for a 109 with say a 20 m2 wing area.

It would have to pull 0.98 Cl to match the Spitfire example above. That would give:

Bf109 (20m2 wings) CDi = 0.97*0.97/(3.14 * 6.06 * 0.77)
CDi = 0.0642
(we'll increase CD0 to account for extra wing area)
CDi + CD0 = 0.0642 + 0.03 = 0.0942

Total drag = 22 * 0.0942 = 1.884

That compares to the real small winged 109s figures of 2.23 slats out, 1.94 slats in.

Lower wingloading makes for more efficient turning, it's as simple as that.

Bellator_1
01-25-2007, 08:28 PM
You just don't get it Hop....

The 109 doesn't have to "pull higher CL", it has a higher CL to begin with. The higher AR and thickness ratio of the 109's wings gives it the advantage in CL. The extra AoA provided by the slats just increases the CL even further - and since there's no twist, and the slats work by delaying boundary layer seperation, there's no loss in 'e' at all !

And here's how you calculate total drag:

Bf-109 at CL 1.57

(CL^2)/(pi*AR*e) = Cdi
(1.57^2)/(pi*6.1*0.85) = 0.15

Cdi + Cd0 = Cd
0.15 + 0.023 = 0.173

Cd * A = D
0.173 * 16.15 = 2.79

Spitfire CL 1.30

(CL^2)/(pi*AR*e) = Cdi
(1.3^2)/(pi*5.6*0.8) = 0.12

Cdi + Cd0 = Cd
0.12 + 0.0229 = 0.1429

Cd * A = D
0.1429 * 22.48 = 3.21

And lets add lift-loading just for the fun of it:

Bf-109

(3,362/16.15)/1.57 = 132 kg/m^2

Spitfire

(3,855/22.48)/1.30 = 131 kg/m^2


Now shall we move on to power-loading ?

The-Pizza-Man
01-25-2007, 10:04 PM
This is the lift equation
http://selair.selkirk.bc.ca/aerodynamics1/Lift/Graphics/Lift_Equation.GIF

Coefficient of lift is given by rearranging it
http://selair.selkirk.bc.ca/aerodynamics1/Lift/Graphics/Coefficient_Lift.GIF
Where S is ref area (wing area), rho is air density, V is velocity and L is lift.

Lift is the important part, in level flight it is equal to the mass of the aircraft multiplied by 9.81 (gravity in N/kg).

The larger the wing area the smaller the coefficient of lift has to be for a given turn. In any turn (at least according my calcs) a spit a coefficient of lift 81.2% of that of the 109, which results in 6.85% less induced drag in any turn. However, the percentage of induced drag of total drag varies with velocity and load factor.

The-Pizza-Man
01-25-2007, 11:23 PM
Furthermore, judging from stall speeds the Clmax of the spit should be much better than Clmax for the 109.

Cl=(2*L)/(S*r*V^2)
=&gt; Clmax=(2*9.8*mass)/(S*r*Vs^2)
Spit XIV =&gt; 85 mph (38m/s) stall speed, 3798kg from spit pilots handbook
109 G2 =&gt; 112 mph (50m/s) stall speed, 3100 kg
from http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/me109/me-109g2-trop.html
and "Great Aircraft of WWII" by alfred price and mike spick

both stall speeds are wheels and flaps up

Using those
Clmax
XIV =1.91
109G-2=1.26

How did you figure out your Clmax?

WWMaxGunz
01-26-2007, 12:05 AM
I can see that slats in vs slats out the 109 wings will have very different lift distro.
The slats cover just how much length of the wings? Before slats out the whole wing has
one AOA with no twist? Just before slats out the whole wing is right about critical AOA?
So with more AOA the slats come out and save the wing from stall but only the length of
the slats... the rest must stall to some degree and slats out allows about 50% more AOA?
But I do not know the length covered by the slats.

Spitfire has 2 degree wing twist. But is stall when the twisted part reaches critical or
is it when the rest reaches critical and the inner part is critical plus 2 degrees, about
16% past critical. How much wing is affected? Isn't stall when the washout stalls first?
I don't know but it is something to ponder.

Really guys there's no need to fight over SWAG numbers. It doesn't matter with Maddox sims
because he isn't making table-driven sims like some other places. He knows enough to make
his own models so why worry that someone will get something wrong past him?

Isn't it enough to learn or share something about the factors and leave trying to define what
no one has presented a *full* documented breakdown over with NO guesswork?

WWMaxGunz
01-26-2007, 12:24 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MrMojok:
Perhaps some pilots were fitter than others, and on top of that had more of a tolerance for G loads?

Maybe this can explain why some 109 pilots said they could outturn Spits? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's a combat report, not a flat turning contest. Many things can differ.

Even with Spitfire being able to flat sustain turn faster than 109 when both are at or near
best turn speed of the Spit there are ways the 109 pilot CAN HAVE outturned the Spitfire.
From what you write and those conditions of 'sustained flat turn' above it can go different
ways and be true.

1) As you note, if the 109 pilot is better able to bear the G's of the turn but please
the Spitfire pilot has to be having a bad day because those kind of G's neither plane will
maintain for long unless in spiral dive which did happen. Fighter pilots are tested for
fittness. I have a story from one Polish pilot who spiral dived from a 109 down from
bomber altitude (about 15k ft) to under 4k ft --- in a Hurricane that above 8k ft will
not turn with either Spit or 109. But he -could- turn well enough that the 109 pilot
was unable to gain enough lead to shoot him. Down low he turned with the 109 for a while
and he writes that as he gained from followed to follower he kept on wondering WHY the
109 pilot did not exit the circle and use his speed to escape? Probably because the 109
pilot was raging mad and 'knew' that his 109 would outturn the Hurri as it easily had
above 12k ft, and then he died for being so wrong in the face of evidence otherwise.

2) Both planes are going faster, a good deal faster than the Spitfire where the Spit has
not the power to keep speed and make the turn at the same time but the 109 can. You can
see this with IL2Compare.

3) The 109 is going enough faster than the Spit that for a time only, so many degrees only,
the 109 has the energy to waste.

4) The 109 came in from such an angle and far enough back that turning inside the Spit
required less actual turn for him for long enough to shoot the Spitfire down.

5) The 109 pilot used flaps and made the kill before he got too slow.

And that is without saying which model of each is used but that would change the premise
I started with which would change......

Pinker15
01-26-2007, 02:25 AM
Name of that Polish pilot U mentione above is Stanisław Skalski.

http://www.elknet.pl/acestory/skalski/skalski.htm

Kurfurst__
01-26-2007, 07:37 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by hop2002:
Isegrim, ever hear the phrase "garbage in, garbage out". The figures you are using are, to put it simply, garbage. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wow, with that serious arguementation, you must be the meanest guy in the whole Kindergarten... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Basically checking Hop's suggestion here that since the Spitfire has lower wingloading, it needs lower Cl to turn the same. That's basically correct. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Of course it's correct. I'm always correct http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sacra simplicitas.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Formula

The Coefficient of drag (Cd) = Cdo + Cdi

where
Cd is the total drag
Cdi is induced drag (simply, resulted by making lift)
Cd0 is parasistic drag (skin friction etc)

And the coefficient of induced drag (Cdi) = (Cl^2) / (pi * AR * e)

The Spitfire wing area is ~40% larger (22.48/ 16.05 m2) =&gt; 1.4 factor
The Spitfire weight is 14.78% greater (3859 / 3362 kg) = &gt; 1,14 factor
Wingloading difference is the result of these two above factors : 1.4/1.14 = ~ 1.219 better wingloading of XIV </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually it's 1.22, this is the first of your rounding errors (which always seem to favour the 109)[/QUOTE]

Such pitiful nitpicking about that I round numbers instead using monsters like 1,4006230529595015576323987538941 / 1,147828673408685306365258774539 = 1,2280701754385964912280701754386 just shows how desperately the Spitfire needs articial help from you to perform.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Cdi calculations

CdiS14 = 1 / (3.14 * 5.6 * 0.85) = 0,0669

CdiK4 = 1.219^2 / (3.14 * 6.1 * 0.85) = 1.219^2 / 16,2809 = 0,0912 </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is where the garbage data starts to creep in. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Agreed. From that onward we see Hop's 'corrected' data. We all know what 'corrected' means if it's Hop, and the Spitfire. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">One Oswald number is not as good as another.

Oswald efficiency, for those who don't know, is a measure of the lift distribution of the wing. Perfect elliptical distribution (not achievable in a real world aircraft) gives a figure of 1, everything else is less.

The Spitfire does not have an Oswald number of 1, because it has washout, but according to David Lednicer it has better lift distribution than either the Mustang or 190.

More sensible values would be about .88 for the Spitfire, .77 for the 109 with slats in, more like .65 with slats out. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sensible? 11% higher Oswald for the Spitfire based on nothing, sensible, I laugh my *** off it's place. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Here's the the real aganda. By manipulating Oswald effiecny you manipulate the induced drag directly - it's fairly easy to see by looking at the formula. Phi is given, AR is unfortunately given also (you still try to manipulate it), and there's not much to manipulate with relative Cls either... so it leaves you only Oswald to play with. I presume you tried first to 'correct' the AR and it didn't help. So you started to play with Oswald until it fits the agenda.. how ridiculus it is is shown by the e table posted by Bellator for various planforms.

And of course Oswald numbers have any kind of relation to tha actual planes, they're totally ad hoc.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Also, why have you rounded the aspect ratio figures much more than the others? The Spitfire has become 5.6 when it's 5.61, the 109 6.1 when it's actually 6.06. Once again rounding is used to favour the 109. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hop, everybody except you could have read that I used Bellator's starting numbers for simplicity.
Either you can't read, or you are dumb to understand what you've read, or you're pretending to be dumb.
I am not sure because argung 5.61 vs. 5.60 aspect ratio is really pointing towards you're just being dumb.

And as for the 109 aspect ratio, indeed it's not 6.1, it's 6.13. As a matter of fact I used a worser number for the 109 than it actually had.

I have no idea from what cavity of yours you pulled out the 6.06 or the '5.61' figure either.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
The figures are therefore more like:

CdiS14 = 1 / (3.14 * 5.61 * 0.88) = 0.065

CdiK4 = 1.2^2 / (3.14 * 6.06 * 0.65) = 1.2^2 / 12.3685 = 0.116 (0.098 without slats deployed) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

LOL, you've simply replaced the Oswald effiency for the planes using ower for the 109, and no less than 35% higher for the Spitfire. ARs are also manipulated, but next to that it's nothing.

Yup, Hop's 'corrected' numbers. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Cd0 (known from polars etc.)

Cd0_S14: 0.0229 (rather optimistic, this is for early Mk IX)
Cd0_K4 : 0.023 (109G) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The K4 figure is extremely optimistic. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wishful thinking of a 'dweeb does not make it optimisitic. It just make the 'dweeb look extremely desperate.

As a matter of fact, as the 0.023 figure relates to the Bf 109G, and the Bf 109K was much cleaner than the G, so it's easy to see why 0.023 is a rather conservative figure. 0.021-22 would be probably closer to the truth, but I used the worser number anyway.

It's also easy to see that as the 0.0229 figure relates to the Mk IX prototype, and the XIV was much dirtier than the IX, even a child would see that why 0.0229 is a rather optimistic figure for the XIV with those big drag bags and bumps on the cowling ('streamlined underwing radiators' as Supermarine called them). 0.024-25 would probably closer to the truth, but I used the better number anyway for the Spit.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Total drag

Cd = Cd0 + Cdi

Cd_S14 = 0.0229 + 0,0669 = 0,0898
Cd_K4 = 0.023 + 0,0912 = 0,1142 </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

With the more accurate figures:

Cd_S14 = 0.0229 + 0.065 = 0.088
Cd_K4 = 0.023 + 0.116 = 0.139 (0.121 with slats in) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You should have really wrote, 'after I manipulated the Oswald numbers and associated the 109 a laughalby low Oswald effiency number, and falsified the aspect ratio'...

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Absolute drag flat plate area : Cd * A

A for wing areas :

A109 = 16.05
ASpit= 22.48 m2

Total Drag :

Spit 14 : 2,018704 m2 Truce

Bf109K4 : 1,83291 m2 Clap
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

And with the more accurate figures rather than the garbage:

Spit 14 = 1.98

Bf109K4 = 2.23 (1.94 with slats in)

As you can see, the Spitfire has a lot less total drag than the 109 when the slats are out in a hard turn, very slightly more when the slats are in. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

... and even with all that help to the Spitfire XIV it still has higher drag in turns, even after Hop pulled out from a dark cavity of his a ridicululsly higher Oswald number for it, falsified the ARs, tried to raise a smokescreen with 'slats out' etc.

And all of the data that founds this is all pulled out of his very own arse on the spot, ad hoc, made up, cheated, call it as you want.

It just still can't do the trick... Damn! manipulating AR did not work out, manipulating Oswald failed as well, the thing still don't works... so, time for the next excuse :

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">However, that's total drag. Total drag must be measured against power, and the Spitfire XIV had more power than the 109K4 (the Spitfire at 18 lbs had more than the K4 at 1.8 ata, the Spitfire at 21 lbs had more than the K4 at 1.98 ata) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Which is wishful thinking, easily seen when one actually overlays the power curves of the said engines under comparable conditions. This is the type of blanket statements Hop used to flood discussions, and then jump to the next blanket statemen without offering proof for the statement. And then to the next one..

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">As to the 109, it's 100% wrong to assume it has a higher Oswald number than the Spitfire. The addition of slats make things much worse by changing lift distribution. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The statement is ridiculus for two very basic facts :

- slats either deploy or don't deploy. Normally they don't. When they don't they don't change lift distribution at all..the 109 has no washout, it doesn't need it.

- The Spitfire OTOH has washout. Washout effect is present continously. Washout change the wing's lift distrubution, at all angles - the area effected by washout has lower angle of attack at all conditions, which in turn means that either the wing is developing less lift on that area, or, if the angle of attack is above critical angle for the rest of the wing but not washout, it's only the washout effected area that is generating any lift, the rest is already stalled.

But using the washout was absolutely needed on the Spitfire, here's why. Ellipitical planform is as noted results in ideal lift distribution, at the same time it means when it stalls, the whole wing stalls at once and the aircraft fells out of the sky like a rock, uncontrollable. Hence the need to keep the flow near the ailerons attached to the profile, hence the use of the washout, which effectively changes (ruins from the ideal) the lift distribution to give acceptable stall characteristics.

Xiolablu3
01-26-2007, 07:50 AM
Its so funny how the 109-dweebs (I hate to use that term, but they are readily throwing around 'Spit-dweebs at people) hope desperately to disprove the obvious truth on this subject.

From both sides reports, its clear that the 109E was a worse turner than the Spit Mk1 an Hurricane.

I will post it again for those who may have missed it. (Kurfurst edited his post above to say he had ignored me rather than explain why he hadnt shown us this report before.. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif


German report here :-

" Before turning fights with the Bf 109 E type, it must be noted in every case, that all three foreign planes have significantly smaller turning circles and turning times.
An attack on the opponent as well as disengagement can only be accomplished on the basis of existing superiority in performance."
From : Kr.-Fernschr.Ob.d.L.,Fhr.Stab Ia Nr.8092/40 g.K. (II)
(only to Lfl.3)
Subject : Comparison flight between Bf 109 E, Bf 110 C, Spitfire, Hurricane and Curtiss. "
(From Kurfursts' site)

Jeffry Quill (RAF) here :-

'Jeffrey Quill wrote of his combat experience whilst flying with No. 65
Squadron:
Nearly all our engagements with Me 109s took place at around 20,000 - 25,000
ft. The Spitfire had the edge over them in speed and climb, and particularly
in turning circle. (...) One engagement with several Me 109s at about 25,000
ft over the Channel sticks in my memory. It all happened very suddenly; in
fact we were mildly 'bounced' and soon I found myself behind two 109s in a
steep left-hand turn. I was able to turn inside the second one and fired at
him from close range. He went on pulling round as sharply as he could. I
followed him without any difficulty and went on firing bursts at him. There
were puffs of black smoke and then a trail of white vapour streamed from his
aircraft. By this time I could no longer see the first 109 and then realized
that he was on my tail. As I was by now just shuddering on the verge of a
g-stall, I quickly turned inwards and dived. I pulled up again when I was
sure I had shaken him off... I was pleased with that little episode partly
because I was damn sure that the first 109 was not going to get home and
also because I was now convinced that the Spitfire Mk I could readily
out-turn the 109, certainly in the 20,000 ft region and probably at all
heights.'

If your sums dont show this to be true, then I doubt your methods, compared to reality.

Kurfurst__
01-26-2007, 08:00 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by The-Pizza-Man:
Furthermore, judging from stall speeds the Clmax of the spit should be much better than Clmax for the 109. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It would be an amazing thing to achieve, considering that the Spit has :

- thinner wing profile (ie. lowers Cl)
- washout (again lowers Cl)

Vs. the 109 has leading edge slats, which are specifically aerodynamic devices specifically to increase critical AoA/ClMax.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
Cl=(2*L)/(S*r*V^2)
=&gt; Clmax=(2*9.8*mass)/(S*r*Vs^2)
Spit XIV =&gt; 85 mph (38m/s) stall speed, 3798kg from spit pilots handbook
109 G2 =&gt; 112 mph (50m/s) stall speed, 3100 kg
from http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/me109/me-109g2-trop.html
and "Great Aircraft of WWII" by alfred price and mike spick </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's simply amazing that the 109G-2 is supposed to have an incredibly high stalling speed of 180 km/h, yet the pilot's handbuch etc. gives a landing speed of 140-150 km/h for the various Bf 109G/K variants. Typically the landing speed is 10-20 km/h above stalling speed. I tend to believe the problem roots in that the source of the 109G stall speed is the Middle East trials, performed on a damaged Bf 109G-2/trop (that's Black Six btw, see full report on my site), and they probably did not have proper pitot instruments - stall speed is pretty tough to measure.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">both stall speeds are wheels and flaps up

Using those
Clmax
XIV =1.91
109G-2=1.26

How did you figure out your Clmax? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Again, it's amazing from a thin profile, no-slat aircraft with washout to have about 50% higher Clmax.

The NACA report on 'Flying qualities of the Supermarine Spitfire aircraft'notes the Spit VA's Cl max was only 1.12 in gliding condition. It also notes that the gun ports (situated in the leading edge), when not sealed, have detrimental effect on the ClMax. I'd presume the later, cannon-armed variants (the VA had still 8x.303) would be worser than the tiny .303 gunports.

NACA concluded :

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e133/Kurfurst/spitCL.jpg

Kurfurst__
01-26-2007, 08:07 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by The-Pizza-Man:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bellator_1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by The-Pizza-Man:
What are you talking about, the elliptical wing has the highest experimental e with the exception of a the slightly rear swept wing a quarter of the way down. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Note that the wings with the same planform as the 109's wings have a value of 0.91. And yes this is with zero aerodynamic twist, and it just so happens that the 109's wings have got exactly zero aerodynamic twist as-well. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

And the slats have the same effect on the 109. They change the lift distribution so that more lift is created in the outboard of the wing, which increases induced drag. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

And the washout have the same effect on the Spit. It increases the critical angle of attack of the wing, and they also change lift distribution as slats on the 109s, only that :

- washout does this all the time, slats on when needed
- washout is not nearly as effective as sticking the flow to the wing (=increase ClMax) as slats

Speaking of how the Spitfire has high Oswald effiency 'because of the elliptical planform' is nonsense, as it has washout.
Not to mention all those gunports, and four big (of which two are blind, what a waste!) cannon stubs sticking out from the leading edge. I am sure they are extremely beneficial for lift distribution, LOL.

Xiolablu3
01-26-2007, 08:27 AM
AMazing how Kurfurst believes the British reports only when they are detrimental to the SPitfire and show the 109's benefits http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Everything which claims the Spitfire as superior in an area he dismisses out of hand. He also leaves out certain reports and facts which may says somehting detrimental to his HOly Bf109.


Every RAF report I have ever seen says that the SPitfire had the better turn.

Also I have never seen a German report stating that the 109 could outurn the SPitfire. Only one saying that the Spitfire and the Hurricane could easily out-turn the 109E. Thats the one above.

Its laughable to think anyone would believe Kurfursts 'sums' over these reports.

Kurfurst__
01-26-2007, 08:28 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by hop2002:
Wingloading is a very good guide to lift/drag ratio. Higher wingloading means higher AoA which means higher drag, for the same turn.
...
To maintain the same turn performance as the Spitfire, the 109 has to pull higher CL. Bigger wings are more efficient in the turn (and if you don't believe it, calculate the figures for a 109 with say a 20 m2 wing area.
...
Lower wingloading makes for more efficient turning, it's as simple as that. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Reality check. Historically measured sustained turn times at 1000m altitude :

Spitfire IXLF, wingloading 150kg/m2, power 1690 HP : 18.5 sec/360 degree
Yak 9, Wingloading 167 k/m2, power 1210 HP : 17-18 sec/360 degree
Yak 3, wingloading 182 kg/m2, power 1250 HP : 17 secs/360 degree

Worthful of note, that the best turner, Yak-3 has the smallest wing area (14.85m2, even less than the Yak-9 with 17.1 or the 109 with 16.05), and the highest wingloading, but also the least amount of parasitic drag and the highest power-to-weight ratio of all three.

The simple trick the Yak-3 does is using a very clean, low-drag airframe and it simply makes it better off even with a weak engine than a huge wing and a big engine in the Spitfire. The latter tries to make a lot of lift with a big wing, the latter is responsible for a lot of drag, which it tries to compensate with a big engine, which again adds drag.. diabolic circle.

The Yakovlev quite simple keeps the drag at the minimum.

The reason of simple, if a heavy plane like the Spitfire has to compensate for weight with a hugely oversized wing compared to the fuselage, that huge wing will come with a huge amount of drag in whatever condition, but especially at high speed level flight or turn where parasitic drag dominates. Lift and drag needs to balalnced out. The classic 'dweeb arguement of course claims that wingloading is the single factor in turns, because that's the only area that would favour the Spitfire (and the Spitfire must be always superior of course).

That's why it is so slow compared to the powerful engines fitted - ie. the Mustang is some 60-70 km/h faster on the same engine The Spitfire's luxurious aerodynamic ineffiency always amazes me.

Xiolablu3
01-26-2007, 08:38 AM
Spitfire? A heavy Plane? Just what planet are you on? If the SPitfire is heavy, what do you call the FW190, Tempest, P51, P38 or God forbid the P47?

The US studied the Spitfires parts for the P51H in order to try and get the weight down to SPitfire levels!

I thought this was a good quote as Kurfurst brought up the Yak3 :-


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Oleg_Maddox:
But I think anyway these who fly really bad will have a trouble flying in FW190 against very easy flying Spit (what is stated a lot of pilots comparing to FW-190 or Bf-109, even FW-190 was easy controlable aircraft... Simply at critical values spit is better...then both of them... This is fact. Sometime its better even than Yak-3 for critical situations in control). I personally have no trobles in FW -190A4 against Spit V of any modelled modification if to use right tactic. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

But what does this guy know? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

Keep ignoring anyone who posts somehting you dont like the sound of Kurfy, Stick your fingers in your ears, you can also sing too, 'Lalala' will drown things out well I have heard. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

JG14_Josf
01-26-2007, 08:51 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">And lets add lift-loading just for the fun of it:

Bf-109

(3,362/16.15)/1.57 = 132 kg/m^2

Spitfire

(3,855/22.48)/1.30 = 131 kg/m^2 </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Bellator_1,

I'm trying to get some help in figuring out corner speed and my angle may help the 109 vs. Spitfire angle.

Please consider helping me.

I really like the figures above but they are less than accurate until confirmed by some measure. If you are comfortable with the accuracy then please consider passing on some of the reasons for your, ahhh, confidence.

Which models?

Bf109E,F,G?

Spitfire I, V, IX, XIV?

Too me; lift loading says a whole lot more than wing-loading.

I'm looking for data on the Fw 190 too.

This would be nice:

------------Weight-------Clmax---------1gstall---------6 g stall--------corner speed
Bf109F----blank---------blank----------blank----------blank------------blank
Bf109K----blank---------blank----------blank----------blank------------blank
Spit VB----blank---------blank----------blank----------blank------------blank
Spit XIV---blank---------blank----------blank----------blank------------blank
FwA-4-----blank---------blank----------blank----------blank------------blank
FwD-9-----blank---------blank----------blank----------blank------------blank

Since you have lift loading calculation down then this would be nicer:

---------Lift-loading---1gstall---SusTurn------6 g stall--------corner speed
Bf109F----blank-------blank------blank----------blank------------blank
Bf109K----blank-------blank------blank----------blank------------blank
Spit VB----blank------blank-----blank----------blank------------blank
Spit XIV---blank------blank-----blank----------blank------------blank
FwA-4-----blank------blank-----blank----------blank------------blank
FwD-9-----blank------blank-----blank----------blank------------blank

The SusTurn number would be a speed and g where the plane sustains the maximum g in level flight i.e. tightest turn possible when altitude loss is a consideration.

---------Lift-loading---1gstall---SusTurn------6 g stall--------corner speed
Bf109F----131----------200------250 3g---------375-------------480 11 g
Bf109K----135----------210------255 3g----------380------------480 10 g
Spit VB----132---------180------235 3g----------350------------460 12 g
Spit XIV---134---------190------240 3g----------375------------460 11 g
FwA-4-----3000--------204------275 3g----------433------------500 14 g
FwA-8-----5500--------250------300 2g----------480------------500 13 g

Did I lose anyone?

If the information for lift-loading is accurate for a given plane and accurate for another plane, then, much can be known about relative performance for the two planes that have been accurately measured.

Like this:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">And lets add lift-loading just for the fun of it:

Bf-109

(3,362/16.15)/1.57 = 132 kg/m^2

Spitfire

(3,855/22.48)/1.30 = 131 kg/m^2 </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The purpose of discussion is to find agreement.

The purpose of argumentation is to argue.

If the numbers above are accurate, then, the numbers used to get those numbers agree; factually.

Human beings can see accurately and so long as human beings see accurately so long with human beings find agreement through discussion.

Discussion is also called PEER REVIEW.

I can find much to agree with in finding an accurate number for lift-loading. Lift-loading has much more critical information concerning actual plane performance than the superficial wing-loading.

Plane A lifts 132 kg (weight) for every square meter of wing area

Plane B lifts 131 kg (weight) for every square meter of wing area

Plane B lifts 1 kg (weight) more for every square meter of wing area.

What is missing is speed. At what speed can Plane A lift the weight of the plane to 1 g (power on and clean)?

Plane B can lift 1 kg (weight) for every square meter of wing area.

What does that say?

What does that say compared to this:

Plane B can lift the entire weight of Plane B to 1 g at 200 km/h.

What does that say compared to this:

Plane B can sustain 3 times the entire weight of Plane B in a level sustained turn at 235 km/h (full power).

Compared to this:

Plane A can sustain 3 times the entire weight of Plane A in a level sustained turn at 250 km/h (full power flaps down 5 degrees).

Hint: Knowing speed and g will also provide the necessary information to find turn rate and turn radius. Speed and g can be plotted on an EM chart.

What is missing?

At what speed can Plane A lift the entire weight of plane A?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">And lets add lift-loading just for the fun of it:

Bf-109

(3,362/16.15)/1.57 = 132 kg/m^2

Spitfire

(3,855/22.48)/1.30 = 131 kg/m^2 </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Spitfire (model?) 131 kg/m^2
Me109 (model?) 131 kg/m^2
Fw190 (model?) ??? kg/m^2

Which is it?

A. Discussion
B. Argument

Brain32
01-26-2007, 10:01 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Spitfire? A heavy Plane? Just what planet are you on? If the SPitfire is heavy, what do you call the FW190, Tempest, P51, P38 or God forbid the P47? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
If Spitfire is light, what is Yak3 then? Yak3 is ~600kg lighter than a Spitfire...

WOLFMondo
01-26-2007, 10:26 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:

The simple trick the Yak-3 does is using a very clean, low-drag airframe and it simply makes it better off even with a weak engine than a huge wing and a big engine in the Spitfire. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Klimov VK105 is hardly a small engine. Its a 35ltr monster weighing in at 600kg. The Merlin is only 150kg heavier, has 30% less displacment and provides a hell of a lot more power.

Kurfurst__
01-26-2007, 11:05 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
The Klimov VK105 is hardly a small engine. Its a 35ltr monster weighing in at 600kg. The Merlin is only 150kg heavier, has 30% less displacment and provides a hell of a lot more power. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Indeed, you're right. The Klimovs were hardly amazing pieces of machinery, based on French Hispano-Suiza aero engines I believe, and not too much further developed in the USSR. The Merlin of course is an entirely different class, but the later two-staged models not only added power, but also extra drag coming from their enlarged radiators, and the need of addition of an intercooler radiator for example. There's a RAE report stating that adding just the present power of the two-stage Merlins without their drag into an 'ideal Spitfire' (basically a MkI) would result in 440mph or so vs. the 400 mph or so actually achieved. The loss is due to largely installing the cannons, bigger/more radiators, and the intercooler required by the new engines. Still, they were of course far more advanced engines, but, the drag and weight of their installation somewhat reduces their net power output (still they beat the Klimovs, of course).

As uninspring the Klimovs were, the Yakovlev airframes are the exact opposite. On the whole they are extremely effiecient, low drag designs, with a very advanced thinking of their radiator schemes present. They are highly efficient airframes, with high wingloading, pretty much the opposite of the rather conservative, 'bigger, better, more' brute force philosophy displayed by Supermarine. I tend to believe the latter yields results more quickly and simply, but ultimately it yields decreasing dividients, like a bulldozer pushing against an ever growing hill of sand.

In any case, the small wings and high wingloading coupled by uninspiring engines but well compansated by extremely low drag (also aided by the small wing size) shows that wingloading is hardly a serious factor. The factors in sustained turns are thust and drag. You can well achieve excellent turners with high wingloading and low drag, as the Yakovlevs and 109s show. Sustained turn is a race between drag in the turn and the output of the engine.

OD_79
01-26-2007, 11:34 AM
Give me the choice of Spitfire - any mark - or Yak 3 and I know where I would be sitting.

For some reason if I follow your logic through you are saying that basically the Spitfire should have stayed as the MkI with a more powerful engine, without the cooling, and with the guns removed (so that when they have been fired they don't cause anymore drag) rather than improving the basic design by adding cannon therefore increasing the firepower...I can't think why Supermarine and the RAF didn't think that way, Kurfust I think you have just come up with a way of creating world peace. If we remove the guns from fighters we can have the xpensive toys for show but not actually harm anyone, not unless we fly the 109, which could clearly cope with the extra weapons placed on it's already highly loaded wings, oh and of course the extra brute force added by the replacement of the DB601 with the 605...strange how Messerschmitt thought the same way as Supermarine. But of course they are both wromg, some of the most experienced and brilliant aircraft designers and engineers of the time and all the time all they needed was you. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gifhttp://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gifhttp://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

You do get repetitive at times. It is widely acknowledged that the 109 did not turn inside a Spitfire or a Hurricane and that its turning performance, like that of all the aircraft of the war, deteriorated as it progressed and more and more weight was added to the basic airframe.

Accept it, turning was one of the things that the Bf109 was not the best at. You can continue with Mickey Mouse history if you want, but maybe you should come to some things with an open mind.

OD.

stathem
01-26-2007, 11:47 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
The Klimov VK105 is hardly a small engine. Its a 35ltr monster weighing in at 600kg. The Merlin is only 150kg heavier, has 30% less displacment and provides a hell of a lot more power. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Indeed, you're right. The Klimovs were hardly amazing pieces of machinery, based on French Hispano-Suiza aero engines I believe, and not too much further developed in the USSR. The Merlin of course is an entirely different class, but the later two-staged models not only added power, but also extra drag coming from their enlarged radiators, and the need of addition of an intercooler radiator for example. There's a RAE report stating that adding just the present power of the two-stage Merlins without their drag into an 'ideal Spitfire' (basically a MkI) would result in 440mph or so vs. the 400 mph or so actually achieved. The loss is due to largely installing the cannons, bigger/more radiators, and the intercooler required by the new engines. Still, they were of course far more advanced engines, but, the drag and weight of their installation somewhat reduces their net power output (still they beat the Klimovs, of course).

As uninspring the Klimovs were, the Yakovlev airframes are the exact opposite. On the whole they are extremely effiecient, low drag designs, with a very advanced thinking of their radiator schemes present. They are highly efficient airframes, with high wingloading, pretty much the opposite of the rather conservative, 'bigger, better, more' brute force philosophy displayed by Supermarine. I tend to believe the latter yields results more quickly and simply, but ultimately it yields decreasing dividients, like a bulldozer pushing against an ever growing hill of sand.

In any case, the small wings and high wingloading coupled by uninspiring engines but well compansated by extremely low drag (also aided by the small wing size) shows that wingloading is hardly a serious factor. The factors in sustained turns are thust and drag. You can well achieve excellent turners with high wingloading and low drag, as the Yakovlevs and 109s show. Sustained turn is a race between drag in the turn and the output of the engine. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

And yet the very first thing we learnt from this game is that Yaks can't run at full power without overheating - remember the Object Viewer advantages of the 9U - "possibilty to run at full power without overheat"

But the Spits...could.

You pays your money....

Richardsen
01-26-2007, 12:41 PM
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit1vrs109e.html

Lots of info here!

Zoom2136
01-26-2007, 01:07 PM
What the *****

Before we can assumed any of you guys is right... please state you're qualification...

Who has a master or doctorat degree in aeraunitcal engeneering.... and no **** about I studied in college or I'm a bachelor or I've read somewhere....

So cough it up... and no C student please.... if you were last of your class just go back and get better grades you l*****y bums....

BTW... I'm just f***ing with you guys... but it is hard to beleive ANY of you without a proof of your qualifications.... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

JG14_Josf
01-26-2007, 01:23 PM
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit109turn.gif

EM Chart

I can fill in some blanks.

Thanks.

---------Lift-loading---1gstall---SusTurn----------5 g stall--------6 g stall---Corner speed
Bf109E-----131--------70mph---130mph 2.7g-----210mph---------Blank-------Blank
Spit I------132--------80mph---130mph 2.1g-----180mph-------210mph------Blank

----------Level Sustained turn rate------------5 g turn radius
109E----------25 deg/s-------------------------------460 ft
SpitI----------19 deg/s-------------------------------590 ft

----------------5 g turn rate--------------------5g turn radius
109E-------------29 deg/s-------------------------600 ft
SpitI-------------34 deg/s-------------------------450 ft

Note these published numbers:

109E
Normal acceleration-------CL max
1.0g---------------------------1.95
1.5g---------------------------1.70
2.0g---------------------------1.60
2.5g---------------------------1.52
3.0g---------------------------1.49
4.0g---------------------------1.47
5.0g---------------------------1.45
6.0g---------------------------1.44

Spitfire I
Normal acceleration--------CL max
1.0g---------------------------1.87
1.5g---------------------------1.65
2.0g---------------------------1.52
2.5g---------------------------1.47
3.0g---------------------------1.48
4.0g---------------------------1.43
5.0g---------------------------1.42
6.0g---------------------------1.38

Xiolablu3
01-26-2007, 03:14 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Brain32:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Spitfire? A heavy Plane? Just what planet are you on? If the SPitfire is heavy, what do you call the FW190, Tempest, P51, P38 or God forbid the P47? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
If Spitfire is light, what is Yak3 then? Yak3 is ~600kg lighter than a Spitfire... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I didnt say it was light, but its certainly not a 'Big heavy plane' like Kurfurst stated....

Gumtree
01-26-2007, 03:43 PM
Come on Xio...can't you accept that the Spitfire was a propaganda weapon and all the eyewitness accounts in biography's done after the war,were an allied conspiracy to devalue the abilities of the German planes and artificially enhance the Allied planes so that shares in companies like Rolls Royce would climb.

I am amazed you don't accept such over whelming evidence like that posted in these forums and continue to believe the fiction written in histories by the pilots that flew the actual things.
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif

Sintubin
01-26-2007, 04:19 PM
you cant matching real acounts to game acounts because you need Realisme with engine settings , and that is wat IL-2 dont have

Bellator_1
01-26-2007, 07:25 PM
The-Pizza-Man,

You need to read up on which factors that effect CLmax !

Truth is the Spitfire has a significantly lower CLmax than the Bf-109, this can be attributed to several factors, one of them being mentioned below.

NACA:
"A higher aspect ratio wing has a lower drag and a higher lift than a lower aspect ratio wing."

WWMaxGunz,

The LE slats increase the critical AoA and CLmax by 25% in the covered areas, and the 109 has got 48% of its wing covered by the slats. However the Clmax and critical AoA of the outboard wing sections are always lower, and they will therefore also stall much earlier than the root sections - LE slats and aerodynamic twist are both means of dealing with this problem, however twisting the wing makes for more drag, esp. in turns, more drag than suffered by slat equipped a/c.

Blutarski2004
01-26-2007, 07:59 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:

The reason of simple, if a heavy plane like the Spitfire has to compensate for weight with a hugely oversized wing compared to the fuselage, that huge wing will come with a huge amount of drag in whatever condition, but especially at high speed level flight or turn where parasitic drag dominates. Lift and drag needs to balanced out. The classic 'dweeb arguement of course claims that wingloading is the single factor in turns, because that's the only area that would favour the Spitfire (and the Spitfire must be always superior of course).
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... Parasitic drag dominates in high speed level flight, where it may constitute as much as 98 pct of total drag. Induced drag is the dominant factor when the aircraft is turning, representing 60 to 70 pct of the total drag - directly related to AoA.

Wing loading is the principal factor in instanteous turning. Power loading (i.e. - excess available power) is important in sustained turn performance. It is perfectly possible that aircraft A may be superior to aircraft B in instantaneous turn performance, but inferior in sustained turn performance.

WWMaxGunz
01-26-2007, 09:04 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bellator_1:
however twisting the wing makes for more drag, esp. in turns, more drag than suffered by slat equipped a/c. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

True but then so does high wingloading. Lift, like drag (can't have one without the other as
we all should know!) goes by area, no?

------------------------------------------------------
In general:

I get tired of the mudslinging (not just namecalling but loose associations of facts and numbers)
so I ask a semi-complicated question:

Does anyone here think that his or her guesses and abilities exceed what Team Maddox has given?
I don't want to hear about this or that unless the person can say they _do_ better as opposed
to they _have read_ different.

If not then I suggest that what is in IL2Compare is at least as good as anyone here can show
so why not take the comparatives as good enough for us? They provide much. They tell me that
Spitfire does not always have the better sustained turn, for example, even with same speeds.

If you can't do better or come up with acceptable documents then really you are crying for
something you can't really back up based on partial informations.

Some time in the far future maybe there is free energy and minerals from space then someone
digs up the history available and next thing you know they build planes to test and find out
that they don't have full enough info to make for sure exact duplicates.

Let it ride and pin your self-worth and that of your country/heritage on something else.

The-Pizza-Man
01-26-2007, 09:38 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bellator_1:
The-Pizza-Man,

You need to read up on which factors that effect CLmax !

Truth is the Spitfire has a significantly lower CLmax than the Bf-109, this can be attributed to several factors, one of them being mentioned below.

NACA:
"A higher aspect ratio wing has a lower drag and a higher lift than a lower aspect ratio wing."
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

My figure for the spitfire was very accurate, only 2% greater than on the graph from Josf. My 109 figure is probably not nearly as accurate due to the sensitivity to velocity. I found the most accurate figures I could find in the time I had. With more accurate figures the approach would be sound. I was probably premature in jumping to conclusions from the (incomplete)data that I had.

Bellator_1
01-26-2007, 10:04 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">True but then so does high wingloading. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, a high wing-loading has no influence on drag - span-loading has however.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Lift, like drag (can't have one without the other as
we all should know!) goes by area, no? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You can have high lift and low drag pr. area, but its about using the best mix. Research for example has established that the most effective wing is one with an AR of 6 - 6.5.

WWMaxGunz
01-26-2007, 10:07 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Pinker15:
Name of that Polish pilot U mentione above is Stanisław Skalski.

http://www.elknet.pl/acestory/skalski/skalski.htm </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I dug up my archives and the Poles Over Britain files. Yes that was Skalski.
The text I have of a fight on 2 Sept 1940 I do not see at your link. Skalski already has 7.5
kills before that. Near the end:
The lower we go, the more confident I grow. 10,000, 9,000, 8,000 feet. The altimeter is moving
quickly. I tighten the circle to the limit - with all my willpower, exhausted emotionally, I
decide that I want to win this duel. I'm already on equal terms with the German. The next thing
to do is get on his tail. I already have a tactical advantage - altitude. The Hurricane is
shaking, it's hot in the cockpit, sweat all over my face. I pull the stick with both hands -
tighter and tighter, 5,000, 4,000 feet. He's just in front of me. Why doesn't he get away?
He can still take the fight into vertical.
Suddenly... yes! The gunsight... deflection!

And later: I feel sorry for the German. He was terrific, why didn't he bale out?

Anyway I have several tales from different Polish fighters during the BoB.

WWMaxGunz
01-26-2007, 10:15 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bellator_1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">True but then so does high wingloading. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, a high wing-loading has no influence on drag - span-loading has however.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you have to make more lift to pull turning G's then that does not require more AOA and
hence more drag? If not then why is low wingloading done at all since it requires more
wetted area? I can see how in level flight and even steady climb it would be desireable,
and the higher the speed the more desireable, but in turns low to midspeed?

Bellator_1
01-26-2007, 10:53 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
If you have to make more lift to pull turning G's then that does not require more AOA and
hence more drag? If not then why is low wingloading done at all since it requires more
wetted area? I can see how in level flight and even steady climb it would be desireable,
and the higher the speed the more desireable, but in turns low to midspeed? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Its because you're looking at it the wrong way.

What matters is not wing-loading its lift-loading, and the CL value, which is dependant on many factors, is a deciding factor here.

The-Pizza-Man
01-26-2007, 11:10 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> And the washout have the same effect on the Spit. It increases the critical angle of attack of the wing, and they also change lift distribution as slats on the 109s, only that :

- washout does this all the time, slats on when needed
- washout is not nearly as effective as sticking the flow to the wing (=increase ClMax) as slats

Speaking of how the Spitfire has high Oswald effiency 'because of the elliptical planform' is nonsense, as it has washout.
Not to mention all those gunports, and four big (of which two are blind, what a waste!) cannon stubs sticking out from the leading edge. I am sure they are extremely beneficial for lift distribution, LOL. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Slats and wing twist have the same purpose, to move the initial stall to the inboard section of the wing, but they have different effects.

Twist doesn't increase the critical AoA of the wing at all. The lower angle of attack at the outer sections of the wing means less lift is produced, which is why it is used on straight and taper winged aircraft to better approximate elliptical lift distribution. It also means that when the inner part (where most of the lift is created) of the wing stalls that the outer part is still unstalled and the aircraft retains aileron control. That's why they use it has a double advantage in straight or tapered wing aircraft. It improves stall and increases efficiency. On the spitfire the twist may or may not decrease efficiency depending on how close the wing is to elliptical, how much the critical AoA and lift generation varies from the wing root profile to the tip profile and how things like gun ports effect the distribution.

Slats when they are out increase the angle of attack wherever the slats are, typically in front of the ailerons. So in a wing with no twist they will ensure that the inner part stalls first. However, because they couldn't be controlled to pop out at exactly the moment of stall they have to deploy before stall. So anytime they are out before stall they are increasing parasitic drag. They would allow better post stall flight but that is little use in turning at the optimum angle of attack is usually something less than the critical angle of attack.

It would have been better for the Messerschmitt to have a twist in it's wing rather than slats, aerodynamically speaking. It could have potentially improved the lift distribution of the wing and reduced drag close to stall. It would however have increased production diffilculty.

gkll
01-26-2007, 11:17 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:

Does anyone here think that his or her guesses and abilities exceed what Team Maddox has given?
I don't want to hear about this or that unless the person can say they _do_ better as opposed
to they _have read_ different.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I had this thought myself
The simple representations we see of the math (in this thread) required to determine the 'truth' of relative turning abilities... how might this compare with the math built into the il2 engine?

So then are the Maddox boys biased, or wrong? That is a different question, I don't know. I am pretty sure he has gone substantially beyond the simpler maths of this thread though

To see where his concept of the math ended up for AOA you could probably observe the ingame AOA for a speed and curve radius. Two guys, smoke on the leader, spit and a 109. Try and fly the same speed as close as possible to the smoke... and take a gander at the wonder woman pipper, you can observe AOA directly there? Which one is larger by how much.

WWMaxGunz
01-26-2007, 11:20 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by The-Pizza-Man:
It would have been better for the Messerschmitt to have a twist in it's wing rather than slats, aerodynamically speaking. It could have potentially improved the lift distribution of the wing and reduced drag close to stall. It would however have increased production diffilculty. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It has been my understanding that without the slats, the 109 would have had too high a
landing speed. Way too high.

gkll
01-26-2007, 11:28 PM
Another thought.

Viper corrected me on some Spitfire history, I was blathering on about Mitchell and his marvelous wing and beautifully integrated fighter, Viper pointed out that the wings were a late addon to the design, and I followed up, hes right. It was actually a fellow canuck, forget his name, point is... there must have been an internal battle over the benefits and the costs. Terrible design for ease of manufacturing, so there must have been a squabble over what would have been at that point only 'theoretical' benefits... and I suspect they were using more complex maths than this thread as well, eh?

I expect a more complex accounting of the factors affecting turn would indeed suggest every spit 'outturns' its 109 'age equivalent'. Oleg thinks so too... or he 'hates 109s' or 'loves spits', hard to say. Ive always thought its been fair, and as true as possible to the goal of fidelity.

WWMaxGunz
01-26-2007, 11:34 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by gkll:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:

Does anyone here think that his or her guesses and abilities exceed what Team Maddox has given?
I don't want to hear about this or that unless the person can say they _do_ better as opposed
to they _have read_ different.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I had this thought myself
The simple representations we see of the math (in this thread) required to determine the 'truth' of relative turning abilities... how might this compare with the math built into the il2 engine?

So then are the Maddox boys biased, or wrong? That is a different question, I don't know. I am pretty sure he has gone substantially beyond the simpler maths of this thread though

To see where his concept of the math ended up for AOA you could probably observe the ingame AOA for a speed and curve radius. Two guys, smoke on the leader, spit and a 109. Try and fly the same speed as close as possible to the smoke... and take a gander at the wonder woman pipper, you can observe AOA directly there? Which one is larger by how much. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You mean level flight, same speed? I can get the pitch of each precisely via devicelink.
In flat level flight I see pitch and AOA maintaining a close relation and I think that the
AOI of the planes wings is known.

I don't see biased and wrong from the team so much as I see a flight engine pared down to
allow good framerate (with the graphics, terrain, DM, shooting, AI, etc) not being able to
cover the charts given the exact original plane models due to not everything possible being
modelled. There ends up being adjustments to get performance to fit closely to as many
chart values as possible. Just how close, where, can have many solutions all equal in
total coverage yet different which is why when the FM has 'modes' added the places and
closenesses matched differ patch to patch -- plus of course the demanding customers get
patches sooner than best fit can be ready which is why I say the last patch of any major
number (IL2:1.2, FB:1.I_forget, AEP:2.04, PF:3.04, 1946:4.08?) is the one that counts.

The-Pizza-Man
01-26-2007, 11:52 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> It's simply amazing that the 109G-2 is supposed to have an incredibly high stalling speed of 180 km/h, yet the pilot's handbuch etc. gives a landing speed of 140-150 km/h for the various Bf 109G/K variants. Typically the landing speed is 10-20 km/h above stalling speed. I tend to believe the problem roots in that the source of the 109G stall speed is the Middle East trials, performed on a damaged Bf 109G-2/trop (that's Black Six btw, see full report on my site), and they probably did not have proper pitot instruments - stall speed is pretty tough to measure. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Landing speed is gear and flaps down, 50m/s was the clean stall speed.

The-Pizza-Man
01-27-2007, 12:08 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by The-Pizza-Man:
It would have been better for the Messerschmitt to have a twist in it's wing rather than slats, aerodynamically speaking. It could have potentially improved the lift distribution of the wing and reduced drag close to stall. It would however have increased production diffilculty. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It has been my understanding that without the slats, the 109 would have had too high a
landing speed. Way too high. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's interesting, as slats increase the critical AoA without increasing Cl for a given AoA, but flaps decrease critical AoA but increase Cl for a given AoA. The slats and flaps were on different sections of the wing. I don't know if they would have the same effect as slats and flaps on the same wing section, which increases crit AoA and Cl/degree of AoA.

gkll
01-27-2007, 12:16 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by gkll:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:

Does anyone here think that his or her guesses and abilities exceed what Team Maddox has given?
I don't want to hear about this or that unless the person can say they _do_ better as opposed
to they _have read_ different.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I had this thought myself
The simple representations we see of the math (in this thread) required to determine the 'truth' of relative turning abilities... how might this compare with the math built into the il2 engine?

So then are the Maddox boys biased, or wrong? That is a different question, I don't know. I am pretty sure he has gone substantially beyond the simpler maths of this thread though

To see where his concept of the math ended up for AOA you could probably observe the ingame AOA for a speed and curve radius. Two guys, smoke on the leader, spit and a 109. Try and fly the same speed as close as possible to the smoke... and take a gander at the wonder woman pipper, you can observe AOA directly there? Which one is larger by how much. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You mean level flight, same speed? I can get the pitch of each precisely via devicelink.
In flat level flight I see pitch and AOA maintaining a close relation and I think that the
AOI of the planes wings is known.

I don't see biased and wrong from the team so much as I see a flight engine pared down to
allow good framerate (with the graphics, terrain, DM, shooting, AI, etc) not being able to
cover the charts given the exact original plane models due to not everything possible being
modelled. There ends up being adjustments to get performance to fit closely to as many
chart values as possible. Just how close, where, can have many solutions all equal in
total coverage yet different which is why when the FM has 'modes' added the places and
closenesses matched differ patch to patch -- plus of course the demanding customers get
patches sooner than best fit can be ready which is why I say the last patch of any major
number (IL2:1.2, FB:1.I_forget, AEP:2.04, PF:3.04, 1946:4.08?) is the one that counts. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree with all of this and have also thought similar things, very similar. Im a modeller and fully understand the distinction between empirical and process based models, the tradeoffs. The equivalent here would be 'table based'(=empirical) vs 'physics based' (=~process) fms.... however not so sure the final of a series has the highest fidelity or the most interesting interface (sensitive with wobbles vs no wobbles and ?), as a rule.

What I meant for the 'test' was check indicated AOA at sustained turns, close to best for a given speed. I thought the pipper showed this? If it comes out of devicelink so much the better, never used it. I just meant a quick and dirty check, you might see if they were a &lt;lot&gt; different.....

WWMaxGunz
01-27-2007, 05:03 AM
I had been directed to read what Youss had written about IL2Compare methods for the 3.0.0
version (for IL2 v4.05) last March and one thing there was conditions of turning. He had
the AI pull 12 deg AOA for non-slat planes and 17.5 deg for slat planes. I am more than
sure those numbers were not picked out of thin air or used without checking for stall though
they may not be the max possible by small margin.

It certainly could bear up to some tests if the players flying them can fly them trimmed to
the nines, keep really flat circles as opposed to +/- 10m by speedbar, and do all the rest
very well. It is also *maybe* possible for a community person with the right coding tools
to make an AI do that via devicelink (works both ways!) but it's a pretty big maybe there.
The last time someone tried it was to make a straight and level AP and the success was not
completely bomber-useable.

Devicelink gets all the guages, the states of everything except IIRC there may be a problem
with gear status, and allows connection to all inputs including stick. If you have a fast
enough PC and noting that devicelink is not real efficient (text via UDP) you might be able
to pull something approaching steady-state off and watch the results during execution.

I have Borland C++ Builder 6.0 Home (limited libraries) and dunno what I need to do to get
UDP working. Back when I coded for a living I was writing DOS apps for dedicated systems
since W95 was not stable enough to run RT for months on end without attention which my
collection and analysis system had no trouble doing on a limited RAM 386SX-50. I have on
and off been banging my head against "the new way" and can't afford to play it the M$ way.
Got their C++ 6 years ago but the help and examples only run on old IE and the install will
not recognize newer IE whatsoever so I'm screwed there (kick, curse, fuss, forget it) and
that is why I popped for the Borland since at least I CAN run the help without the yearly
payoff to Bill. WTH, I went over the hill 6 years ago after a wreck 9 years ago and still
not back to what I consider necessary. What's left is still a shadow of who was and I ain't
getting any younger. Real help from someone that knows Borland would be a solid groove,
I understand there are ways to trick out lib calls to any dll and so to use those but I
dunno how to do that or to turn Sensei's wrapper into a library.

If you want to take a shot at it, WWSensei has a DeviceLink wrapper out that will ease
things for anyone that can compile it, which requires M$ AFAIK.

Other than that, AOA on a flat turn? I don't think that devicelink gives enough. Pitch
is relative angle to horizon and while there are turning angle and acceleration outputs
available and even slip, none of that tells slide. A dive and climb transition you could
get some info on that between speed and alt perhaps but it's only guesswork, no? I have
a program that reads devicelink dive logs and tries to guess actual positions but it still
could use some work there though not as much as error as track to track starting from the
tracks I have made and others have sent me. It is all quite frustrating, we need better
tools and will not be getting them.

Richardsen
01-27-2007, 12:00 PM
In laymans terms, angle of attack is the angle at which the air hits a wing realtive to a line drawn from the absolute leading edge of a wing to the trailing edge (the longest line possible to draw between the two) and this is call the Chord line. So the angle between the Chord line and the oncomming air is called Angle of Attack. Most light aircraft, with none symetrical wings, typically fly with about 4? angle of attack in stable, level, flight. But that will depend on the all up weight of the aircraft. As you increase the angle of attack, the wings capabilities to produce lift will increase. But as you increase the angle of attack, the oncomming air will have ever harder time passing over the wing as it is forming a great obsticle in its way. The air will have less and less ability to pass smoothly over the top of the wing, rather it becomes detached from it, and will form a turbulent eddie current over the top surface that will not produce lift. As normal wing profiles (for the experts on here, I´m not muddling the water with the flat plate effect or the delta) require smooth air over the top to produce lift, this is not good news. So what is really happening, is that you are increasing the amount of lift generated by the wing, but at the same time, you are destoying the wings capability to produce lift All of this comes head to head at a point called the stall. At that point, you reach the optimum trade off between angle of attack and the damaging effects of eddie currents over the wing. Normal light aircraft wing stalls somewhere between 12?-15? angle of attack, depending on airfoil. Any more angle of attack, and the damaging effects of the eddie currents will cancel out the lift increase generated by increased angle of attack, and lift will actually decrease, the aircraft will not be able to maintain altitude, and, depending on airfoil, might become downright nasty to it´s passenger at that time

As you might have seen, I´ve never talked about stall speed. That is because wings do not stall because of speed. They only stall because of to large angle of attack! They great myth about the stall speed only comes from the fact, that angle of attack indicators are not installed in normal aeroplanes. This is how the infamous stall speed is found out. You take an aircraft up to altitude and close the throttle. As the speed decreases, the wings ability to produce lift decreases, so if you maintain a set altitude the angle of attack will have to incease to maintain the lift. At the time the aircraft stalls, you take a note of what the airspeed indicator is showing, and that will be you stalling speed from now on. It has nothing to do with the speed it self, but rather the optimum trade of between lift generation and eddie currents. That speed you read out at that time is only relevant to that weight of the aircraft. If you increase the weight, the speed shown will be higher, if you decrease it, the speed shown will be lower. Most of us know what g is, but if someone does not know, it is the force of gravity. As you are sitting in the chair in front of the computer you are experiencing 1g. At 2g you will feel 2 times as heavy as now. The same applies to aircraft. In a 2g turn, a 1000 Ibs aircraft feels like it is 2000 Ibs. And that affects the stall speed. It will go up by the root of the g. So an aircraft that has a publiced stall speed of 60 will stall at 84. Angle of attack will remain the same!

Now for the slats. Basically what they are, is a device fitted to the front of leading edge arranged in such a way, as to re-energize the air passing over the wing close to critical angle of attack. In normal flight, they have no function at all (except, if they are fixed, they will produce drag). Once the airfoil approaches the critical angle of attack, the air will start to pass between opening of the slat and the wing, and in doing so, it will speed up somewhat and the slat is shaped in a way to redirect the flow over the top of the airfoil. That will re-energize the air over the top, and help delay the onset of eddie currents. That will in turn help the wing produce more lift for a given angle of attack. Slat design vary, and the airfoil-slat combination will to, but let´s give an example of an airfoil that will reach it critical angle of attack of 14? without slats. With slats, that same airfoil will reach 18?. So if you want high angle of attack (slow speed, STOL) capability, you will be looking at slats to help you achive that goal.

The slats on the 109 are not there for slow speed operation, as in STOL operation. They are there for a very different reason, that is contolability. The wing profile seen on the 109, has the rather irritating habit of starting the stall at the wing tip, working it´s way gradually inwards with increased angle of attack. That will mean, that you will be loosing aileron control, before you really knew you were in a stall, and loosing a vital control is not good. There are three ways around this problem on a wing of that particular profile. You can build a wash-in into the wing. It basically means that you twist the wing, making that leading edge of the wing droop down (decrease the angle of attack) as you go out the wing. That basically means, that you will not be getting the most efficent wing possible as the outer portions are not developping the lift they could. Second line of attack would be to fit so called stall strips the the leading edge of the inner wing panels. What they do, is to create a turbulent airflow over the top at high angle of attack, fooling the wing into believing it is stalled when it really is not. That will degrade the lift production of the wing, not really what you want in a turning fight at high angle of attack! The germans chose the best thing. A slat covering the span of the ailerons, more or less. That way they hoped to get re-energized air over a portion of the wing that was stalled in relation to the rest of the wing, hoping to maintain aileron control (and lift on that protion of the wing) all the way to a complete stall of all the wing. It works very well. BUT, and there is always a BUT!

The slats on both wings are not interconnected, so one will open irrespective of what the other is doing. In the perfect world, you will be in a totally co-ordinated turn and both slats would open automatically together with no hassel at all, you would hardly notice it! However, in the heat of a combat, I do not think you give a sh*t about the elegant way of flying. You just do what you think you have to do, co-ordinated, slipping or skidding, what ever it takes. And that is where this system will let you down. Picture this. You are in a 109 doing a turning dogfight to the left with a Spit, you have a lead on him in your sight, just about right! Well that was easy, I´m not even pulling as hard as I could, plenty left before stall. Hummm, lousy flying, he is actually loosing hight in the turn, what do they teach these guys in the RAF? In a tight turn how do you correct for that one? Well, you use bottom rudder, you ++++++++. You touch bottom rudder very gently with your feet...........all of a sudden the aircraft rolls sharply out of the turn, approaching wings level, with the Spit way out of the gun sight, and you are very alone. What happened was that as soon as you touched the bottom rudder, the left wing started to stall, the slat opened, and the sudden lift increase cought you out cold. The aircraft rolled to the right, and you lost that Spit.

TheBandit_76
01-27-2007, 12:29 PM
In IL2, 109s really don't much of a stall to speak of at all. Unless piloted by a first-month noob, 109s don't depart like many other a/c in this game.

gkll
01-27-2007, 12:31 PM
Hey Max - my concept was simpler, for all its flaws the pipper shows you visually some kind of AOA, if they are broadly different, appreciably different, at high g 'sustained' turning, maybe you can just look at it? If it is close then this won't work of course.

Kurfurst__
01-27-2007, 01:26 PM
Great, we sensible comments lately ! Good ! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif
Thanks for all who contributed, currently I can make one reply.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Richardsen:
In laymans terms, angle of attack is the angle at which the air hits a wing realtive to a line drawn from the absolute leading edge of a wing to the trailing edge (the longest line possible to draw between the two) and this is call the Chord line. So the angle between the Chord line and the oncomming air is called Angle of Attack. Most light aircraft, with none symetrical wings, typically fly with about 4? angle of attack in stable, level, flight. But that will depend on the all up weight of the aircraft. As you increase the angle of attack, the wings capabilities to produce lift will increase. But as you increase the angle of attack, the oncomming air will have ever harder time passing over the wing as it is forming a great obsticle in its way. The air will have less and less ability to pass smoothly over the top of the wing, rather it becomes detached from it, and will form a turbulent eddie current over the top surface that will not produce lift. As normal wing profiles (for the experts on here, I´m not muddling the water with the flat plate effect or the delta) require smooth air over the top to produce lift, this is not good news. So what is really happening, is that you are increasing the amount of lift generated by the wing, but at the same time, you are destoying the wings capability to produce lift All of this comes head to head at a point called the stall. At that point, you reach the optimum trade off between angle of attack and the damaging effects of eddie currents over the wing. Normal light aircraft wing stalls somewhere between 12?-15? angle of attack, depending on airfoil. Any more angle of attack, and the damaging effects of the eddie currents will cancel out the lift increase generated by increased angle of attack, and lift will actually decrease, the aircraft will not be able to maintain altitude, and, depending on airfoil, might become downright nasty to it´s passenger at that time

...

Now for the slats. Basically what they are, is a device fitted to the front of leading edge arranged in such a way, as to re-energize the air passing over the wing close to critical angle of attack. In normal flight, they have no function at all (except, if they are fixed, they will produce drag). Once the airfoil approaches the critical angle of attack, the air will start to pass between opening of the slat and the wing, and in doing so, it will speed up somewhat and the slat is shaped in a way to redirect the flow over the top of the airfoil. That will re-energize the air over the top, and help delay the onset of eddie currents. That will in turn help the wing produce more lift for a given angle of attack. Slat design vary, and the airfoil-slat combination will to, but let´s give an example of an airfoil that will reach it critical angle of attack of 14? without slats. With slats, that same airfoil will reach 18?. So if you want high angle of attack (slow speed, STOL) capability, you will be looking at slats to help you achive that goal. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Great description, here's an old one for the visual-minded, it's easier to see if illustrated. Also shows how slats work:

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e133/Kurfurst/TH17G2.jpg


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">As you might have seen, I´ve never talked about stall speed. That is because wings do not stall because of speed. They only stall because of to large angle of attack! They great myth about the stall speed only comes from the fact, that angle of attack indicators are not installed in normal aeroplanes. This is how the infamous stall speed is found out. You take an aircraft up to altitude and close the throttle. As the speed decreases, the wings ability to produce lift decreases, so if you maintain a set altitude the angle of attack will have to incease to maintain the lift. At the time the aircraft stalls, you take a note of what the airspeed indicator is showing, and that will be you stalling speed from now on. It has nothing to do with the speed it self, but rather the optimum trade of between lift generation and eddie currents. That speed you read out at that time is only relevant to that weight of the aircraft. If you increase the weight, the speed shown will be higher, if you decrease it, the speed shown will be lower. Most of us know what g is, but if someone does not know, it is the force of gravity. As you are sitting in the chair in front of the computer you are experiencing 1g. At 2g you will feel 2 times as heavy as now. The same applies to aircraft. In a 2g turn, a 1000 Ibs aircraft feels like it is 2000 Ibs. And that affects the stall speed. It will go up by the root of the g. So an aircraft that has a publiced stall speed of 60 will stall at 84. Angle of attack will remain the same! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Great info, thanks that was ashamedly new to me, but now I got an explanation as to why 'stall speeds' reported vary so much, and also why the Finnish flight test of 109G reported the aircraft being controllable at extreme AoA slow-speed flight. The fact that stall is AoA related, and not speed related explains it all.

One thing I wonder though is the relation of Cdi, AoA and Cl. The Cdi formulas seem to handle Cdi as solely determined by Cl, but I'd presume that different profiles will give different Cl per degrees AoA - simply to put, some wings create a higher lift coefficient than others at the same angle. How is this taken into account in the formulae, or is it already included in the e ?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The slats on the 109 are not there for slow speed operation, as in STOL operation. They are there for a very different reason, that is contolability. The wing profile seen on the 109, has the rather irritating habit of starting the stall at the wing tip, working it´s way gradually inwards with increased angle of attack. That will mean, that you will be loosing aileron control, before you really knew you were in a stall, and loosing a vital control is not good. There are three ways around this problem on a wing of that particular profile. You can build a wash-in into the wing. It basically means that you twist the wing, making that leading edge of the wing droop down (decrease the angle of attack) as you go out the wing. That basically means, that you will not be getting the most efficent wing possible as the outer portions are not developping the lift they could. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

One additional problem noted to Reginald early on the Spits development regarding the use of washout by one of the engineer team members was that the washout appearantly created an aerodynamic shadow for the Frise-ailerons, which meant they grew heavy, something that was a major problem with it's ailerons until the whole wing was redesigned with the post-war Mk. 2x series.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Second line of attack would be to fit so called stall strips the the leading edge of the inner wing panels. What they do, is to create a turbulent airflow over the top at high angle of attack, fooling the wing into believing it is stalled when it really is not. That will degrade the lift production of the wing, not really what you want in a turning fight at high angle of attack! The germans chose the best thing. A slat covering the span of the ailerons, more or less. That way they hoped to get re-energized air over a portion of the wing that was stalled in relation to the rest of the wing, hoping to maintain aileron control (and lift on that protion of the wing) all the way to a complete stall of all the wing. It works very well. BUT, and there is always a BUT!

The slats on both wings are not interconnected, so one will open irrespective of what the other is doing. In the perfect world, you will be in a totally co-ordinated turn and both slats would open automatically together with no hassel at all, you would hardly notice it! However, in the heat of a combat, I do not think you give a sh*t about the elegant way of flying. You just do what you think you have to do, co-ordinated, slipping or skidding, what ever it takes. And that is where this system will let you down. Picture this. You are in a 109 doing a turning dogfight to the left with a Spit, you have a lead on him in your sight, just about right! Well that was easy, I´m not even pulling as hard as I could, plenty left before stall. Hummm, lousy flying, he is actually loosing hight in the turn, what do they teach these guys in the RAF? In a tight turn how do you correct for that one? Well, you use bottom rudder, you ++++++++. You touch bottom rudder very gently with your feet...........all of a sudden the aircraft rolls sharply out of the turn, approaching wings level, with the Spit way out of the gun sight, and you are very alone. What happened was that as soon as you touched the bottom rudder, the left wing started to stall, the slat opened, and the sudden lift increase cought you out cold. The aircraft rolled to the right, and you lost that Spit. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Appearantly it was so on the 109E. Appearantly later models did not share this problem, ie. Dave Southwood decription on Black Six (109G-2) from 109lair :

"The idle power stall characteristics of the aircraft are very benign and affected little by undercarriage and flap position. Stalling warning is a slight wing rock with the stick floating right by about 2 inches. This occurs 10klph before the stall. The stall itself is a left wing drop through about 15 degrees with a slight nose drop, accompanied by a light buffet. All controls are effective up to the stall, and recovery is instant on moving the stick forward. Stall speeds are 155kph clean and 140kph with gear and flap down. In a turn at 280kphwith display power set, stall warning is given by light buffet at 3g, and the stall occurs at 3.5g with the inside wing dropping. Again, recovery is instant on easing the stick forward. One interesting feature is the leading edge slats. When these deploy at low speeds or in a turn, a 'clunk' can be heard and felt, but there is no disturbance to the aircraft about any axis. I understand that the Bf109E rolled violently as the slats deployed, and I am curious to know the difference to the Gustav that caused this.

http://109lair.hobbyvista.com/index1024.htm

As a matter of fact I am curious, too. There were many changed between the 109E and the 109F (the latter was a basis for all the later), some which may be the cause behind eliminating the slat disturbance :

- change of the planform of the wing, obviously
- 109E had plain type ailerons, the the 109F/G/K had Frise type ailerons
- 109E had swing-arm actuated slats, the late 109F and all later had roller-slide actuated slats (more gradual deployment, perhaps?)

Thoughts?

Messerschmitt specifically was very fond of using slats, I presume he had quite a bit of experience with it, I can't think of any Messerschmitt warplane without slats, actually. Me 108, 109, 110, 210, 410, 262, 163 (fixed slots) - all had them.
Lavochkin was the other rabid fan of using slats.

Bellator_1
01-27-2007, 02:31 PM
Don't forget the new radiator of the F series and onwards, this reduced drag significantly.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">One thing I wonder though is the relation of Cdi, AoA and Cl. The Cdi formulas seem to handle Cdi as solely determined by Cl, but I'd presume that different profiles will give different Cl per degrees AoA - simply to put, some wings create a higher lift coefficient than others at the same angle. How is this taken into account in the formulae, or is it already included in the e ? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

In the formulae we use Clmax values which only occur at the critical AoA, therefore we calculate the amount of lift and drag the airplane produces at the highest load. And yes, different wings have different CL values pr. AoA.

JG14_Josf
01-27-2007, 02:55 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">All controls are effective up to the stall, and recovery is instant on moving the stick forward. Stall speeds are 155kph clean and 140kph with gear and flap down. In a turn at 280kphwith display power set, stall warning is given by light buffet at 3g, and the stall occurs at 3.5g with the inside wing dropping. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

---------Lift-loading---1gstall----SusTurn----------5 g stall--------6 g stall---Corner speed
Bf109E-----131--------70mph----130mph 2.7g-----210mph---------Blank-------Blank
Spit I--------132--------80mph----130mph 2.1g-----180mph-------210mph------Blank
109G2-------131------155km/h"280km/h 3.5g-----blank----------Blank-------Blank



----------Level Sustained turn rate------------5 g turn radius
109E----------25 deg/s-------------------------------590 ft
SpitI-----------19 deg/s--------------------------------460 ft
109G2---------24 deg/s--------------------------------180 m

The steepness of the sustained stall line for those 109G2 numbers is almost as steep as the game's Spitfire VB (1941) accelerated stall line.

Here:

http://mysite.verizon.net/res0l0yx/images/WWIIEMgameerror.jpg

That is an old chart based upon finding the 1g stall that didn't work out well. The 6 g stall plots were recorded by flying at corner speed in the game in a nose low spiral (just above stall and just under black out).

I may try plotting the 109G2 155 km/h 1 g stall (clean) and the sustained 280 km/h 3.5 g stall on that metric chart.

The 109E and Spit I numbers from the WWII EM chart are calculated numbers and my not even calculate lift from the slats. The chart says:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Assumed values of CLmax at full throttle </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

These:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">109E
Normal acceleration-------CL max
1.0g---------------------------1.95
1.5g---------------------------1.70
2.0g---------------------------1.60
2.5g---------------------------1.52
3.0g---------------------------1.49
4.0g---------------------------1.47
5.0g---------------------------1.45
6.0g---------------------------1.44

Spitfire I
Normal acceleration--------CL max
1.0g---------------------------1.87
1.5g---------------------------1.65
2.0g---------------------------1.52
2.5g---------------------------1.47
3.0g---------------------------1.48
4.0g---------------------------1.43
5.0g---------------------------1.42
6.0g---------------------------1.38 </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The-Pizza-Man
01-27-2007, 08:12 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bellator_1:
Don't forget the new radiator of the F series and onwards, this reduced drag significantly.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">One thing I wonder though is the relation of Cdi, AoA and Cl. The Cdi formulas seem to handle Cdi as solely determined by Cl, but I'd presume that different profiles will give different Cl per degrees AoA - simply to put, some wings create a higher lift coefficient than others at the same angle. How is this taken into account in the formulae, or is it already included in the e ? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

In the formulae we use Clmax values which only occur at the critical AoA, therefore we calculate the amount of lift and drag the airplane produces at the highest load. And yes, different wings have different CL values pr. AoA. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Except your Clmax's are almost completely arbitrary.

Bellator_1
01-27-2007, 10:01 PM
No they are not, I have used NACA test results as a reference for the CL values of each airfoil.

The-Pizza-Man
01-28-2007, 12:01 AM
Which ones? What g are they for?

Bellator_1
01-28-2007, 12:23 AM
Its Clmax figures, so its at the critical AoA.

Check out the NACA archive: http://naca.central.cranfield.ac.uk/

WWMaxGunz
01-28-2007, 12:41 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Richardsen:
At the time the aircraft stalls, you take a note of what the airspeed indicator is showing, and that will be you stalling speed from now on. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The EAA/FAA are a bit more specific. When you can no longer retain alt is the stall speed.
Trim is required to be stopped within so much of the stall, ie no trimming until alt loss
occurs. Even the speed which you approad the reference determination has to be within a
certain closeness at least if you are trying to certify a plane.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The slats on the 109 are not there for slow speed operation, as in STOL operation. They are there for a very different reason, that is contolability. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Be that as it may and controllability is important, having the slats does lower the stall
speed whether clean, flaps down, gear down, or with extra load. Hope you don't disagree?

So what is the landing speed of you Bf-109G-6/AS? Really STOL? Uh-uh. What speed would
the same G-6 land at flaps and gear down, if the AOA were kept low enough to keep the slats
from deploying? How much wing lift difference is there at landing speed?

Consider that adding slats let the wings be made more efficient for speed.

Compare clean power-off stall for 109 and contemporary others then yeah, the slats are not
needed and there will be not much difference without? There are worse planes without slats
but they don't make sustained turns with Spitfires at low speeds.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The slats on both wings are not interconnected, so one will open irrespective of what the other is doing. In the perfect world, you will be in a totally co-ordinated turn and both slats would open automatically together with no hassel at all, you would hardly notice it! However, in the heat of a combat, I do not think you give a sh*t about the elegant way of flying. You just do what you think you have to do, co-ordinated, slipping or skidding, what ever it takes. And that is where this system will let you down. Picture this. You are in a 109 doing a turning dogfight to the left with a Spit, you have a lead on him in your sight, just about right! Well that was easy, I´m not even pulling as hard as I could, plenty left before stall. Hummm, lousy flying, he is actually loosing hight in the turn, what do they teach these guys in the RAF? In a tight turn how do you correct for that one? Well, you use bottom rudder, you ++++++++. You touch bottom rudder very gently with your feet...........all of a sudden the aircraft rolls sharply out of the turn, approaching wings level, with the Spit way out of the gun sight, and you are very alone. What happened was that as soon as you touched the bottom rudder, the left wing started to stall, the slat opened, and the sudden lift increase cought you out cold. The aircraft rolled to the right, and you lost that Spit. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh there's some people here that will be VERY upset to read you even hint that! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

What happens if you roll too fast? Go ahead, say it.

WWMaxGunz
01-28-2007, 12:47 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Great info, thanks that was ashamedly new to me, but now I got an explanation as to why 'stall speeds' reported vary so much, and also why the Finnish flight test of 109G reported the aircraft being controllable at extreme AoA slow-speed flight. The fact that stall is AoA related, and not speed related explains it all. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not to mention that that 130kph stall was a full power stall with propwash blowing over the
wings and tail, pedal dance to stay upright on that one. What I'm not sure on is if the
Finns corrected for air temperature and it is often pretty cool in Finland.

Those other stalls are generally 1G power off and either clean or dirty cofiguration.

WWMaxGunz
01-28-2007, 01:04 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by gkll:
Hey Max - my concept was simpler, for all its flaws the pipper shows you visually some kind of AOA, if they are broadly different, appreciably different, at high g 'sustained' turning, maybe you can just look at it? If it is close then this won't work of course. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

In level flight, no wind, a change in pitch would mean an equal change in AOA both wings.

Really there are some reads that I have not used from devicelink, I believe they are for
turns. Pitch is the nose relative to the horizon AFAIK so in a flat turn it won't change.
Knowing bank and speed gives me a geometric picture? Not without knowing my actual AOA!
To quote a whole LOT of highly trained pilots: Pitch Is Not (Necessarily) Path! The
difference is a bigger circle in the turning case.

The-Pizza-Man
01-28-2007, 05:46 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bellator_1:
Its Clmax figures, so its at the critical AoA.

Check out the NACA archive: http://naca.central.cranfield.ac.uk/ </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Specifically, the NACA archive is pretty big. The best data I've seen thusfar is the chart that Josf posted a couple of pages back. It clearly shows that Clmax varies with g's. So the idea that you can use one a Clmax and apply to any situation and produce a definitive result is highly questionable. Basically, I think anyone reading this arguments should have serious questions regarding the validity of the calculations you are doing. They appear to be done with a very incomplete knowledge of the subject. I don't think anyone should take them as "proof" of a 109 having a better turning ability, especially when 99% of the primary sources on the matter indicate otherwise.

JG14_Josf
01-28-2007, 07:14 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I don't think anyone should take them as "proof" of a 109 having a better turning ability, especially when 99% of the primary sources on the matter indicate otherwise. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


That has been my contention all along especially when considering the high speed turn performance that was ignored in history and is ignored by the current data passing through this forum.

Here is that very early CALCULATED EM chart from WWII history:

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit109turn.gif

Note:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Assumed values of CLMax at full throttle. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Note:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Corrected Airspeed </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Note how the early (or first) EM chart does not plot the Sustained Turn Performance Stall Line like the Korean War version EM plot:

http://mysite.verizon.net/res0l0yx/IL2Flugbuch/Corner%20time.jpg

The Spit/109 WWII EM chart plots:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">ANGLE OF STRAIGHT CLIMB </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Apparently the early EM theorists didn't get much of a following. Not until John Boyd did EM theory become standard military doctrine.

These are the turn performance values according to the corrected air speeds on the WWII EM chart:

---------Lift-loading---1gstall---SusTurn----------5 g stall--------6 g stall---Corner speed
Bf109E-----131--------70mph---130mph 2.7g-----210mph---------Blank-------Blank
Spit I------132--------80mph---130mph 2.1g-----180mph-------210mph------Blank

----------Level Sustained turn rate------------5 g turn radius
109E----------25 deg/s-------------------------------460 ft
SpitI----------19 deg/s-------------------------------590 ft

----------------5 g turn rate--------------------5g turn radius
109E-------------29 deg/s-------------------------600 ft
SpitI-------------34 deg/s-------------------------450 ft

According to that chart the Spitfire I was far and away the superior turn fighter in both sustained turn and high speed high g turn performance.

What is not known is the garbage in garbage out' factor.

What is assumed'?

What is corrected'?

Did the WWII EM chart utilize any flight test data?

Apparently there was air speeds recorded that had to be corrected'.

Did the British pilots turn with the 109E leading edge slats out or in?

Did the British pilots turn with the 109E flaps set down 10 degrees or with no flaps?

(Much is boasted concerning the Mustang flap use in turning performance and very little is said about Germans 190 or 109 flap usage in adding turn performance sustained or at high g)

Much is boasted on these boards concerning calculated SUSTAINED turn performance and no two people can agree on one definitive number, AND, those same people reject OUTRIGHT the pilot "anecdotes" even when WWII pilots are conducting side by side relative turn performance tests:

Like this:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">During formation take-off at full power up to 3,000 m (10,000 ft), the Thunderbolt dropped well behind the other aircraft. During the climb to 8-9,000 m (26-29,000 ft), it was still well behind the Fw 190. In turning flight at 4-6,000 m (13-20,000 ft) it was superior to the standard Bf 109, in a dive somewhat faster than the Bf 109. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That was from On Special Missions
The Luftwaffe's Research and Experimental Squadrons 1923-1945
Chapter 7
Allied aircraft A German Assessment

It was this:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">On 19 June 1944, a series of comparison test flights were carried out at Rechlin between a Bf 109 G-6, a G-6/AS, a Fw 190 A-8, a Thunderbolt and a Mustang with the later type bubble canopy. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

My point:

Sustained turn performance is less than half the turn performance envelope and in combat the high g, high speed, turn performance envelope is much of the other half. Corner speed is the maximum turn performance envelope.

The German assessment did not focus (with the very limited data in that book) on LEVEL SUSTAINED HORIZONTAL STALL TURN PERFORMANCE.

A P-47 will most certainly NOT out turn an ME-109 in a maximum performance steady state level turn where altitude is maintained as turn rate is maximized and turn radius is minimized. No calculation will ever come close to proving such a ridiculous claim.

Note from the German Assessment:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">At ground level and up to 2,000 m (6,500 ft), the Thunderbolt made an extremely sluggish and tired impression. Its speed was well below that of the German fighters. Water injection had not been used. (A further test is to be flown). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

There is no way that the P-47 can out-turn an Me 109 G-6 in a level sustained turn.

What about this:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> In turning flight at 4-6,000 m (13-20,000 ft) it was superior to the standard Bf 109, in a dive somewhat faster than the Bf 109. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What about this: (http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/2WWfocke190.htm)

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">(3) After the war the British fighter pilot Johnnie Johnson wrote about the merits of the Focke-Wulf 190.

The Focke-Wulf 190 was undoubtedly, the best German fighter. We were puzzled by the unfamiliar silhouette, for these new German fighters seemed to have squarer wingtips and more tapering fuselages than the Messerschmitts we usually encountered. We saw that the new aircraft had radial engines and a mixed armament of cannons and machine-guns, all firing from wing positions.

Whatever these strange fighters were, they gave us a hard time of it. They seemed to be faster in a zoom climb than the Me 109, and far more stable in a vertical dive. They also turned better. The first time we saw them we all had our work cut out to shake them off, and we lost several pilots.

Back at our fighter base and encouraged by our enthusiastic Intelligence Officers, we drew sketches and side views of this strange new aeroplane. We were all agreed that it was superior to the Me 109f and completely outclassed our Spitfire Vs. Our sketches disappeared into mysterious Intelligence channels and we heard no more of the matter,. But from then on, fighter pilots continually reported increasing numbers of these outstanding fighters over northern France.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">They seemed to be faster in a zoom climb than the Me 109, and far more stable in a vertical dive. They also turned better. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">They also turned better.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE> Jonnie Johnson

This:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> In turning flight at 4-6,000 m (13-20,000 ft) it was superior to the standard Bf 109, in a dive somewhat faster than the Bf 109. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> But coming out of a dive, there's not a British or a German fighter that can come close to a Thunderbolt rushing upward in a zoom. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> Robert S. Johnson

This:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">With both aircraft flying at high cruising speed and then pulling up into a climb, the superior climb of the Fw 190 is even more marked. When both aircraft are pulled into a climb from a dive the Fw 190 draws away very rapidly and the pilot of the Spitfire has no hope of catching it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> Official RAF Military Assessment

This:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Incredible aileron turns were possible that would have torn the wings from a Bf 109 and badly strained the arm muscles of any Spitfire pilot trying to follow. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

All that data pertains to HIGH SPEED DECELERATING INERTIA BURNING RELATIVE TURN PERFORMACE ADVATAGES.

The winners are:

F-86
P-47
Fw 190
High mass, high power, high wing loading, and very high inertia FIGHTER PLANES with HIGH SPEED TURN ADVANTAGES according to the pilots who tested relative high speed turn performance like this: (http://www.acepilots.com/planes/f86_sabre.html)

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">But we could outperform them with the F-86's slab tail, we could turn faster than they could, we could dive faster, and we could pull out quicker. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> Bud Mahurin

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Consequently it could out-climb us at any altitude and had more than double our rate of climb above 25,000 feet. It could outrun us at any altitude. So a MiG pilot had a lot to work with. But if you're an F-86 pilot you had a couple of things you could try with this gopher, and one of them is turn. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> Boots Blesse

This is slow speed level sustained turn performance:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> It could outrun us at any altitude. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is high speed turn performance:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">But we could outperform them with the F-86's slab tail, we could turn faster than they could, we could dive faster, and we could pull out quicker. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> Bud Mahurin

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">But if you're an F-86 pilot you had a couple of things you could try with this gopher, and one of them is turn. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> Boots Blesse

EM charts that plot turn performance at g load based upon actual flight tests such as the Wind up Turn and the Loaded Deceleration identify exactly which plane has the faster turn rate and the smaller turn radius at which g load and at which speed regardless of sustaining speed and or altitude.

Sustaining speed and or altitude favors the light planes with lower wing loading and higher power loading.

Generating g force in decelerating speed or dropping altitude turns, apparently, favors the high mass, low drag, high powered aircraft.

Wing size increases drag. Other factors such as parasite drag caused by canopy forward glass slope and radiator duct size, design, and shape also contribute to high speed decelerating turn performance more significantly than slow speed turn performance because drag multiplies square with velocity.

My point:

The turn performance calculations that focus on sustained slow speed level and horizontal turn performance are somewhat limiting to the purpose of understanding relative combat performance particularly due to unrecognized and un calculated variables, and, side by side relative performance test flights can offer definitive evidence that does accurately identify those performance variables. Look at Boyd's EM chart as a prime example.

The Mig-15 (light weight, low wing loading, and lower power) holds the sustained level horizontal turn performance advantage at 3 degrees per second.

The F-86 (high mass, high wing loading, high power) holds the lower corner speed advantage at 2 degrees per second.

The corner speed advantage is at least a 6 degree per second advantage favoring the F-86 in a maximum performance turn at corner speed (decelerating or losing altitude) over the Mig-15 as the turn fighter maximizes level turn performance.

The steeper that accelerated stall line, as can readily be seen, the greater will be the advantage in maximum turn performance.

What would the steepness of the accelerated stall line be for a Fokker Tri-plane?

How about an F-16?

What is the steepness of the F-16s accelerated stall line?

What is the rate of increase in turn performance as speed increases?

What, on topic, is the steepness of the 109E accelerated stall line compared to the Spitfire I stall line. Look at the EM chart. Is it accurate according to fight tests?

Think man!

The 109E to 109F aerodynamic L/D development was SIGNIFICANT.

The Spitfire I to Spitfire V aerodynamic L/D development was...ahhhhh...insignificant.

The Spitfire gained engine power and weight.

If the Spitfire gains turn performance, of any kind, from Spitfire I to Spitfire XIV, then, it was due to increases in engine power and the weight that goes with it.

Guess what happened to the Fw190?

More engine power per less weight increases i.e. higher power to weight.

What happens to high speed turn performance in the game as the Fw190 devolves from Fw190A-4 to Fw190A-8?

No one cares to know?

Xiolablu3
01-28-2007, 09:21 AM
Have we managed to disprove reality with 'sums' yet? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif


Before turning fights with the Bf 109 E type, it must be noted in every case, that all three foreign planes have significantly smaller turning circles and turning times.
An attack on the opponent as well as disengagement can only be accomplished on the basis of existing superiority in performance."
From : Kr.-Fernschr.Ob.d.L.,Fhr.Stab Ia Nr.8092/40 g.K. (II)
(only to Lfl.3)
Subject : Comparison flight between Bf 109 E, Bf 110 C, Spitfire, Hurricane and Curtiss.
(From Kurfursts' site)

JG14_Josf
01-28-2007, 09:28 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Have we managed to disprove reality with 'sums' yet? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

X3,

Nice winky smiley face. You are obviously confident with your opinion. Please share some of that confidence.

If you look at the WWII era EM chart you will find that it confirms your quoted data.

The question is: Did the test pilots or mathematicians account for the leading edge slats on the 109E?

If you can confidently answer that question with something more than opinion, then, please do.

Richardsen
01-28-2007, 04:40 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
With both aircraft flying at high cruising speed and then pulling up into a climb, the superior climb of the Fw 190 is even more marked. When both aircraft are pulled into a climb from a dive the Fw 190 draws away very rapidly and the pilot of the Spitfire has no hope of catching it.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is a mark V, take a ix and the situation is changed.

An LF IX has a much better climb rate than a same year FW190. LF V also outclimbs FW's at low altitude. Some of LF Vs where even better than the LF IX, same power but much lighter.

Bellator_1
01-28-2007, 04:56 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The slats on both wings are not interconnected, so one will open irrespective of what the other is doing. In the perfect world, you will be in a totally co-ordinated turn and both slats would open automatically together with no hassel at all, you would hardly notice it! However, in the heat of a combat, I do not think you give a sh*t about the elegant way of flying. You just do what you think you have to do, co-ordinated, slipping or skidding, what ever it takes. And that is where this system will let you down. Picture this. You are in a 109 doing a turning dogfight to the left with a Spit, you have a lead on him in your sight, just about right! Well that was easy, I´m not even pulling as hard as I could, plenty left before stall. Hummm, lousy flying, he is actually loosing hight in the turn, what do they teach these guys in the RAF? In a tight turn how do you correct for that one? Well, you use bottom rudder, you ++++++++. You touch bottom rudder very gently with your feet...........all of a sudden the aircraft rolls sharply out of the turn, approaching wings level, with the Spit way out of the gun sight, and you are very alone. What happened was that as soon as you touched the bottom rudder, the left wing started to stall, the slat opened, and the sudden lift increase cought you out cold. The aircraft rolled to the right, and you lost that Spit. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is completely untrue.

The slats are NOT supposed to deploy together, and if they did so the aircraft would flip over and spin. The LE slats work by means of air-pressure deploying gradually along with the decrease in upper surface pressure caused by the increase in AoA. The slats are totally independant and need to be so as-well, if they were to be dependant on each other one wing would suddenly produce more lift in a turn than the other and the a/c would spin - which is not a perfect scenario if you ask me.

They come out together when they have to and don't come out together when they shouldn't, simple as that, which is the brilliance of Handley Page automatic LE slat design - its almost impossible to ge into any meaningful spin with these babies, and if it happens its easily recovered.

Mark Hanna:
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.

IIJG69_Kartofe
01-28-2007, 05:05 PM
Question ....

How many tons of pocorn have been eaten since the beginning of this thread?

The best response swins a trip to 1C studios in russia http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/inlove.gif

Bellator_1
01-28-2007, 05:18 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by The-Pizza-Man:
Specifically, the NACA archive is pretty big. The best data I've seen thusfar is the chart that Josf posted a couple of pages back. It clearly shows that Clmax varies with g's. So the idea that you can use one a Clmax and apply to any situation and produce a definitive result is highly questionable. Basically, I think anyone reading this arguments should have serious questions regarding the validity of the calculations you are doing. They appear to be done with a very incomplete knowledge of the subject. I don't think anyone should take them as "proof" of a 109 having a better turning ability, especially when 99% of the primary sources on the matter indicate otherwise. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The-Pizza-Man, CLmax does not change with G-forces. CLmax is AoA dependant, and is only reached at the critical AoA.

My calculations are completely valid.

And as to the question regarding the Emil tested by the RAF test pilots; The slats were not out, the pilots were sure the a/c was about to stall when they deployed and emmidiately aborted the maneuver.

Tempest combat trials against 109G-6: "Turning Circle:
47. The Tempest is slightly better, the Me.109G being embarrassed by its slots opening near the stall."

The same mistake was made by many young LW pilots...

The-Pizza-Man
01-28-2007, 05:40 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bellator_1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by The-Pizza-Man:
Specifically, the NACA archive is pretty big. The best data I've seen thusfar is the chart that Josf posted a couple of pages back. It clearly shows that Clmax varies with g's. So the idea that you can use one a Clmax and apply to any situation and produce a definitive result is highly questionable. Basically, I think anyone reading this arguments should have serious questions regarding the validity of the calculations you are doing. They appear to be done with a very incomplete knowledge of the subject. I don't think anyone should take them as "proof" of a 109 having a better turning ability, especially when 99% of the primary sources on the matter indicate otherwise. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The-Pizza-Man, CLmax does not change with G-forces. CLmax is AoA dependant, and is only reached at the critical AoA.

My calculations are completely valid.

And as to the question regarding the Emil tested by the RAF test pilots; The slats were not out, the pilots were sure the a/c was about to stall when they deployed and emmidiately aborted the maneuver.

Tempest combat trials against 109G-6: "Turning Circle:
47. The Tempest is slightly better, the Me.109G being embarrassed by its slots opening near the stall."

The same mistake was made by many young LW pilots... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Can you read, see the part where it has values for Clmax and normal acceleration. This chart has been posted 3 times now.

Are you going to be more specific about where you got your Clmax numbers?
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit109turn.gif

Bellator_1
01-28-2007, 07:29 PM
I can read and I can understand, you can so far only achieve the first.

CLmax does NOT change with G-forces.

What the chart above shows is just how propeller thrust affects CLmax - at low speeds thrust is high, producing a high CLmax, as the speed increases the efficiency of the propeller and thrust decreases therefore resulting in a lower CLmax.

This is something you ought to know beforehand if you want to engage in a serious discussion on the current subject.

WWMaxGunz
01-28-2007, 07:53 PM
From those charts it is clear that some Brits did believe that the 109E had quite a bit
higher turn rate at corner. The Spit corner runs to 35 deg/sec and the 109E corner goes
off the 35 d/s top, possibly 40 d/s.

It looks to me like the assumed Clmax's were derived from data, when you take data and try
to derive elements from it, well those guys knew they worked from theories. Look at the
stall line curves that don't go up as smooth polynomial curves, I take that as a sign that
some RL data was collected and the rest was based on that... you mileage may differ.

The difference between corner turning and sustained flat turning is again and again part of
this 'turns better' argument that really needs to be specified each time what kind of turn
is being kicked around. In sustained flat turns you have to deal with Clmax, speed, drag,
power and weight and somehow I don't see that a single Cd0 + Cdi sum begins to say it all.
I don't even want to think about what kind of integration should be required but then the
software to do that must make it easier. In the same way, computers have helped us come up
with wrong answers ever quicker than before which is why I prefer the longhand method where
the person doing it is more cognizant of what they do and how they do it.

JG14_Josf
01-28-2007, 11:02 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Can you read, see the part where it has values for Clmax and normal acceleration. This chart has been posted 3 times now.

Are you going to be more specific about where you got your Clmax numbers? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

To Whom It May Concern:

Another way to look at the AOA, CLmax, G-load, lift-load, turn radius, turn rate, and the turning speed relationship is:

An airplane wing can lift 100 kg weight at speed x

Weight that can be lifted------------------------speed needed to lift that weight at max AOA
100 kg---------------------------------------------------------------------------- x km/h
200 kg--------------------------------------------------------------------------x (y) km/h
300 kg------------------------------------------------------------------even more speed
Aircraft weight 1000 kg-------------------------------------------------1 x kg stall speed
Double Aircraft weight--------------------------------------------------2 x kg stall speed
Triple Aircraft weight---------------------------------------------------3 x kg stall speed
4 x AC kg-----------------------------------------------------------------4 x kg stall speed
5 x AC kg------------------------------------------------------------------5 x kg stall speed
6 x AC kg---------pilot black out in game-----------------------------6 x kg stall speed
7 x AC kg----can't pull more g because pilot blacks out------------7 x kg stall speed
8 x AC kg-----can't pull more g because stick force is too great---8 x kg stall speed
9 x AC kg------plane can deform in asymmetrical turn-------------9 x kg stall speed
10 x AC kg----plane can break up in aileron turn see above--------10 x kg stall speed
11000 kg--------------------------------------------------------------------11 x kg stall speed
12000 kg -------------------------------------------------------------------12 x kg stall speed
13000 kg-------------------------------------------------------------------13 x kg stall speed
14000 kg -----wing permanent deformation---------------------------14 x kg stall speed
15000 kg---wing deforms a lot------------------------------------------15 x kg stall speed
16000 kg----wing separates from plane--------------------------------16 x kg stall speed

The problem is in thinking that lift force measurable as weight is equal to acceleration measurable as g.

Gravity force is a constant acceleration. Lift is not. If the relative wind speed is not sufficient, then, the weight cannot be lifted up against gravity. CLmax occurs at the max AOA required to lift the most weight at a given speed. Any speed lower or any AOA lower (at the required speed) is not enough lift force to lift that much weight. Any AOA higher at that speed and the wing stalls and cannot lift that much weight up against gravitational acceleration. Faster speed, same AOA, more lift force measurable as weight.

The following only works when lifting straight up or when reading a g meter in the cockpit when the aircraft weight is constant and the aircraft is lifting straight up against gravity:

Weight that can be lifted------------------------------speed needed to lift that weight
100 kg---------------------------------------------------------------------------- x km/h
200 kg--------------------------------------------------------------------------x (y) km/h
300 kg------------------------------------------------------------------even more speed
Aircraft weight 1000 kg-------------------------------------------------1 g stall speed
Double Aircraft weight--------------------------------------------------2 g stall speed
Triple Aircraft weight----------------------------------------------------3 g stall speed
4 x AC kg------------------------------------------------------------------4 g stall speed
5 x AC kg------------------------------------------------------------------5 g stall speed
6 x AC kg---------pilot black out in game-----------------------------6 g stall speed
7 x AC kg----can't pull more g because pilot blacks out------------7 g stall speed
8 x AC kg-----can't pull more g because stick force is too great---8 g stall speed
9 x AC kg------plane can deform in asymmetrical turn-------------9 g stall speed
10 x AC kg----plane can break up in aileron turn see above--------10 g stall speed
11000 kg--------------------------------------------------------------------11 g stall speed
12000 kg -------------------------------------------------------------------12 g stall speed
13000 kg-------------------------------------------------------------------13 g stall speed
14000 kg -----wing permanent deformation---------------------------14 g stall speed
15000 kg---wing deforms a lot------------------------------------------15 g stall speed
16000 kg----wing separates from plane--------------------------------16 g stall speed

The speed required to accelerate (g is a measurement of acceleration) going up is not the same speed required to accelerate going down.

Does a g meter measure weight or acceleration?

Weight is a measurement of lift force and g is a measurement of acceleration. They are not the same. I think a g meter measures an internal weight being accelerated. For Hang Gliders a device called a Vario measured changes in air density.

If the plane is flying inverted, then, the wing still generates the lift force measurable as weight at the same air speed and at the same maximum AOA. The plane lifts' the weight in the same direction as gravity when going down. The speed required to lift the weight stays the same going up down or sideways. The speed required to accelerate the same (g) changes.

Going up (zoom climb) the acceleration of gravity adds to the g (weight) load and therefore turn rate is lower and turn radius is larger. Going up the stall speed is x. Going down the stall speed is still x. What changes is the rate of acceleration on the lift vector. Going up the rate of acceleration is lower at that stall speed (amount of lift force for that speed). Going down the rate of acceleration on the lift vector is higher at that stall speed (Lift force for that air speed). Going slower won't generate enough lift force to move the plane weight. Going down under the 1 g stall speed won't generate enough lift to move the plane weight gravity provides 1 g of acceleration. Going up gravity subtracts 1 g of acceleration. The wing cannot generate the lift force required to lift the weight of the plane against gravity below the 1 g stall speed. Gravity accelerates the plane going down at a rate of 1 g at the speed where the plane can generate enough lift to lift the plane, so, going down the plane can turn a 2 g turn if the plane is going fast enough to generate the aircraft weight amount of lift force.

Going down (split S and dive) the acceleration of gravity subtracts from the g load requirement and therefore the turn rate is higher and the turn radius is smaller at a given air speed and a given amount of lift force production. Same speed, same g load on a g meter, increased turn rate and decreased turn radius going down.
Going up the plane accelerates 1 g on the g meter (same a going down) at the same speed; however the turn rate is nil and the turn radius is infinite same g on the g meter (1g), no acceleration on the lift vector, same aircraft speed same amount of lift force generated by the wing, same AOA of the wing, same CLmax, same plane, same wing, same amount of air mass contacting the wing at the same velocity not the same volume of air mass not in the same elapsed time due to more ground covered going up and less ground covered going down. Same plane with 1 g on the g meter in level flight is 1 g on the g meter in a Spit S with a turn rate and a turn radius.

The wing generates the same lift force, measurable as weight, going up, down, or sideways at the same Max AOA and the same air speed during a given time at that speed over a given distance at that speed.

Like this:

Weight that can be lifted------------------------------speed needed to lift that weight
100 kg---------------------------------------------------------------------------- x km/h
200 kg--------------------------------------------------------------------------x (y) km/h
300 kg------------------------------------------------------------------even more speed
Aircraft weight 1000 kg-------------------------------------------------1 x kg stall speed
Double Aircraft weight--------------------------------------------------2 x kg stall speed
Triple Aircraft weight---------------------------------------------------3 x kg stall speed
4 x AC kg-----------------------------------------------------------------4 x kg stall speed
5 x AC kg------------------------------------------------------------------5 x kg stall speed
6 x AC kg---------pilot black out in game-----------------------------6 x kg stall speed
7 x AC kg----can't pull more g because pilot blacks out------------7 x kg stall speed
8 x AC kg-----can't pull more g because stick force is too great---8 x kg stall speed
9 x AC kg------plane can deform in asymmetrical turn-------------9 x kg stall speed
10 x AC kg----plane can break up in aileron turn see above--------10 x kg stall speed
11000 kg--------------------------------------------------------------------11 x kg stall speed
12000 kg -------------------------------------------------------------------12 x kg stall speed
13000 kg-------------------------------------------------------------------13 x kg stall speed
14000 kg -----wing permanent deformation---------------------------14 x kg stall speed
15000 kg---wing deforms a lot------------------------------------------15 x kg stall speed
16000 kg----wing separates from plane--------------------------------16 x kg stall speed

If aircraft weight doubles (loaded with huge amounts of internal stores) then the speeds at which the wing generates a given weight remains the same while the speed at which the wing can accelerated the plane changes.

Combat weight:
Weight that can be lifted------------------------------speed needed to lift that weight
100 kg---------------------------------------------------------------------------- x km/h
200 kg--------------------------------------------------------------------------x (y) km/h
300 kg------------------------------------------------------------------even more speed
Aircraft weight 1000 kg-------------------------------------------1000 kg stall speed

Double combat weight:
Weight that can be lifted------------------------------speed needed to lift that weight
100 kg---------------------------------------------------------------------------- x km/h
200 kg--------------------------------------------------------------------------x (y) km/h
300 kg------------------------------------------------------------------even more speed
1000 kg-----------no longer enough to overcome gravity------1000 kg stall speed
Aircraft weight 2000 kg-------------------------------------------2000 kg stall speed

If the g meter reads 6 g and the aircraft speed is 400 km/h, then, the turn rate will always be 30 degrees per second and the turn radius will always be the same approximately 210 meters radius - easy to see on an EM Chart.

The 6 g (rate of acceleration on the lift vector) stall speed will change when weight is doubled. The production of lift force measured as weight will not change.

The aircraft structural limit will remain the same speed because the wing will separate at the speed and AOA when the wing generates excessive lift force measurable as weight NOT measurable as acceleration on the lift vector.

This:

Combat weight:
16000 kg----wing separates from plane--------------------------------16 g stall speed

Combat weight doubled:
16,000 kg-----------wing separates from plane-----------------------8 g stall speed

If that Va speed for that wing is 400 km/h, then, the wing comes off at 400 km/h.

The wing comes off at 400 km/h when the plane weight is doubled.

The wing comes off at 400 km/h when the plane is at combat weight.

The wing comes off at 400 km/h when the combat weight is cut in half.

The doubled combat weight plane has to go 400 km/h to get the plane to accelerate 8 g on the lift vector which is 16,000 kg of lift force measured as weight.

The combat weight plane has to go 400 km/h to get the plane to accelerate 16 g on the lift vector which is the speed required to generate 16,000 kg of lift force measured as weight.

Va is the same speed plot on the EM diagram for the combat weight plane and the double combat weight plane.

Va moves down the speed plot line to a lower g line when weight increases on the EM diagram.

Both planes are at Max AOA. Both planes are generating 16,000 kg.

The light plane accelerates 16 times the acceleration of gravity on the g meter up down or sideways as the light plane generates 16,000 kg of lift force at 400 km/h at max AOA.

The heavy plane accelerates 8 times the acceleration of gravity on the g meter up down or sideways as the heavy plane generates 16,000 kg of lift force at 400 km/h at max AOA.

The heavy plane cannot accelerate on the lift vector any faster than 8 g or it will stall because 16,000 kg of lift force is the limit at that aircraft weight, that AOA, and that aircraft speed.

The light plane cannot accelerate on the lift vector any faster than 16 g or it will stall because 16,000 kg of lift force is the limit at that aircraft weight, that AOA, and that aircraft speed.

Both planes cannot turn at max AOA and at a faster speed because the plane will break up. Both planes are structurally limited at the 400 km/h Va.

Va for the double combat weight plane 400 km/h 8 g on an EM chart is:

40 deg per second and 160 meter radius

This:

Double combat weight plane
400 km/h air speed
8 g
160 meter radius
40 degrees per second
16,000 kg lift force
Max AOA
Just above stall
Just below structural limit

Combat weight plane is off the EM chart
400 km/h air speed
16 g
Approximately100 meters radius
Over 50 degrees per second
16,000 kg lift force
Max AOA
Just above stall
Just below structural limit

Half combat weight
400 km/h air speed
32 g?
Way off the chart less than 50 meters radius
100 degrees per second
16,000 kg lift force
Max AOA
Just above stall
Just below structural limit

Quadruple the Combat weight:
400 km/h air speed
4 g
Approximately310 meters radius
19 degrees per second
16,000 kg lift force
Max AOA
Just above stall
Just below structural limit

Easy to see on an EM chart

JG14_Josf
01-28-2007, 11:17 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">From those charts it is clear that some Brits did believe that the 109E had quite a bit
higher turn rate at corner. The Spit corner runs to 35 deg/sec and the 109E corner goes
off the 35 d/s top, possibly 40 d/s. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Max,

The left side of the chart is not turn rate.

That chart reports a lower 5 g corner speed for the Spitfire I like this:

---------Lift-loading---1gstall---SusTurn----------5 g stall--------6 g stall---Corner speed
Bf109E-----131--------70mph---130mph 2.7g-----210mph---------Blank-------Blank
Spit I------132--------80mph---130mph 2.1g-----180mph-------210mph------Blank

----------Level Sustained turn rate------------5 g turn radius
109E----------25 deg/s-------------------------------590 ft
SpitI----------19 deg/s-------------------------------460 ft

----------------5 g turn rate--------------------5g turn radius
109E-------------29 deg/s-------------------------600 ft
SpitI-------------34 deg/s-------------------------450 ft

The-Pizza-Man
01-29-2007, 12:57 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bellator_1:
I can read and I can understand, you can so far only achieve the first.

CLmax does NOT change with G-forces.

What the chart above shows is just how propeller thrust affects CLmax - at low speeds thrust is high, producing a high CLmax, as the speed increases the efficiency of the propeller and thrust decreases therefore resulting in a lower CLmax.

This is something you ought to know beforehand if you want to engage in a serious discussion on the current subject. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The chart is clearly relating Clmax to normal acceleration, not velocity. You'll also note that the Clmax in the NACA report on flying quality of the Spitfire explicitly states Clmax for an acclerated condition. Apparently, there is a relation between Clmax and normal acceleration. What the precise cause of it is I don't know, as in simplified theory it should be constant through 99% of the flight envelope. But that is of course simplified isn't it.

Where is the source for your Clmax?

WWMaxGunz
01-29-2007, 01:42 AM
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit109turn.gif

http://mysite.verizon.net/res0l0yx/IL2Flugbuch/Corner%20time.jpg

SimHQ article explaining Energy Management (http://www.simhq.com/_air/air_011a.html)



If you don't understand something then I guess it's play word games with the labels time again!

Yes, the left edge of E-M charts is rate of turn in deg/sec.
If it wasn't then neither the G-force curves nor the turn radius curves be as they are with
respect to the scale used on the axes. Same-same except for scale between the Brit chart,
the F-86 and MiG-15 chart and the SimHQ chart.

Here's another one for you Josf. Double the load does not double the stall speed.
Lift increases at any AOA by the square of the speed, not in linear fashion.
If 1g stall is 80 mph and 5g stall is 180 mph then you may note that 180 is not 5 x 80.
Sqrt of 5 times 80 is 178.8854.... Sqrt of 6 times 80 is 195.959....
You look at the numbers and words, you copy and slide them around but the meanings evade you.
By the time you are done, the relations to reality are broken in many places and false in
those you manufactured yourself. How much of that becomes part of your own charts?

redarrows2006
01-29-2007, 04:57 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Richardsen:
Talked to a Norwegian pilot Rolf Meum who flies warbirds in England.
I asked abaut 109 vs Spit and he said defenatly spitfire, especially in sustaind turn spit had a marked advantage. Then i asked abaut the slats on the 109. They helped, but only in initial stages and speed drops rapidly. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I saw a TV-program on the discowery channal, that the spitfire was very mutch esyer to fly than the me 109. But it is down to the pilot i think. And i think also consider that the me109 pilot got that advantage they have been in combat earlier in civial war in spain, before they studd upp against the hurry and the spitz, in BOB. And also in the game i think the me109 is superior when it come down to ariment/weapon than the spitfire. Was it so in real life dogfighing i wonder http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif??????? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_redface.gif

JG14_Josf
01-29-2007, 09:07 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">If you don't understand something then I guess it's play word games with the labels time again! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Max,

No word games (unless your Straw-Man is real in your mind).

The WWII era Spitfire I vs Bf 109E turn performance chart does not have turn rate numbers running up the left side of the chart.

If it does, then, prove it.

What the chart says on the left side of the chart is this:

DIFFERENCE
BETWEEN
ANGLE OF
CLIMB IN
STRAING
FLIGHT AN
ANGLE OF
CLIMB IN A
TURN AT
THE SAME
SPEED

If you find the 5 g line and trace that line to the STALL BOUNDARY line on both charts you get this:

-------------trace down to corrected airspeed
Spitfire -------------180 m.p.h.
109------------------210 m.p.h.

If you find the same 5 g line and trace that line to the STALL BOUNDARY line and then trace horizontally to the numbers on the left side of the chart you get:

---------------------numbers on the left side of the chart
Spitfire----------------------28
109--------------------------33

The higher speed 5 g corner cannot have the greater turn rate.

If you cannot see this fact, then, you are ignorant.

If you have made a mistake concerning the facts, then, why blame me for your mistake?

Max wrote:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Yes, the left edge of E-M charts is rate of turn in deg/sec.
If it wasn't then neither the G-force curves nor the turn radius curves be as they are with
respect to the scale used on the axes. Same-same except for scale between the Brit chart,
the F-86 and MiG-15 chart and the SimHQ chart. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The left edge of the Korean War era EM chart made by John Boyd with Chuck Yeager piloting the F-86 and the captured Mig-15 is turn rate in deg/sec.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> If it wasn't then neither the G-force curves nor the turn radius curves be as they are with respect to the scale used on the axes. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The WWII era Spitfire Chart IS NOT, not "IF", but IS NOT measuring deg/sec.

If it IS in your world, then, you have manufactured a fantasy world. Please leave me out of it.

You can go on believing that the WWII era chart CHARTS deg/sec. I hope your buddies continue to do so too. They can follow in your fantasy game.

High five for Max's fantasy world!

This is the actual turn rate for the WWII era plots on the 5 g stall and the STALL BOUNDARY LAYER.

-------------------------Turn rate in deg/s---------------Turn radius in feet
Spitfire I-------------------34----------------------------------460 ft (approximately)
Bf109E (no slats)---------29----------------------------------600 ft

Try to find an accurate measure of Turn radius on the WWII era chart.

Here is some blank EM paper:

E-M Graph Paper (http://evoisard.freeshell.org/doghouse/index.html)

AGAIN:

The British WWII era Turn Performance Chart reports a better sustained level horizontal turn for the Spitfire over the 109E, AND, a lower corner speed at 5g.

A lower corner speed will be a faster turn rate and a smaller turn radius.

Like this:

-------------------------Turn rate in deg/s---------------Turn radius in feet
Spitfire I-------------------34----------------------------------460 ft (approximately)
Bf109E (no slats)---------29----------------------------------600 ft

Blutarski2004
01-29-2007, 09:52 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bellator_1:
I can read and I can understand, you can so far only achieve the first.

CLmax does NOT change with G-forces.

What the chart above shows is just how propeller thrust affects CLmax - at low speeds thrust is high, producing a high CLmax, as the speed increases the efficiency of the propeller and thrust decreases therefore resulting in a lower CLmax.

This is something you ought to know beforehand if you want to engage in a serious discussion on the current subject. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... As I understand it, the term "Cl/max" is defined as the point upon the "lift co-efficient" versus "angle of attack" graphical curve where the lift co-efficient (lift pressure divided by dynamic pressure) of the airfoil in question is at its maximum value. As angle of attack increases or decreases, the lift co-efficient value will tend to decrease.

The Spitfire/ME109 chart in question states as follows:

Quote -

ME-109
W = 5600 lbs
BHP = 1200 at 2400 rpm at 12,000 ft
w = 32.2 lbs per sq ft

ASSUMED VALUES OF Cl/max AT FULL THROTTLE

NORMAL
ACCEL-----Cl/max
1.0g------1.95
1.5g------1.70
2.0g------1.60
2.5g------1.52
3.0g------1.49
4.0g------1.47
5.0g------1.45
6.0g------1.44

- Unquote

I believe that the Pizza-man is arguing that the value of Cl/max &gt;&gt;as a measure of lifting efficiency&lt;&lt; will vary under different degrees of G-load. The following comes from "Aerodynamics for Naval Aviators". I have assumed standard SL air density of 1.0 so that the issue of air density ratios can be discarded from the formulae.

Values are defined as follows and are assumed to be English weights and measure -

L = Lift
Cl = Co-efficient of Lift
Cl/max = maximum co-efficient of lift (assume 1.5)
q = Dynamic Pressure (1/2.Vsq)
V = True Air Speed
V(min) = Minimum speed for assumed conditions of flight (stall speed)
W = Weight (assume 14,250 lbs)
S = Wing Area (assume 280 sq ft)


- - - - - - - - -

Find the minimum level flight speed for assumed flight conditions. To do so, we must by definition employ Cl/max.

- - - - - - - - -

L = Cl x q x S = Cl x [Vsq/295] x S

therefore

V = 17.2 x sqrt[L/Cl x S]

therefore

V(min) = 100

BUT ..........

The Cl/max value described for any given airfoil assumes a 1.0g condition. If the G-load is increased, the apparent weight of the a/c is increased accordingly and the minimum level flight speed must be increased to counteract this greater weight.

If -

Cl/max = L / [V(min)sq/295] x S

- it is clear that any increase in the minimum speed for level flight (stall speed) under a higher G-load must cause a reduction in the value of Cl/max, meaning that Cl/max values will in fact change under different G-load conditions.

I believe that this is what the inset charts on the Spitfire/ME-109 graphs are describing.

Blutarski2004
01-29-2007, 10:06 AM
With respect to these Spitfire/ME109 performance comparison charts, they DO indicate that the Spitfire can outturn the Me109.

The Spitfire graph indicates the ability to pull 2.5g's between +/- 160 and 280 mph without losing altitude. The ME109 graph indicates that it is unable to do so. And slats will not redress the situation.

On the other hand, keep in mind that these graph results are relevant only for the given altitude of 12,000 ft and the stipulated power values. Things might be different at other altitudes.

JG14_Josf
01-29-2007, 10:09 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">..... As I understand it, the term "Cl/max" is defined as the point upon the "lift co-efficient" versus "angle of attack" graphical curve where the lift co-efficient (lift pressure divided by dynamic pressure) of the airfoil in question is at its maximum value. As angle of attack increases or decreases, the lift co-efficient value will tend to decrease. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Some clarification please,


This:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">where the lift co-efficient (lift pressure divided by dynamic pressure) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Then this:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">- it is clear that any increase in the minimum speed for level flight (stall speed) under a higher G-load must cause a reduction in the value of Cl/max.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

With the addition of greater mass, that will be forced or moved on the lift vector, there is a change in the lift pressure divided by the dynamic pressure ratio?

Meaning?

The amount of air mass measured in pressure that does move the mass on the lift vector decreases and the amount of air mass measured in pressure that does not move the mass on the lift vector increases?

Like L/D?

Where increases in plane mass increases D and decreases L?

If so, then, why does a glider L/D stay the same L/D as aircraft weight increases?

On the glider the only change is stall speed L/D stays the same unless the wing distorts under weight due to increases in mass.

Please clarify if possible.

The formula may indicate something. I'm just wondering what actually happens on the plane.

JG14_Josf
01-29-2007, 10:15 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">With respect to these Spitfire/ME109 performance comparison charts, they DO indicate that the Spitfire can outturn the Me109. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

More needed clarification,

With respect to these Spitfire/ME109 performance comparison charts, they DO indicate that the Spitfire can outturn the Me109 in a 5g turn and do so with a much greater turn rate and a much smaller turn radius.

As to the actual performance advantages associated with the slats...if the slats were not open when the tests were made, then, that data was not recorded.

Hey...it seems important enough to clarify.

Blutarski2004
01-29-2007, 11:56 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">..... As I understand it, the term "Cl/max" is defined as the point upon the "lift co-efficient" versus "angle of attack" graphical curve where the lift co-efficient (lift pressure divided by dynamic pressure) of the airfoil in question is at its maximum value. As angle of attack increases or decreases, the lift co-efficient value will tend to decrease. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Some clarification please,


This:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">where the lift co-efficient (lift pressure divided by dynamic pressure) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Then this:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">- it is clear that any increase in the minimum speed for level flight (stall speed) under a higher G-load must cause a reduction in the value of Cl/max.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

With the addition of greater mass, that will be forced or moved on the lift vector, there is a change in the lift pressure divided by the dynamic pressure ratio?

Meaning?

The amount of air mass measured in pressure that does move the mass on the lift vector decreases and the amount of air mass measured in pressure that does not move the mass on the lift vector increases?

Like L/D?

Where increases in plane mass increases D and decreases L?

If so, then, why does a glider L/D stay the same L/D as aircraft weight increases?

On the glider the only change is stall speed L/D stays the same unless the wing distorts under weight due to increases in mass.

Please clarify if possible.

The formula may indicate something. I'm just wondering what actually happens on the plane. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... Josf, I took the lift equation and solved it for Cl. The minimum possible level flight speed MUST utilize the Cl/max value. If any lesser Cl value is used, then the speed must be greater in order to maintain sufficient lift.

Therefore Cl/max can be expressed by the formula -

Cl/max = L / [V(min)sq/295] x S

As V increases, it diminishes the value of the righthand side of the equation.

At least I THINK I correctly solved the equation for Cl. Perhaps you can double-check.

I don't believe that L/D ratio actually enters into this particular question.

JG14_Josf
01-29-2007, 12:00 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">This is a mark V, take a ix and the situation is changed.

An LF IX has a much better climb rate than a same year FW190. LF V also outclimbs FW's at low altitude. Some of LF Vs where even better than the LF IX, same power but much lighter. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

To be clearer,

Take a June 1942 Spitfire Mark IX and fly side by side against as June Fw190A-3 (de-rated, engine running rough on the wrong gas and fouled spark plugs) and what happens?

This report records what happens (because the test was actually done):

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">When both aircraft were flying at a high cruising speed and were pulled up into a climb from level flight, the Fw 190 had a slight advantage in the initial stages of the climb due to its better acceleration. This superiority was slightly increased when both aircraft were pulled up into the climb from the dive. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Note: "pulled up into the climb" and "Superiority".

That is a description of high speed decelerating turn performance from a dive pulling up into the climb' and the Fw190A-3 gains more angles in less time, a slight advantage in the initial stages', at slower speed, and superiority was slightly increased' at higher speeds i.e. increased turn rate advantage as speed increases.

That is an Fw190A-3 running at 1.35 ata (de-rated, running rough, wrong gas, fouled spark plugs this is all recorded in the British Assessment) against the Spitfire IX, Merlin 61 (capable of 3,000 r.p.m. and 15 lb boost probably not running at that power setting for the dive/zoom tests).

The relative high speed turn performance figures, recorded in history, are recorded in history if you look and if you want to see them. If not, then, you probably won't see them.

Like the 109E vs. Spitfire I WWII record on the 5 g corner velocity.

The British assessment records, apparently, a much higher 5 g turn rate for the Spitfire I and a much smaller turn radius at 5 g for the Spitfire I compared to the 109E while turning without the leading edge slats out.

The F-86 also had leading edge slats and the Mig-15 did not.

The F-86 held at 2 degree per second 7 g turn advantage, or more, over the Mig-15.
The F-86, with the leading edge slats, turned a smaller maximum turn radius than the Mig-15 without the leading edge slats according to actual war time flight tests.

Perhaps Chuck Yeager was also reluctant to fly the F-86 with the leading edge slats deployed?

Blutarski2004
01-29-2007, 12:05 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">With respect to these Spitfire/ME109 performance comparison charts, they DO indicate that the Spitfire can outturn the Me109. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

More needed clarification,

As to the actual performance advantages associated with the slats...if the slats were not open when the tests were made, then, that data was not recorded.

Hey...it seems important enough to clarify. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... Examine the "angle of straight climb" curve, also described as the "basic performance curve", of the Spitfire. Between the speeds of 160 and 280 mph approx, It contains a portion of the 2.5g maneuver envelope. The same "basic performance curve" on the ME109 chart does not contain a 2.5g maneuver condition.

Slats benefit an a/c in a near stall condition. I do not think that slat can make up for a 0.5g energy/maneuver advantage.

But, maybe I'm wrong .....

JG14_Josf
01-29-2007, 12:10 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I don't believe that L/D ratio actually enters into this particular question. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Blutarski2004,

Thanks for the response.

My question concerned what actually happens in physical reality and not how the formula calculates. In other words my question concerns what the formula calculates and not how the formula calculates.

You did write this:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">..... As I understand it, the term "Cl/max" is defined as the point upon the "lift co-efficient" versus "angle of attack" graphical curve where the lift co-efficient (lift pressure divided by dynamic pressure) of the airfoil in question is at its maximum value. As angle of attack increases or decreases, the lift co-efficient value will tend to decrease. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I saw this:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> the lift co-efficient (lift pressure divided by dynamic pressure) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Now I read this:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I don't believe that L/D ratio actually enters into this particular question. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What is "lift pressure"?

What is "dynamic pressure"?

Is the lift co-efficient this:

Lift Pressure/Dynamic pressure

If it isn't, then, it isn't.

I'm just asking for clarity.

Richardsen
01-29-2007, 12:31 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">This is a mark V, take a ix and the situation is changed.

An LF IX has a much better climb rate than a same year FW190. LF V also outclimbs FW's at low altitude. Some of LF Vs where even better than the LF IX, same power but much lighter. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

To be clearer,

Take a June 1942 Spitfire Mark IX and fly side by side against as June Fw190A-3 (de-rated, engine running rough on the wrong gas and fouled spark plugs) and what happens?

This report records what happens (because the test was actually done):

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">When both aircraft were flying at a high cruising speed and were pulled up into a climb from level flight, the Fw 190 had a slight advantage in the initial stages of the climb due to its better acceleration. This superiority was slightly increased when both aircraft were pulled up into the climb from the dive. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Note: "pulled up into the climb" and "Superiority".

That is a description of high speed decelerating turn performance from a dive pulling up into the climb' and the Fw190A-3 gains more angles in less time, a slight advantage in the initial stages', at slower speed, and superiority was slightly increased' at higher speeds i.e. increased turn rate advantage as speed increases.

That is an Fw190A-3 running at 1.35 ata (de-rated, running rough, wrong gas, fouled spark plugs this is all recorded in the British Assessment) against the Spitfire IX, Merlin 61 (capable of 3,000 r.p.m. and 15 lb boost probably not running at that power setting for the dive/zoom tests).
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Same year FW190 CANT'T outclimb a Spit.
Both Spit and ME109 easily outclimbs A FW190.

HuninMunin
01-29-2007, 12:35 PM
Shure it does.....

JG14_Josf
01-29-2007, 12:51 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">..... Examine the "angle of straight climb" curve, also described as the "basic performance curve", of the Spitfire. Between the speeds of 160 and 280 mph approx, It contains a portion of the 2.5g maneuver envelope. The same "basic performance curve" on the ME109 chart does not contain a 2.5g maneuver condition.

Slats benefit an a/c in a near stall condition. I do not think that slat can make up for a 0.5g energy/maneuver advantage.

But, maybe I'm wrong ..... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Blutarski2004,

Thanks again.

The observation you describe appears to be another definite performance advantage recorded on that chart where the AOA is shallow and the Spitfire wing is capable of accelerating the Spitfire mass to higher rates of acceleration compared to the 109 at the same speed.

It might help, in my opinion, to identify exactly how that performance curve was plotted. I mean; what kind of flight test was performed and how were the data plots recorded or calculated?

For example: How did they arrive at the 200 m.p.h. (true air speed) 10 degree plot for the Me 109?

That plot corresponds with 160 m.p.h. (corrected airspeed) 2.35 g, and 1280 ft radius.

Turn rate at that plot can be calculated or found on a modern E-M chart.

How was that plot found?

Was it calculated or was it arrived at by connecting other data plots?

How were any of those data plots recorded?

Boyd's EM chart, as far as I have found, were made based upon flight tests that may or may not be the same flight tests described at the Navair site such as the Wind up Turn and Loaded Decelerations.

Apparently the accurate finding of data plots has improved since WWII.

Apparently the accurate finding of relative performance in WWII involved flight tests where one plane was flown right next to another plane and the pilots dove them side by side and turned them from the dive to the climb side by side looking out the cockpit to see which plane gained or lost ground.
The old way wasn't good enough for designing new aircraft (or flight simulators) however the new way (Boyd's EM theory) apparently works for making planes like the F-16 and the F-18 and a computer design program (simulating performance) to aid in that designing project.

Even Boyd had his doubts about his E-M Theory:

Boyd (http://www.d-n-i.net/second_level/boyd_military.htm)

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Here is where Boyd concluded that there was something missing in his own energy-maneuverability concept and ended with the observation that "He who can handle the quickest rate of change survives." This proved to be the observation that led Boyd from air-to-air combat towards a more general theory of competition. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">ORIGNINAL PURPOSE
Reduce Ambiguity Associated with Relative Importance of Turn Radius, Turn Rate, and/or G in Air Combat Maneuvering.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Maneuverability Definition
Ability to change altitude, airspeed and direction in any combination.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">SUSPICION
Current Generalization (Warp I) does not seem to be in complete harmony with EM, Simulation, and Real (Mock) World Evidence.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

From:
New Conception
For
Air-to-Air Combat
4 Aug 76

P.S. You don't have to admit that you were wrong, again, Max.

Richardsen
01-29-2007, 01:21 PM
Great Spitfire video with interview with Mark Hanna.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=1HCBNMUlfWg

JG14_Josf
01-29-2007, 01:28 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Same year FW190 CANT'T outclimb a Spit.
Both Spit and ME109 easily outclimbs A FW190. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Richardsen,

Your opinion expressed above is contrary to the following WWII test results as the British measured relative performance between a captured Fw190 and their own combat Spitfires. The captured Fw190 shot down one of their own spitfires just before it was captured.

Same year 1942

June/July

Spitfire VB (June/July 1942) versus Fw190A-3 (de-rated, wrong gas, fouled spark plugs)

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Climb
The climb of the Fw 190 is superior to that of he Spitfire VB at all heights.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The July 1942 British Assessment goes on to describe the relative climb advantage the captured Fw190A-3 (de-rated, wrong gas, fouled spark plugs, running rough) had over the same year Spitfire VB:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
The best speeds for climbing are approximately the same, but the angle of the Fw 190 is considerably steeper. Under maximum continuous climbing conditions the climb of the Fw 190 is about 450 ft/min better up to 25,000 feet [7,620 m].
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is the steady state climb advantage as reported by the British as per their comparative flight tests in June/July of 1942.

The same report goes on to describe high speed turning or ZOOM performance as such:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">With both aircraft flying at high cruising speed and then pulling up into a climb, the superior climb of the Fw 190 is even more marked. When both aircraft are pulled into a climb from a dive, the Fw 190 draws away very rapidly and the pilot of the Spitfire has no hope of catching it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If the British had captured a same-year' 109 to test along side the Fw 190, then, those facts could have been added to the report; however- the British were mainly interested in the superior Fw 190. Perhaps the 109F-2 or 109F-4 did have a climb advantage over the Fw190A-3.

The British also tested the captured Fw190A-3 (running on the wrong gas, fouled spark plugs, and running rough) against a same year' Spitfire IX.
Here is what they found:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Climb
During comparative climbs at various heights up to 23,000 ft, with both aircraft flying under maximum continuous climbing conditions, little difference was found between the two aircraft although on the whole the Spitfire IX was slightly better. Above 22,000 ft the climb of the Fw 190 is falling off rapidly, whereas the climb of the Spitfire IX is increasing.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Again; that is the sustained climb performance. The British also recorded their findings concerning Zoom climb high speed turn performance when the two planes are compared in converting level and diving speed into acceleration on the lift vector (pulling up).

Spitfire IX (1942) Merlin 61 15lb boost version (run at max continuous climb setting)
versus
FW 190A-3 (1942) De-rated version run at 1.35 ata 2,450 r.p.m (automatic prop pitch)

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">When both aircraft were flying at a high cruising speed and were pulled up into a climb from level flight, the Fw 190 had a slight advantage in the initial stages of the climb due to its better acceleration. This superiority was slightly increases when both aircraft were pulled up into the climb from the dive. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The British added an opinion to the flight test results above:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">It must be appreciated that the differences between the two aircraft are only slight and that in actual combat the advantage in climb will be with the aircraft with the initiative. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Here is the raw data climb performance reported by the British concerning the captured 190A-3

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Climb
The rate of climb up to 18,000 ft [5,488m] under maximum continuous climbing conditions at 1.35 atmospheres boost 2,450 r.p.m., 165 m.p.h. is between 3,000 and 3,250 ft/min [15.24 to 16.51 m/sec]. The initial rate of climb when pulling up from level flight at fast cruising speed is high and the angle steep, and from a dive is phenomenal. It is considered that the de-rated version of the Fw 190 is unlikely to be met above 25,000 ft [7,622 m] as the power of the engine starts falling off at 22,000 ft and by 25,000 ft has fallen off considerably. It is not possible to give the rate of climb at this altitude.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

One person's opinion:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Same year FW190 CANT'T outclimb a Spit.
Both Spit and ME109 easily outclimbs A FW190. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Which opinion is more accurate?

I can't answer that for you. I tend to go with the people who actually flew the planes side by side in June 1942.

You can do as you please.

It would be nice to have the same type of detailed report for the 109 at that time.

Richardsen
01-29-2007, 01:47 PM
JG14_Josf:

Spit IX have a climb rate close to 5000ft/min teste by RAE.


Even a D9 can't follow it.

RocketDog
01-29-2007, 01:54 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
If so, then, why does a glider L/D stay the same L/D as aircraft weight increases?

On the glider the only change is stall speed L/D stays the same unless the wing distorts under weight due to increases in mass. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This isn't correct. The L/D polar curve of a glider moves down and to the right as the aircraft weight increases. In fact, if L/D were unchanged then the polar curve would stay in the same place on the graph regardless of aircraft weight. The figure below shows an ASW-24 polar as an example for two different wing loadings. Increasing the weight results in a better L/D at high speeds but a poorer L/D at low speeds. This is why competition gliders are often ballasted.

Cheers,

RD.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v402/RocketDog/polar24c.jpg

WWMaxGunz
01-29-2007, 02:28 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">If you don't understand something then I guess it's play word games with the labels time again! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Max,

No word games (unless your Straw-Man is real in your mind).

The WWII era Spitfire I vs Bf 109E turn performance chart does not have turn rate numbers running up the left side of the chart. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You are correct in this. It is not a standard E-M chart though you seem to have missed a
beat yourself. Look at the right edge of each and compare, if my eyes work then the right
edge lists turn time for 360 deg which you can divide 360 by seconds and get turn rate.
Just hold on to that.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">What the chart says on the left side of the chart is this:

DIFFERENCE
BETWEEN
ANGLE OF
CLIMB IN
STRAING
FLIGHT AN
ANGLE OF
CLIMB IN A
TURN AT
THE SAME
SPEED
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ahh yes, I see EXACTLY what the left edge scale is now. It is explained clearly in the example
of use text at the bottom of both charts and wow, that is how they calculate rise or drop instead
of the Ps=x lines on later E-M diagrams. Me, I like the newer way better.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">If you find the 5 g line and trace that line to the STALL BOUNDARY line on both charts you get this:

-------------trace down to corrected airspeed
Spitfire -------------180 m.p.h.
109------------------210 m.p.h.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh come now. I look at the Spitfire diagram straight up from about 170mph TAS and at the
stall line is the THREE GEE curve. If I go by CORRECTED AIRSPEED then Spitfire 5G stall
looks to be closer to 190mph. Note that the diagram is only good for 12,000 ft.

CAS, Corrected Air Speed, is IAS Indicated Air Speed that has been corrected for instrument
error and position error. CAS is what MOST players think that IAS is but IRL where the
pitot tube is and how the instrument works generates further error. At Sealevel, CAS = TAS,
while IAS might not.
Note that is both cases that the scale at the bottom edge of the diagram labelled True
Airspeed reads higher values than the scale below labelled Corrected Airspeed.

For turns, use TAS or your radius will not come out right. Understand that?

On the 109 diagram straight up from 210mph TAS is about where the stall line would meet
the 3.5G curve if there was one drawn. 210mph CAS is about dead-on the 109 5G stall BY
THAT DIAGRAM which has only been disputed for years as accurate due to the way the Brit
pilot flew the plane either by evidence, supposition or both. Take it up with Kurfurst
and see what he can provide.

Spitfire 5G stall speed I read as about just under 225mph TAS, 109 right on 250mph TAS.
Spitfire 5G stall turn radius is inside the 800ft radius right about where 700ft should be.
109 5G stall turn radius is just inside the 900ft radius.

I say radius because the dashed lines there, the label on the leftmost on the Spitfire diagram
says R = 800'... 800' is 800 feet and R is common for radius. The leftmost on the 109 diagram
sasy R = 900' to the best I can make out, next over is 1000' and much farther is 1200'.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">If you find the same 5 g line and trace that line to the STALL BOUNDARY line and then trace horizontally to the numbers on the left side of the chart you get:

---------------------numbers on the left side of the chart
Spitfire----------------------28
109--------------------------33

The higher speed 5 g corner cannot have the greater turn rate.

If you cannot see this fact, then, you are ignorant. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I certainly can. I remember explaining just that in a thread only days ago.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">If you have made a mistake concerning the facts, then, why blame me for your mistake? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, I made ONE mistake there. Keep going with yours, I'm sure your score will dwarf mine.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Max wrote:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Yes, the left edge of E-M charts is rate of turn in deg/sec.
If it wasn't then neither the G-force curves nor the turn radius curves be as they are with
respect to the scale used on the axes. Same-same except for scale between the Brit chart,
the F-86 and MiG-15 chart and the SimHQ chart. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The left edge of the Korean War era EM chart made by John Boyd with Chuck Yeager piloting the F-86 and the captured Mig-15 is turn rate in deg/sec.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> If it wasn't then neither the G-force curves nor the turn radius curves be as they are with respect to the scale used on the axes. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The WWII era Spitfire Chart IS NOT, not "IF", but IS NOT measuring deg/sec.

If it IS in your world, then, you have manufactured a fantasy world. Please leave me out of it.

You can go on believing that the WWII era chart CHARTS deg/sec. I hope your buddies continue to do so too. They can follow in your fantasy game. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well you see I haven't tried to MAKE much out of that unlike someone working up a grand theory
of flight modelling like yourself. So don't take it any farther than it didn't go please.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">High five for Max's fantasy world! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

All that over one mistake. My fantasy world is tiny and was very short lived while yours must
run on Duracell.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
This is the actual turn rate for the WWII era plots on the 5 g stall and the STALL BOUNDARY LAYER.

-------------------------Turn rate in deg/s---------------Turn radius in feet
Spitfire I-------------------34----------------------------------460 ft (approximately)
Bf109E (no slats)---------29----------------------------------600 ft
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not really. 5G stall on the Spitfire diagram shows on the RIGHT SIDE to take between 13 and
14 seconds to complete 360 degrees. 360/13 = 27.7 deg/s, 360/14 = 25.7 deg/s
5G stall on the 109 diagram shows on the right side to take less than 15 seconds.
15 seconds to complete 360 degrees would require 24 deg/s, so the turn is a bit faster.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Try to find an accurate measure of Turn radius on the WWII era chart. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's really not that hard since they thoughtfully DID include turn radius lines.
Unless you have a better explanation for them that contradicts what is written there?
Here is another clue from that pair of charts. Read the text at the bottom. It says
"the dotted lines of constant radius" there.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Here is some blank EM paper:

E-M Graph Paper (http://evoisard.freeshell.org/doghouse/index.html)

AGAIN:

The British WWII era Turn Performance Chart reports a better sustained level horizontal turn for the Spitfire over the 109E, AND, a lower corner speed at 5g. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Where do you get SUSTAINED flat turns out of FIVE G TURNING? Hey, guess what? Level and
horizontal mean the same thing so far as turns. Call them flat turns or level turns is enough.

As it explains clearly in the bottom method of use text, 'the angle of descent is given by the
height of the point P above the BASIC PERFORMANCE CURVE (marked "angle of straight climb")'.
Try this on: along that curve you have your flat turn since points along that curve have no
height above the curve and therefore the plane does not descend at points along that curve.

Spitfire Angle of Straight Climb curve intersects the Stall Line at about 165mph TAS, well
inside the 800ft radius line and at about 19 seconds to make 360 degrees BY THAT DIAGRAM.

109 Angle of Straight Climb curve intersects the Stall Line at about 160mph TAS, an RCH inside
the 900ft radius line and right about 25 seconds to make 360 degrees BY THAT DIAGRAM.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">A lower corner speed will be a faster turn rate and a smaller turn radius. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

And don't mean Jack Snot about sustained turn rate.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Like this:

-------------------------Turn rate in deg/s---------------Turn radius in feet
Spitfire I-------------------34----------------------------------460 ft (approximately)
Bf109E (no slats)---------29----------------------------------600 ft </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The above is what I talk about when I say fantasy worlds. Taking an error and running with it
rather than just pointing it out and asking what you don't understand about as part of regular
discussion.

I made _A_ mistake and I did so by making an assumption. Somehow I didn't turn it into a world
or even a 500 to 3000 word manifesto. I have not used it as part of manufacturing a TABLE
to display over and over 500 times as some kind of BS fact. But you keep on filling in the
spaces on your table there that is a definite part of your PROVE THE SIM WRONG FANTASY.

WWMaxGunz
01-29-2007, 02:51 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Richardsen:
Same year FW190 CANT'T outclimb a Spit.
Both Spit and ME109 easily outclimbs A FW190. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You are assuming both are at best climb speed of themselves, the Spit, or the FW?

Get them both moving 360+kph and which climbs best?
Because in the comparison test, both planes flew at the same speed no matter what planes
were being compared. From the guy that flew the Allied planes, the speed that the tests
were run at was high just as the FW's were being flown in the Channel fights. Hey, the
tests were COMBAT COMPARISONS and not PERFORMANCE TESTS. That is for the blanket-statement
wannabes here which you seem to know better than doing, Richardsen. WHY people can't figure
out that every plane has performance CURVES as opposed to absolute NUMBERS is one of the
bigger PITA headaches on flight sim forums and probably will always be.

Xiolablu3
01-29-2007, 02:55 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Richardsen:
JG14_Josf:

Spit IX have a climb rate close to 5000ft/min teste by RAE.


Even a D9 can't follow it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


It depends which Spit and which FW190, mate.

Its not cut and dried.

The Spitfire IX Merlin 66 (the one in game) has a very fast climb for 1943/44. But in 1942, there were 200 or so Merlin 61 SPitfire IX's. Made as a rush job to give SPit pilots a better chance vs FW190's which were causing real problems for the RAF.

Josf is talking about the Merlin 61 SPitfire IX which was tested against a beat up FW190A3 by the RAF.

Also as Max says, different speeds will give different results.

JG14_Josf
01-29-2007, 03:03 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">This isn't correct. Increasing the weight results in a better L/D at high speeds but a poorer L/D at low speeds. This is why competition gliders are often ballasted. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

RocketDog,

WOW!

That makes a lot of sense.

Please understand my error as it comes from instructions received during Hang Gliding lessons.

Thanks. That is information that may take a while to digest.

WWMaxGunz
01-29-2007, 03:06 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
At least I THINK I correctly solved the equation for Cl. Perhaps you can double-check. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Right. I'd have better luck getting the neighbor's dog to tell me the correct time.