View Full Version : Bf109-K4

02-10-2005, 01:13 PM

02-10-2005, 01:13 PM

02-10-2005, 03:15 PM

02-10-2005, 04:23 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by 3.JG51_BigBear:
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/1241.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


02-10-2005, 04:25 PM
Don't you think Oleg has better things to read on his occasional visit here?

BTW you forgot Invisible Rocket Booster.

02-10-2005, 04:26 PM
i agree with megile, if you want to be funny do it in GD ,not here http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

02-10-2005, 04:36 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Megile:
Don't you think Oleg has better things to read on his occasional visit here?

BTW you forgot Invisible Rocket Booster. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So read it

109's controls locked up in high speed."
- Another very mythical subject. Before answering one must be asked: "What model are you talking about?"
- There was large differences between various types in the high speed controls. Each newer version handled better in high speeds, the best being the 109 K series which had flettner tabs for enhanced aileron control. 109 G series were also much better on this regard compared to 109 E, which yet again wasn't such a dog as many claim. 109 test pilots, Russians included, have said that the 109 had pretty good roll at higher speeds - again not as good as the 190s, P-51 or P-47 - but it maintained a good lateral control ability. Recovering from extremerely fast 750-900 km/h vertical dives was the problem - not level flight or even normal combat flying.
- Spitfire and a 109 had equal roll rates at up to 400 mph speeds. Not even the favourite warhorse of the Americans, P-51, exactly shined with its roll rate at high speeds. P-51 pilots have actually said that flying P-51 at high speeds was like driving a truck.
- An often quoted British report made of a Me 109 E talks about the "short stick travel", "due to the cramped cockpit a pilot could only apply about 40 pounds side force on the stick" and "at 400 mph with 40 pounds side force and only one fifth aileron displaced, it required 4 seconds to get into a 45 degree roll or bank. That immediately classifies the airplane as being unmaneuverable and unacceptable as a fighter."
- Well, pardon me. This British report claims, that The 109-E needed 37lb stick force for a 1/5 aileron deflection at 400mph. Coincidentally, the Spitfire 1 required 57 lb stick force from the pilot for similar deflection at similar speed. This is a 54% higher stickforce for the Spitfire pilot.
- The British test is taken as gospel by many, while it is just one test, made by the enemy, using a worn out and battle damaged airframe. German flight tests report pilots using aileron forces of over 45 lbs and 109's stick was designed for elevator stick forces of up to or over 85kg, over 180 lbs. So it was more matter of the pilot and the test procedures, than maneuverability of the Bf 109. Several details of that test are suspicious and German chief test pilot Heinrich Beauvais disagreed with it and with Eric Brown. Beauvais tried to get into contact after the war with Eric Brown to discuss the matters, but Brown refused to discuss the 109 with him. This being the case, it seems that Brown wasn't willing to listen a pilot who'd flown more on the 109 than he ever had, and was more interested on believing his negative findings of the 109 than being proven wrong by an expert.


Ky√¬∂sti Karhila's 2nd victory with the Messerschmitt 109 G-2:
"When shooting at the first one, he was so close that my burst missed him below. I adjusted my point of aim to the top of his fuselage and fired again. I hit him right in the fuel tank and he exploded into shreds. The enemy leader saw this, applied full power and headed for the Oranienbaum bridgehead. We were off Seiv√¬§st√¬∂ on the Gulf of Finland. He was flying with maximum power just as I did. He kept evading, I pursued him but did not shoot, I had decided to "grill" him a little. As he banked slightly I got a good deflection on him and he exploded on the spot. That 20mm cannon was a good weapon if you only hit your target."
- Ky√¬∂sti Karhila, Finnish fighter ace. 32 victories. Source: Interview by Finnish Virtual Pilots Association.



Theres nothing FUNNY about it

02-10-2005, 05:15 PM
He said flettner tabs.


Aircraft are designed, just like cars, to operate in a certain range. Stuff a 500 hp engine into a compact without improving the tires, brakes or suspension and you're likely to get into trouble pretty quick if you use the engine to it's potential.

The 109F had a great harmony of control and power, put if you keep increasing the weight and power, and adding protrusions and bumps, while the basic controls and wings stay the same: the resulting handling is not going to improve.

They were still using external mass balances for the ailerons even, which the IL-2 had even deleted. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

02-10-2005, 06:59 PM
funny how the k4 is equal, or better than a f2 or f4 in stall, isnt it?

02-10-2005, 09:18 PM
Dora pwnz teh K4, 37 styl3 *Makes an ET sign with hands*

02-11-2005, 03:04 AM
Ehm - what do you expect from a $40 game - military grade simulator?

02-11-2005, 03:38 AM
Von_Rat - what does aim have to do with anything

MEGILE,,,if your going to qoute me use the whole quote.

the discussion was about the effects of hits on enemy planes.

i guess i'll just go through your old posts and string some words together,then we'll see how you like it.

you wanna start a war of words, i can put up screwed up quotes of you as well.