PDA

View Full Version : 109K high speed handling



XyZspineZyX
10-31-2003, 04:12 PM
For those so interested, I found this commentary from LW 109K flyer Georg Genth in Caldwell's JG26: TOP GUNS OF THE LUFTWAFFE.

To set the scene, Genth was at 32,000 ft when his canopy iced up. After spotting two approaching P47's through a hole he had made in the canopy frost, he evaded by means of a Split-S.

Genth picks up the story from here -

QUOTE -

I ... dove in a split-S into the cloud layer only a few hundred meters below. I remembered just in time that I had not switched on the artificial horizon. I did it whil diving, since it was clear to me that I would have no chance to align the gyro properly in the clouds.

What should I do? I had escaped the immediate danger of being shot down, but I would have no chance to regain control of my aircraft in a cloud thousands of feet thick. I attempted to reduce mt speed - about 600 km/h (360mph) indicated - by pulling on the stick. To my discomfort, however, my speed kept increasing - the indicator now hit 750 km/h (470 mph)! I realized that I was in an inverted bank and now pushed the stick forward. My speed dropped immediately. I attempted to slow down to about 500 km/h (310 mph), so that I could make visual contact with the ground. However, this was very difficult. Just as the indicator hit the desired mark, I left the clouds in a 60-degree inverted bank, about 500 meters (1,600 feet) above the ground. The canopy had now warmed up and defrosted, and I could see again in all directions. Control forces were so great that I could not center the stick, so I clenched both hands together and struck the side of the stick as hard as I could. The unbelievable happened - the brave old 109 flipped over into a normal steep descent attitude, from which I could then pull out with the help of the trim wheel! At my terminal speed, the engine cowling panels had torn off, and oil lines had split open from overpressure, but I could see again, and had my bird under control. I flew to Rheine, about three or four minutes away, without touching the throttle, my speed decreasing slowly.

- UNQUOTE



Some comments:

(1) It can be inferred from the above that 750 km/h IAS was about the terminal dive speed of the 109K type flown by Genth. At this speed, he states that he lost engine cowling panels and oil lines. However, it is stated that the oil lines did not shake loose, but rather had "split open from overpressure" - presumably a result of over-revving the engine by failure to adjust prop pitch for the lengthy dive (32,000 feet down to 1,600 foot revovery).

(2) At 500 km/h (310 mph), Genth was unable to "center the stick" and roll his aircraft into a proper attitude without the use of extraordinary two-handed measures. On the other hand, it must be noted that Genth was in a "60-degree inverted bank" at the time and it is somewhat more diificult to apply full stick pressure when in this position.

(3) It is highly likely that his a/c was still trimmed for level flight while in the dive, due to the need for a hasty evasive split-S. Yet, it is interesting to note that Genth still felt it necessary to use the elevator trim wheel to recover from the dive at a speed of only 500 km/h (310 mph).



Blutarski




Message Edited on 10/31/0304:19PM by BLUTARSKI

XyZspineZyX
10-31-2003, 04:12 PM
For those so interested, I found this commentary from LW 109K flyer Georg Genth in Caldwell's JG26: TOP GUNS OF THE LUFTWAFFE.

To set the scene, Genth was at 32,000 ft when his canopy iced up. After spotting two approaching P47's through a hole he had made in the canopy frost, he evaded by means of a Split-S.

Genth picks up the story from here -

QUOTE -

I ... dove in a split-S into the cloud layer only a few hundred meters below. I remembered just in time that I had not switched on the artificial horizon. I did it whil diving, since it was clear to me that I would have no chance to align the gyro properly in the clouds.

What should I do? I had escaped the immediate danger of being shot down, but I would have no chance to regain control of my aircraft in a cloud thousands of feet thick. I attempted to reduce mt speed - about 600 km/h (360mph) indicated - by pulling on the stick. To my discomfort, however, my speed kept increasing - the indicator now hit 750 km/h (470 mph)! I realized that I was in an inverted bank and now pushed the stick forward. My speed dropped immediately. I attempted to slow down to about 500 km/h (310 mph), so that I could make visual contact with the ground. However, this was very difficult. Just as the indicator hit the desired mark, I left the clouds in a 60-degree inverted bank, about 500 meters (1,600 feet) above the ground. The canopy had now warmed up and defrosted, and I could see again in all directions. Control forces were so great that I could not center the stick, so I clenched both hands together and struck the side of the stick as hard as I could. The unbelievable happened - the brave old 109 flipped over into a normal steep descent attitude, from which I could then pull out with the help of the trim wheel! At my terminal speed, the engine cowling panels had torn off, and oil lines had split open from overpressure, but I could see again, and had my bird under control. I flew to Rheine, about three or four minutes away, without touching the throttle, my speed decreasing slowly.

- UNQUOTE



Some comments:

(1) It can be inferred from the above that 750 km/h IAS was about the terminal dive speed of the 109K type flown by Genth. At this speed, he states that he lost engine cowling panels and oil lines. However, it is stated that the oil lines did not shake loose, but rather had "split open from overpressure" - presumably a result of over-revving the engine by failure to adjust prop pitch for the lengthy dive (32,000 feet down to 1,600 foot revovery).

(2) At 500 km/h (310 mph), Genth was unable to "center the stick" and roll his aircraft into a proper attitude without the use of extraordinary two-handed measures. On the other hand, it must be noted that Genth was in a "60-degree inverted bank" at the time and it is somewhat more diificult to apply full stick pressure when in this position.

(3) It is highly likely that his a/c was still trimmed for level flight while in the dive, due to the need for a hasty evasive split-S. Yet, it is interesting to note that Genth still felt it necessary to use the elevator trim wheel to recover from the dive at a speed of only 500 km/h (310 mph).



Blutarski




Message Edited on 10/31/0304:19PM by BLUTARSKI

XyZspineZyX
10-31-2003, 04:55 PM
The account is interesting and here's my take on your three points

1. 109 manuals give 750kph as the max dive speed that is safe to recover from. At altitude, Genth's TAS would have been quite high, since he was at 9,700 meters when he started his split S, but he was still able to deflect the stick forward to slow his speed. It demonstrates that elevator control in the 109 , while being heavy at high speeds, was not so much different from other planes of the era.

2. I agree with your point here that the pilot position would influence his ablity to apply the needed stick force. Dave Southwood, who flew a restored G2 had this to say about roll performance: "Roll performance is similar to a Hurricane or elliptical wing tipped Spitfire. A full stick roll through 360 degrees at 460kph takes 4 to 4.5 seconds without using rudder, and needs a force of around 20 lbf." I would assume then that a normal roll at 500kmp would not be an extraordinary problem unless the roll performance of the K model was drastically different than the G2.

3. Genth said, "I left the clouds in a 60-degree inverted bank, about 500 meters (1,600 feet) above the ground." After struggling to right the plane he still had to get it out of its dive. His use of trim probably had a lot to do with the fact he had so little altitude left to work with and wanted all the assistance he could get.




<CENTER>http://home.cogeco.ca/~jkinley/FB_JG27.jpg



Message Edited on 10/31/0311:25AM by Chadburn

XyZspineZyX
10-31-2003, 05:02 PM
BLUTARSKI wrote:
- For those so interested, I found this commentary
- from LW 109K flyer Georg Genth in Caldwell's JG26:
- TOP GUNS OF THE LUFTWAFFE.

Interesting! Another data point... Just to make sure.. this was a 109K he was flying?



<div style="width:1024;color:F0FFFF;fontsize:11pt;filter: glow[color=black,strength=8)">
<h2> TAGERT</h2>
<marquee><h3>If WAR was not the ANSWER........ Than what the H was your QUESTION?</h3></marquee>
</div>

XyZspineZyX
10-31-2003, 05:05 PM
Just a few things... at
http://109lair.hobbyvista.com/

you will find an official (german) document about diving test... at 750km/h a recovering from dive is no problem, if you have the right trimmsetting, if it is the wrong one, you have to use the trimwheel, but the reaction of the plane is so violent, that you are in danger to get a black out. If the trim is set correct it&#180;s no problem to to pull out with the stick.

What happend to Genth is mentioned in this test. He used the wrong trimset, so he had to big stickforcess to pull out of a dive, so the trimwheel is necessaray.

With +1?15&#180; you need the trimwhell-
If the trim is set to +1?45&#180; you can pull out with the stick...


JG53 PikAs Abbuzze
I./Gruppe

http://www.jg53-pikas.de/
http://mitglied.lycos.de/p123/Ani_pikasbanner_langsam.gif



Message Edited on 10/31/0305:14PM by Abbuzze

XyZspineZyX
10-31-2003, 05:08 PM
Chadburn wrote:
- The account is interesting and here's my take on
- your three points
-
- 1. 109 manuals give 750kph as the max dive speed
- that is safe to recover from. At altitude, Genth's
- TAS would have been quite high, since he was at
- 9,700 meters when he started his split S, but he was
- still able to deflect the stick forward to slow his
- speed. It demonstrates that elevator control in the
- 109 , while being heavy at high speeds, was not so
- much different from other planes of the era.

On that note.. it is much easier to *push away* then to *pull in*.. and both of those are easier then pull *left* or *right*... Thus the *pulling* out of a dive is just one of the things the 109 is known for doing poorly.. but while inverted.. it would be easier to push.. cept for the major red out he probally experanced! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif


<div style="width:1024;color:F0FFFF;fontsize:11pt;filter: glow[color=black,strength=8)">
<h2> TAGERT</h2>
<marquee><h3>If WAR was not the ANSWER........ Than what the H was your QUESTION?</h3></marquee>
</div>

XyZspineZyX
10-31-2003, 05:12 PM
"Control forces were so great that I could not center the stick, so I clenched both hands together and struck the side of the stick as hard as I could."

Who said brute force and ignorance never worked? /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

"As weaponry, both were good, but in far different ways from each other. In a nutshell, I describe it this way: if the FW 190 was a sabre, the 109 was a florett, or foil, like that used in the precision art of fencing." - Gunther Rall

XyZspineZyX
10-31-2003, 05:35 PM
Chadburn wrote:
- The account is interesting and here's my take on
- your three points
-
- 1. 109 manuals give 750kph as the max dive speed
- that is safe to recover from. At altitude, Genth's
- TAS would have been quite high, since he was at
- 9,700 meters when he started his split S, but he was
- still able to deflect the stick forward to slow his
- speed. It demonstrates that elevator control in the
- 109 , while being heavy at high speeds, was not so
- much different from other planes of the era.

..... Agree. And forward stick pressure from an inverted flying attitude may possibly not have produced the same degree of elevator heaviness as when flying in a more normal attitude. In fact, the level flight elevator trim setting may actually have helped Genth as he flew in that attitude.



- 2. I agree with your point here that the pilot
- position would influence his ablity to apply the
- needed stick force. Dave Southwood, who flew a
- restored G6 had this to say about roll performance:
- "Roll performance is similar to a Hurricane or
- elliptical wing tipped Spitfire. A full stick roll
- through 360 degrees at 460kph takes 4 to 4.5 seconds
- without using rudder, and needs a force of around 20
- lbf." I would assume then that a normal roll at
- 500kmp would not be an extraordinary problem unless
- the roll performance of the K model was drastically
- different than the G6.

..... The NACA archive site has a study on pilot stick force application in different a/c attitudes.

..... I totally agree that the late model 109's had very good roll rate performance between 400 and 500 km/h. But, based upon my readings, they still seem to have suffered from severe aileron stiffness at speeds above 550-600 km/h. Genth's experience seems to bear this view out, in the sense that, although suffering some hindrance to stick leverage from his inverted position, he yet had control stiffness issues at 500 km/h. As I think about it, it must be a most interesting experience hanging upside down in your seat-belt trying to gain leverage over a control stick.


-
- 3. Genth said, "I left the clouds in a 60-degree
- inverted bank, about 500 meters (1,600 feet) above
- the ground." After struggling to right the plane he
- still had to get it out of its dive. His use of
- trim probably had a lot to do with the fact he had
- so little altitude left to work with and wanted all
- the assistance he could get.

..... Good point. Genth must have had the presence of mind to have remembered that he was not trimmed for dive and took immediate steps to correct same. The man had a very cool head in a most stressful situation.



Blutarski



Message Edited on 10/31/0304:55PM by BLUTARSKI

XyZspineZyX
10-31-2003, 05:40 PM
Tag,

Caldwell stipulates that Genth (III/JG26) was flying a 109K on this occasion, although Genth normally flew the -G10. BTW, according to Caldwell, the 109K's supplied to III/JG26 were al equipped with 20mm under-wing gondolas for bomber interception.


Blutarski

XyZspineZyX
10-31-2003, 05:49 PM
Abbuzze wrote:
- you will find an official (german) document about
- diving test... at 750km/h a recovering from dive is
- no problem,


..... Agreed. It's also possible that the loss of engine cowling suffered by Genth may have been the result of unusual aerodynamic forces endured by his a/c while flying inverted at 750 km/h. I don't believe that engine cowling departures were accepted within the stated dive limit speed. Something unusual caused it.


if you have the right trimmsetting, if
- it is the wrong one, you have to use the trimwheel,
- but the reaction of the plane is so violent, that
- you are in danger to get a black out. If the trim is
- set correct it´s no problem to to pull out with
- the stick.

..... Again agreed. In fact, it is possible that at least some of the dive pull out heaviness observed by the Soviets may well have been the result of similar hasty dives initiated without proper re-trim due to the immediate combat situation.



Blutarski

XyZspineZyX
10-31-2003, 05:59 PM
This is an account of a Finnish pilot attempting to pull a Bf-109 out of a very high speed dive - not sure of the model, but probably a G2 or G6. Because he hadn't had chance to talk to Huck he didn't know that the Bf-109 had light elevator response at all speeds and instead found it rather difficult.


"Then I started recovery from the dive, of course in the direction of home, then checked the dials, the reading was eight hundred plus kmh. Then I started pulling the stick, pulled harder as hard as ever: never in my life did I pull so hard. I pulled with right hand and tried to trim the horizontal rudder with my left hand. But it did not budge, as if it had been set in concrete. But by the by the nose began to rise, but terribly slowly. As my angle was about 45 I heard over the radio as Onni Paronen said, "hey lads, look, a Messerschmitt is going in the sea!" I wanted to answer back but I could not afford to do anything put pull with two hands. As soon as I had returned to level flight and had been able to breath normally for a while, I in a way regained consciousness. I pushed the transmitter key and said "not quite". It was a close shave."


The account is from the excellent Finnish Virtual Pilots Association website at http://www.virtualpilots.fi/en/ well worth a visit if you have not seen it. The actual article is at: http://www.virtualpilots.fi/hist/WW2History-TaniHuotariEnglish.html

Regards,

RocketDog.

XyZspineZyX
10-31-2003, 06:59 PM
RocketDog wrote:
- This is an account of a Finnish pilot attempting to
- pull a Bf-109 out of a very high speed dive - not
- sure of the model, but probably a G2 or G6. Because
- he hadn't had chance to talk to Huck he didn't know
- that the Bf-109 had light elevator response at all
- speeds and instead found it rather difficult.

Coffee spraying moment /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

"As weaponry, both were good, but in far different ways from each other. In a nutshell, I describe it this way: if the FW 190 was a sabre, the 109 was a florett, or foil, like that used in the precision art of fencing." - Gunther Rall

XyZspineZyX
10-31-2003, 07:16 PM
very nice read, Blutarski.


http://www.bayern.de/Layout/wappen.gif

Bavaria is one of the oldest European states.
It dates back to about 500 A.D., when the Roman Empire was overcome by the onslaught of Germanic tribes. According to a widespread theory, the Bavarian tribe had descended from the Romans who remained in the country, the original Celtic population and the Germanic invaders.

Bavarian History : http://www.bayern.de/Bayern/Information/geschichteE.html#kap0 ( <A HREF=)" target=_blank>http://www.bayern.de/Bayern/Information/geschichteE.html#kap0</a>

http://www.bayern.de/Layout/wappen.gif

Bavaria is one of the oldest European states.
It dates back to about 500 A.D., when the Roman Empire was overcome by the onslaught of Germanic tribes. According to a widespread theory, the Bavarian tribe had descended from the Romans who remained in the country, the original Celtic population and the Germanic invaders.

Bavarian History :http://www.bayern.de/Bayern/Information/geschichteE.html#kap0

XyZspineZyX
10-31-2003, 07:21 PM
RocketDog wrote:

- "Then I started recovery from the dive, of course in
- the direction of home, then checked the dials, the
- reading was eight hundred plus kmh."

Yeah..he was exceeding the recommended dive speed but once he was able to trim he still managed to recover.

The 109 was not outstanding at high speed dive recovery, but was similar to other planes of the era in this regard, most notably the Mustang. It's a fairly common error to think that the 109 was unique in this manner.

<CENTER>http://home.cogeco.ca/~jkinley/FB_JG27.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-31-2003, 08:36 PM
Interesting account. It proves very nicely how good was Bf-109 in extreme dives. You just have to read the numbers carefuly.

First he started the Split-S from 32.000ft, and he was going already with at least 550km/h TAS (350km/h IAS) - max continuous, he was in combat. He definitely reached 600km/h IAS in less than 6000ft below since he was in a 45 degree dive (even if inverted).

So he was between 8500-8000m flying in a 45 degree dive with 600km/h IAS. This means 915-935km/h TAS, and more than 0.8 Mach!!! In compressibility up to his neck! Yet he still pulled hard on the stick hoping that he could recover, passing through the 750km/h IAS limit by this time. He could apply push forward the stick to make the dive shallower and reduce the speed. Amazing! All this without damaging the controls! He then recovered at lower altitudes where compressibility effects dissapeared.

Those distorted panels are just minor damage, compared with what would have happened diving other planes in similar circumstances. Luckily he was in a Messerschmitt/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

Message Edited on 10/31/0302:47PM by Huckebein_FW

XyZspineZyX
10-31-2003, 10:09 PM
Chadburn wrote:
- but was similar to other planes of the era
- in this regard

I agree that they are similar.. in that as the speed *increases* the force required to move the stick *increases*.

So all the aircraft are similar in that the force increases.. that is I don't know of any aircraft in WWII that the forces *decreased* as the speed *increased*

But that is not what we are talking about.. what we are talking about is the relative force required... And it has been well documented that the relative force required to move the stick in a 109 was MUCH HIGHER than other aircraft.

The 109 forces above 300mph have been described at SOLID.. IN CEMENT.. etc... That *description* of the force is not similar to ALL other aircraft.


<div style="width:1024;color:F0FFFF;fontsize:11pt;filter: glow[color=black,strength=8)">
<h2> TAGERT</h2>
<marquee><h3>If WAR was not the ANSWER........ Than what the H was your QUESTION?</h3></marquee>
</div>

XyZspineZyX
10-31-2003, 10:20 PM
Oh god, this again. Tag, come on, you claim to not hate them, and yet you spew this crap.

What you claim is "well documented" I see as being questionable. I have not had the time, or to be honest, the desire, to seriously research it and try to unravel all the connections, James Burke style, however, I have seen enough to give me pause and consider that oft quoted description as not entirely accurate, and typically applied to the wrong thing in the first place.

No, I don't have all of it committed to memory to re-iterate everything that led me to that stand point for you. And I don't really have time to either, so please don't ask me. I just can't help but think that if you really, objectively (key), looked into all that, you'd see that, while Huck might be overstating it a bit as he is wont to do, he's on the right track here.

Hell, Blut's quote even leans that way.

XyZspineZyX
10-31-2003, 10:29 PM
Huckebein,

A 45 degree dive angle is certainly possible, but it is not clear from the commentary. I don't think even Genth had any idea what dive angle he was in most of the time, although he certainly would have passed through some steep angles as part of his split-s. He was passing through a heavy cloud formation thousands of feet thick according to him

Compressibility is a function of IAS, not TAS - correct? If so, Genth's a/c did not exceed 750km/h IAS. Most of his effort in the initial part of the maneuver was to reduce his speed when he saw that he had reached 750 km/h.



Blutarski

XyZspineZyX
10-31-2003, 11:55 PM
BlitzPig_DDT wrote:
- Oh god, this again.

I feel your pain.

- Tag, come on, you claim to not hate them,

I claimed to perfer the truth, hate is just your preception of it.

- and yet you spew this crap.

Crap? Give me one example.

- What you claim is "well documented" I see as being
- questionable.

Easy to question it.. when you dont back it up with anything but to refer to it as crap.

- I have not had the time, or to be honest, the
- desire, to seriously research it and try
- to unravel all the connections, James Burke style,

I know.. in that you dont give a rip about the truth.. You just want a reason to beeeyach and accuse people of hating things can sneak in a few *crap* this and *crap* that.. It is clear you just want to get a flame rolling.. ie no useful info from you at all.

- however, I have seen enough to give me pause and
- consider that oft quoted description as not entirely
- accurate, and typically applied to the wrong thing
- in the first place.

And I have seen enough to give me pause and consider that the multi quoted descriptions are entirely accurate, and typically applied to the right thing from the get go... see talk is cheap! Anyone can do what you do! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

- No, I don't have all of it committed to memory to
- re-iterate everything that led me to that stand
- point for you.

But you have the one liner crap statements all line up and ready to go... If you dont have anything or any time to contribute to the topic at hand.. why dont you do us all a favor and just bow out.. We dont need your crap this and crap that statements with nothing to back them up but your feelings.

- And I don't really have time to either, so
- please don't ask me.

Roger.. just enough time to toss some gas on a fire and bow out.. I understand.. and dont worrie.. the day I come to you for an answer to a question will be the day I dont care if I get the right answer or not.

- I just can't help but think that if you really,
- objectively (key), looked into all that, you'd
- see that, while Huck might be overstating it a
- bit as he is wont to do, he's on the right track
- here.

Well you take your little unfounded feelings and belive what you want.. I really dont care.. All I care about is data points.. If you have one.. FINE PLEASE state it here.. but please do us all a favor and take your CRAP this and CRAP that gas on the fire statments back to the play ground.

- Hell, Blut's quote even leans that way.

At leaste he provides something to back it up.. more so then calling it crap!


<div style="width:1024;color:F0FFFF;fontsize:11pt;filter: glow[color=black,strength=8)">
<h2> TAGERT</h2>
<marquee><h3>If WAR was not the ANSWER........ Than what the H was your QUESTION?</h3></marquee>
</div>

XyZspineZyX
11-01-2003, 12:03 AM
Touched a nerve I see. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Come on Tag, you don't have to be so pathetic about it. Although, if nothing else you at least proved that it is you that doesn't care about the truth. lol

Oh well. Some people just can't be gotten through to.

Incedentally, nice *attempt* to turn my lack of time around on me, but, it doesn't work. See, I have a large work load (at work) and precious little free time. What you didn't want to acknowledge is that I DID in fact find enough evidence to the contrary of what you love to spew, and satisfied myself. All I said was that I can't repeat everything I read verbatim from memory. I'd have to go through it all again. And that assumes I could find the books again (being broke sucks - thank god Borders lets you read in the store. lol).

XyZspineZyX
11-01-2003, 12:16 AM
BlitzPig_DDT wrote:
- Touched a nerve I see.

You need glasses! In that you are seeing things that are not there!

- Come on Tag, you don't have to be so pathetic about it.

Pathetic? Not only are you seeing things.. but now you are confusing me with you?

- Although, if nothing else you at least proved
- that it is you that doesn't care about the truth.
- lol

Although, if nothing else I at least understand why your so confused.. in that if you consider that last post by me as proof that I dont care about the truth!

- Oh well. Some people just can't be gotten through to.

Agreed 100%. But dont be too hard on yourself.

- Incedentally, nice *attempt* to turn my lack of time
- around on me, but, it doesn't work.

Touched a nerve I see. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

- See, I have a large work load (at work) and
- precious little free time.

Roger.. just time for CRAP statments.. and starting flames.. Roger we got it! No need to explane!

- What you didn't want to acknowledge is that I
- DID in fact find enough evidence to the contrary of
- what you love to spew, and satisfied myself.

FIND! Well please, post it sometime.. because to date all we get from you is CRAP comments.

- All I said was that I can't repeat everything I read
- verbatim from memory.

And you cant even sumarize it.. so much easier to just say CRAP.

- I'd have to go through it all again.

ONCE would be nice.

- And that assumes I could find the books again
- (being broke sucks - thank god Borders lets you read
- in the store. lol).

Is this the part where I am supose to express pitty? Get BACK TO WORK! And he wonders why he is broke! Surfin here all day! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif



<div style="width:1024;color:F0FFFF;fontsize:11pt;filter: glow[color=black,strength=8)">
<h2> TAGERT</h2>
<marquee><h3>If WAR was not the ANSWER........ Than what the H was your QUESTION?</h3></marquee>
</div>

XyZspineZyX
11-01-2003, 12:19 AM
"My speed dropped immediately. I attempted to slow down to about 500 km/h (310 mph), so that I could make visual contact with the ground. However, this was very difficult. Just as the indicator hit the desired mark, I left the clouds in a 60-degree inverted bank, about 500 meters (1,600 feet) above the ground. The canopy had now warmed up and defrosted, and I could see again in all directions. Control forces were so great that I could not center the stick, so I clenched both hands together and struck the side of the stick as hard as I could."


Hmm, just as the indicator hit the desired mark (500 km/h)...Control forces were so great that I could not center the stick.

Tells me the control forces were extremely high at 500 km/h.

Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/jug_sig.jpg

XyZspineZyX
11-01-2003, 12:27 AM
SkyChimp wrote:
- Hmm, just as the indicator hit the desired mark (500
- km/h)...Control forces were so great that I could
- not center the stick.
-
- Tells me the control forces were extremely high at
- 500 km/h.

Funny aint it? I mean there are so many accounts of this.. and all say about the same thing.. Yet some read it and it tells them just the oposite... strange.

<div style="width:1024;color:F0FFFF;fontsize:11pt;filter: glow[color=black,strength=8)">
<h2> TAGERT</h2>
<marquee><h3>If WAR was not the ANSWER........ Than what the H was your QUESTION?</h3></marquee>
</div>

XyZspineZyX
11-01-2003, 12:41 AM
Tag - starting flames and blaming it on me. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
11-01-2003, 12:58 AM
I love Flying the 109's in IL2 and FB. I did have my engine cowling come lose once in a dive, and the engine seized from over RPM, but I was not able to regain control, but instead plowed squarly into the turf!

Since then I've learned, (as far as the game is concerned, to bring my prop pitch AAAAALLLLLLLl the way back to 0 before diving, and avoid speeds in exess of 650kph.

I never had a canopy frost over yet, but that would be a cool effect to see in the game. It wouldn't suprise me with all the bomb skipping, contrails, dust effects, and other little details Oleg put in.

http://home.comcast.net/~ick_352nd/icarus-sig.jpg

XyZspineZyX
11-01-2003, 01:38 AM
BlitzPig_DDT wrote:
- Tag - starting flames and blaming it on me.

You know.. I dont want to see this thread turn into another 3rd grade play ground event.. You know with the typical unfounded comments like "I know you are but what am I?" or "That's CRAP!"

So Im going to do everyone a favor and just ignor you... at least until you post some *useful* info.

With that said it looks like Ill be ignoring you for a long time! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif


<div style="width:1024;color:F0FFFF;fontsize:11pt;filter: glow[color=black,strength=8)">
<h2> TAGERT</h2>
<marquee><h3>If WAR was not the ANSWER........ Than what the H was your QUESTION?</h3></marquee>
</div>

XyZspineZyX
11-01-2003, 02:29 AM
tagert wrote:
- Chadburn wrote:
-- but was similar to other planes of the era
-- in this regard
-
- I agree that they are similar.. in that as the speed
- *increases* the force required to move the stick
- *increases*.
-
- So all the aircraft are similar in that the force
- increases.. that is I don't know of any aircraft in
- WWII that the forces *decreased* as the speed
- *increased*
-
- But that is not what we are talking about.. what we
- are talking about is the relative force required...
- And it has been well documented that the relative
- force required to move the stick in a 109 was MUCH
- HIGHER than other aircraft.
-
- The 109 forces above 300mph have been described at
- SOLID.. IN CEMENT.. etc... That *description* of the
- force is not similar to ALL other aircraft.


I've never actually flown a real 109, so I can only defer to those that have.

Once again, to Dave Southwood, who has flown many vintage WWII era warplanes:

"The Bf109G is heavy to manoeuvre in pitch, being similar to a Mustang." So he is saying the stick forces are similar, not just that they both increase.

He adds:

"At 520kph it is possible to pull 4g with one hand, but I find it more comfortable to use both hands on the stick for looping manoeuvres, normally entered at 420kph and 3g. Pitch trim changes with speed are moderate, and the tail plane trim wheel mounted abeam the pilots' left hip is easy to use. For a display, I run it at 420-450kph in trim, and then do not retrim. This causes no excessive stick forces during the display. Overall the aircraft is straightforward to handle in pitch."

So what he is saying, is that at 323mph, he can use one hand to pull 4g in a plane he trims for level flight at between 420-450kph. This does not appear to support the notion that at 300mph the stick becomes excessively heavy. In fact, they don't appear to become extremely stiff until in excess of 800kph as these two accounts show.



<CENTER>http://home.cogeco.ca/~jkinley/FB_JG27.jpg



Message Edited on 10/31/0308:35PM by Chadburn

XyZspineZyX
11-01-2003, 03:26 AM
For the record, there is an observation in the Russian 1943 air combat manual that 109F/G's appeared to be very slow in pull out from a high speed dive and could not change direction when in one. Everyone basically agrees that 109 elevators are stiff at high speeds, but not remarkably so in comparison to other contemporary a/c.

I fear therefore that there is some confusion between high speed roll rate performance and pitch up / pitch down capability. It's one thing to execute a 3 or 4 G loop, and quite a different thing to execute a roll at high speed.

Please call the fire department to put out the flames before they spread.



Blutarski

XyZspineZyX
11-01-2003, 07:17 AM
Chadburn wrote:
- I've never actually flown a real 109, so I can only
- defer to those that have.

Join the club!

- Once again, to Dave Southwood, who has flown many
- vintage WWII era warplanes:
-
- "The Bf109G is heavy to manoeuvre in pitch, being
- similar to a Mustang." So he is saying the stick
- forces are similar, not just that they both
- increase.

Agreed.. at slower speeds.

- He adds:
-
- "At 520kph it is possible to pull 4g with one hand,
- but I find it more comfortable to use both hands on
- the stick for looping manoeuvres, normally entered
- at 420kph and 3g. Pitch trim changes with speed are
- moderate, and the tail plane trim wheel mounted
- abeam the pilots' left hip is easy to use. For a
- display, I run it at 420-450kph in trim, and then do
- not retrim. This causes no excessive stick forces
- during the display. Overall the aircraft is
- straightforward to handle in pitch."

Again.. slower speeds as listed here.. the 109 is in it's nitch! It was a great manvering plane below 300mph.. but between 300 and 400mph it wasnt.

- So what he is saying, is that at 323mph, he can use
- one hand to pull 4g in a plane he trims for level
- flight at between 420-450kph. This does not appear
- to support the notion that at 300mph the stick
- becomes excessively heavy.

In and around 300mph is where it begins to go bad.. So I would agree with that assement.

- In fact, they don't appear to become extremely stiff
- until in excess of 800kph as these two accounts show.

No, between 300 and 400mph the controls became very STIFF, SOLID, like CEMENT.. If necessary I can re-post all the accounts that tell about the 109s poor stick forces for elvator and alerion.. or you can simply do a search of this forum.. They have been posted many times. Or you can take my word for it! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif


<div style="width:1024;color:F0FFFF;fontsize:11pt;filter: glow[color=black,strength=8)">
<h2> TAGERT</h2>
<marquee><h3>If WAR was not the ANSWER........ Than what the H was your QUESTION?</h3></marquee>
</div>

XyZspineZyX
11-01-2003, 07:11 PM
tagert wrote:
- SkyChimp wrote:
-- Hmm, just as the indicator hit the desired mark (500
-- km/h)...Control forces were so great that I could
-- not center the stick.
--
-- Tells me the control forces were extremely high at
-- 500 km/h.
-
- Funny aint it? I mean there are so many accounts of
- this.. and all say about the same thing.. Yet some
- read it and it tells them just the oposite...
- strange.

It&#180;s more a kind of translation failure (even if I admit that the 109 has high controllforces at highspeed)...
Just a logical question.. what does it tell us if the stick was unable to center? It has to be deflected in a direction.. hmm why? Nevertheless it doesn&#180;t matter, 109s have high controllforces in dives..

In the report I allready mentioned the tested 109 pulled out of 70-80? dive in around 1400-1500m with only using the stick and correct trimset, or with using the trimwheel (if dive was initiated with a wrong trimset) and pushing the stick foreward to be not blacked out... both curves have the same shape so maybe it was limited by the tendency to blackout?? - I don&#180;t know..

(it was not a test to estimate the max machnumber!!!- they tested the flightstability for the tall tail of later 109s)

Max machnumber - 0,805 at 7.0km
Max IAS - 737km/h - 4,5km
Max TAS - 906Km/h - 5,8Km

Speed when the pilots started to pull out of the dive was around 880km/h TAS (as fas as I can read it from the curves in the documents..)

Are there any values for other planes around? How many feet/meters are needed by other planes to pull out of a similar dive? Would be interesting to know..

JG53 PikAs Abbuzze
I./Gruppe

http://www.jg53-pikas.de/
http://mitglied.lycos.de/p123/Ani_pikasbanner_langsam.gif


Message Edited on 11/01/0307:17PM by Abbuzze

XyZspineZyX
11-02-2003, 09:57 PM
*Bump*

No values for planes with better high speed handling like P51 or 47 ??

How many feet/meter did they need to pull out of such a dive???

JG53 PikAs Abbuzze
I./Gruppe

http://www.jg53-pikas.de/
http://mitglied.lycos.de/p123/Ani_pikasbanner_langsam.gif

ZG77_Nagual
11-02-2003, 10:23 PM
K4 now appears to suffer the known slow roll at higher speeds. Also Has and absolutely fantastic climb. Of the four planes I just tested - 190a9, 190d9, 109k4, p39q10 - the k4 was the quickest to shoot down 4 ace la7s. Handling gets very nice once you slow down a bit - and the raw power climb is excellent. I was able to fight the las much closer than with the others

http://pws.chartermi.net/~cmorey/pics/whiner.jpg

XyZspineZyX
11-02-2003, 10:24 PM
I confirm that Nag, K4 is one of the deadliest in the game now, if flown right /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Regards,
VFC*Crazyivan
http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/ivan-reaper.gif

"No matter how good the violin may be, much depends on the violinist. I always felt respect for an enemy pilot whose plane I failed to down." Ivan Kozhedub

XyZspineZyX
11-03-2003, 06:21 PM
Abbuzze wrote:

- In the report I allready mentioned the tested 109
- pulled out of 70-80? dive in around 1400-1500m with
- only using the stick and correct trimset, or with
- using the trimwheel (if dive was initiated with a
- wrong trimset) and pushing the stick foreward to be
- not blacked out... both curves have the same shape
- so maybe it was limited by the tendency to
- blackout?? - I don&#180;t know..
-
- (it was not a test to estimate the max
- machnumber!!!- they tested the flightstability for
- the tall tail of later 109s)
-
- Max machnumber - 0,805 at 7.0km
- Max IAS - 737km/h - 4,5km
- Max TAS - 906Km/h - 5,8Km
-
- Speed when the pilots started to pull out of the
- dive was around 880km/h TAS (as fas as I can read it
- from the curves in the documents..)
-
- Are there any values for other planes around? How
- many feet/meters are needed by other planes to pull
- out of a similar dive? Would be interesting to
- know..
-

Hmm it seems an lot of people "KNOW" that the 109 had a bad highspeedhandling, but nobody knows what is a good highspeedhandling! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

JG53 PikAs Abbuzze
I./Gruppe

http://www.jg53-pikas.de/
http://mitglied.lycos.de/p123/Ani_pikasbanner_langsam.gif

XyZspineZyX
11-03-2003, 06:34 PM
Abbuzze wrote:
- Hmm it seems an lot of people "KNOW" that the 109
- had a bad highspeedhandling, but nobody knows what
- is a good highspeedhandling!

Good question, well presented, deserves an answer!

Well, to take the classic example, the P-51D was supposed to have "good high speed handling" according to what I have read.

I'll try find some stuff out....... interesting to hear from others on this.


As a side point, I read a few opinions on the early war Spitfires, and both RAF and Luftwaffe pilots commented on its poor high speed airleron control (ie. extremely high stick forces), in much the same way they did on the Bf-109's. So the 109 was not the only plane with this issue /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif



"As weaponry, both were good, but in far different ways from each other. In a nutshell, I describe it this way: if the FW 190 was a sabre, the 109 was a florett, or foil, like that used in the precision art of fencing." - Gunther Rall