PDA

View Full Version : Me109K without Flettner Tabs on the Ailerons



XyZspineZyX
10-04-2003, 06:56 PM
The question is why did some 109K's come WITHOUT Flettner Tabs on the Ailerons..

Here is the general location of the Flettner tab vs. the typical trim tab on the 109K

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/WingFlettnerG14-K4.jpg

I find it disturbing that I cant find a 109K picture with them.. And that even the drawings dont show much uniformity.

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/differanceindrawings.jpg

Which only further proves that they were far from *standard practace* in production and or field mods like the early flettner tabs implimented in the rudders mods.

Eitherway, from those *drawings* you can at least see that the following 109K pic is NOT of flettner tabs. These are parking clamps, that are used to keep the wind from blowing the control surfaces around and thus jerking the stick around in the pit.. and posiable causing damage.

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/bf109k4_023-swfoto.jpg


Here is a clear picture of the boys standing around as Iggie pulls the stick in the pit:

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/bf109k4_033-swfoto.jpg


Here is a good one:

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/bf109k4_026-swfoto.jpg



Here is a picture of how most 109Ks ended up after meeting a P51:

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/bf109k4_001-swfoto.jpg



Here is a K with the aileron deflected, but no break in the edge of the aileron.. which had there been a Flettner tab it would have:

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/bf109k4_006-swfoto.jpg


And another:

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/bf109k4_007-swfoto.jpg


And another:

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/bf109k4_008-swfoto.jpg


And another:

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/bf109k4_009-swfoto.jpg


And another:

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/bf109k4_013-swfoto.jpg



And another two of the same:
http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/bf109k4_025-swfoto.jpg

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/bf109k4_011-swfoto.jpg




<div style="background:#222222;color:#e0e0e0;font-size:24px;font-weight:bold;font-face:courier;"> TAGERT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If WAR was not the ANSWER.. Than what the H was your QUESTION?
</div>
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=forum
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=discussion


Message Edited on 10/04/03 11:30PM by tagert

Message Edited on 10/04/0311:32PM by tagert

XyZspineZyX
10-04-2003, 06:56 PM
The question is why did some 109K's come WITHOUT Flettner Tabs on the Ailerons..

Here is the general location of the Flettner tab vs. the typical trim tab on the 109K

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/WingFlettnerG14-K4.jpg

I find it disturbing that I cant find a 109K picture with them.. And that even the drawings dont show much uniformity.

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/differanceindrawings.jpg

Which only further proves that they were far from *standard practace* in production and or field mods like the early flettner tabs implimented in the rudders mods.

Eitherway, from those *drawings* you can at least see that the following 109K pic is NOT of flettner tabs. These are parking clamps, that are used to keep the wind from blowing the control surfaces around and thus jerking the stick around in the pit.. and posiable causing damage.

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/bf109k4_023-swfoto.jpg


Here is a clear picture of the boys standing around as Iggie pulls the stick in the pit:

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/bf109k4_033-swfoto.jpg


Here is a good one:

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/bf109k4_026-swfoto.jpg



Here is a picture of how most 109Ks ended up after meeting a P51:

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/bf109k4_001-swfoto.jpg



Here is a K with the aileron deflected, but no break in the edge of the aileron.. which had there been a Flettner tab it would have:

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/bf109k4_006-swfoto.jpg


And another:

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/bf109k4_007-swfoto.jpg


And another:

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/bf109k4_008-swfoto.jpg


And another:

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/bf109k4_009-swfoto.jpg


And another:

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/bf109k4_013-swfoto.jpg



And another two of the same:
http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/bf109k4_025-swfoto.jpg

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/bf109k4_011-swfoto.jpg




<div style="background:#222222;color:#e0e0e0;font-size:24px;font-weight:bold;font-face:courier;"> TAGERT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If WAR was not the ANSWER.. Than what the H was your QUESTION?
</div>
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=forum
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=discussion


Message Edited on 10/04/03 11:30PM by tagert

Message Edited on 10/04/0311:32PM by tagert

XyZspineZyX
10-04-2003, 07:17 PM
LOL, tagert, you can parrot it so well, that I almost believed it !

http://www.indianamilitary.org/FreemanAAF/PLANES/0123.jpg

This is the picture of a G-10 that tagert wanted to sell as a K-4 intitially.... funny, tagert cannot tell a K from G, still, he can tell wheter a Flettner tab is locked, or what else should it be instead!



http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/109/Bf109K-4_Wrk330130.jpg


Bf 109 K-4 Wrk. 330 130. Flettner on the aileron are clearly visible. Our good old parrot of course tells they are clamps, of course, sure taggy, you can`t tell a G-10 from K, but you can`t be


http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/109/Varjas%20W-sorozatu%20G-6v-14%20Flettnerlappal.jpg

This is a G-6 or G-14 with a first line unit... funny, even it has Flettner tabs !


http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/109/K4drawingtypesheet.jpg


Now, this is the drawomg for K-4 from the OFFICIAL aircraft type sheet. Funny, what do we see again ? Flettners!


http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/109/Kfactory%20drawing.jpg

Messerscmitt factory drawing of the control surfaces on the K series... Flettners clearly visible (of course according to our final word on everything, these are just wishful thinking of some. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif )


http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/109/WingFlettnerG14-K4.jpg

Now, here`s what Prien/Rodeike has to say on the wing of the G-14 and K-4. Funny, taggy missed that part in Rodeike`s book, of course, he was too busy to find a few exceptations that didn`t have Flettners, probably because of field repairs.


Speaks for itself. Flettners are clearly visibile on all drawings. Now of course taggy had to work hard to find a few Ks that doesn`t have, he had to include the same plane multiple times, make up stories about "parking clamps", try to sell a G-10 as a K-4, and show several pictures on which the area where Flettner tabs area isn`t visible at all, so he could claim they are not there.


Still, making up stories is one big leap forward from just licking everybody`s a$$ who hates 109s and German aircraft in general.

http://vo101isegrim.piranho.com/FB-desktopweb.jpg
'Only a dead Indianer is a good Indianer!'

Vezérünk a Bátorság, K*sérµnk a Szerencse!
(Courage leads, Luck escorts us! - Historical motto of the 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)

Flight tests and other aviation performance data: http://www.pbase.com/isegrim

XyZspineZyX
10-04-2003, 07:24 PM
Vo101_Isegrim wrote:

- Now, here`s what Prien/Rodeike has to say on the
- wing of the G-14 and K-4. Funny, taggy missed that
- part in Rodeike`s book, of course, he was too busy
- to find a few exceptations that didn`t have
- Flettners, probably because of field repairs.

FIELD REPAIRS!! Classic! Hey what ever gets you to sleep at night Iggie! But you might want to take a gander at this

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=denial



<div style="background:#222222;color:#e0e0e0;font-size:24px;font-weight:bold;font-face:courier;"> TAGERT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If WAR was not the ANSWER.. Than what the H was your QUESTION?
</div>
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=forum
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=discussion

XyZspineZyX
10-04-2003, 07:49 PM
What in the hell are you two on about?

XyZspineZyX
10-04-2003, 09:18 PM
Tagert is on about having no life, hating the LW, and trying to pi$$ off 2 other forum members Blade. One can only hope he acquires a life in the near future. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

XyZspineZyX
10-04-2003, 09:25 PM
DDT, is anyone that tries to prove a point about a German plane a LW Hater?

Would you classify Issy, or especially Huckles, as USAAF haters given the classic tirades we've seen here?

Regards,

SkyChimp

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

XyZspineZyX
10-04-2003, 09:38 PM
No, and yes respectively Chimp.

I knew right off that there was something off about the pictures and the way they were being sold. And sure enough, it was demonstrated before I even got to the end of the thread. Tagerts motives are just as transparent here, as Hucks are in any US/UK thread.

XyZspineZyX
10-04-2003, 09:38 PM
You forgot to mention the hate for British a/c SkyChimp those two show./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif


SkyChimp wrote:
- DDT, is anyone that tries to prove a point about a
- German plane a LW Hater?
-
- Would you classify Issy, or especially Huckles, as
- USAAF haters given the classic tirades we've seen
- here?
-

XyZspineZyX
10-04-2003, 09:42 PM
What's the purpose of Flettner tabs? Is it good if a plane has them or not?

<A HREF="http://www.eurobilltracker.com/index.php?referer=16470" TARGET=_blank>
http://www.eurobilltracker.com/banner.php
</A>

XyZspineZyX
10-04-2003, 09:51 PM
BlitzPig_DDT wrote:
- I knew right off that there was something off about
- the pictures and the way they were being sold. And
- sure enough, it was demonstrated before I even got
- to the end of the thread. Tagerts motives are just
- as transparent here, as Hucks are in any US/UK
- thread.

Negative Pig! I actually love German aircraft! Love flying them! I just love the truth more than any aircraft, US, USSR, Lw.. etc.. So much that I even had a thread the other day that DOCUMENTS that the Me262 *may have been* th 1st AC to break the sound barrier.. NOT CHUCK! Does that sound like a Lw hater.. Or someone seaking the truth?

And just so you know, these pictures of 109K's without Flettner Tabs are at the requests of Iggie himself, where he said to me.. And I quote

>>Now, you show me 150 drawings that does`t have them.
>>
>>So you homework is :
>>
>>Post
>>-50 pcitures of 109K
>>-50 pictures of 109G
>>-150 drawings of 109K without flettner tabs. At least
>>you said it can be easily done.

But belive what you want.. I wont loose any sleep over it.


<div style="background:#222222;color:#e0e0e0;font-size:24px;font-weight:bold;font-face:courier;"> TAGERT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If WAR was not the ANSWER.. Than what the H was your QUESTION?
</div>
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=forum
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=discussion

XyZspineZyX
10-04-2003, 10:04 PM
JR1911 wrote:
- What's the purpose of Flettner tabs? Is it good if a
- plane has them or not?
-

I would like to know, too. What are flettner tabs good for?

XyZspineZyX
10-04-2003, 10:08 PM
Flettner Tabs What are they ?

Looks like they cause drag ? Does FB Have them modled on the k4 ? are they suposed to be there ?



1st of the Flettner Tab Whineing bastads!!!

<CENTER> http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/ah_109_1065290873.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
10-04-2003, 10:10 PM
Why bother with the Flettner tabs anyways, we can't modify the aileron or rudder trim in flight.

Also, wouldn't it be safe to say that, since many late 109s were cobbled together from parts made for every 109, G through K, that some would have the tabs and others wouldnt?

http://www.mechmodels.com/images/klv_ubisig1a.jpg


Oh yeah, I'm a P-63 whiner too! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
10-04-2003, 10:10 PM
Hmmm wow look @ my Sig I think thats a Flettner Tab hangin down ?

Hmmmmmm Hmmmmmmm.....

Is it ? Hmmmmmmm.....

<CENTER> http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/ah_109_1065290873.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
10-04-2003, 10:27 PM
AFJ_Locust wrote:
- Hmmm wow look @ my Sig I think thats a Flettner Tab
- hangin down ?
-
- Hmmmmmm Hmmmmmmm.....
-
- Is it ? Hmmmmmmm.....
-
-

That is the aileron mass balance./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif Just something else to create drag.

XyZspineZyX
10-04-2003, 10:51 PM
For all you guys asking what is a flettner tab.. Here is a good link where some guys are debating it.

http://pub157.ezboard.com/fluftwaffeexperten71774frm9.showMessage?topicID=11 3.topic

Note that Iggie is pushing his theorys there too.. One guy made alot of sense "Henning (HoHun)" and I think his explanation explains why they never became a standard.. even though they were first used way back on the G-6

QUOTE:

Hi everyone,

I'd imagine the downside of the Flettner ailerons was that they were too effective at high speeds.

Just like the Flettner tab deflects to one side to cause the aileron to deflect to the opposite side, the deflected aileron would work as a Flettner to try and deflect the entire wing (by bending it).

Since the Me 109 had a single-spar wing, it probably wasn't stiff enough to resist. The bent wing would create a rolling force opposite to the one induced by the aileron. If you go fast enough, the wing might be stronger than the aileron, so the plane would be rolling in the opposite sense of the aileron input!

(And if you go yet faster, and perhaps are pulling some Gs, the wing might be bent beyond the point of failure. For the Me 109, this is speculation, but it certainly happened to the Spitfire which had a very similar wing construction. "Up in Harms Way" by fighter pilot/test pilot Mike Crosley explains the Spitfire problem in detail.)

With regard to the Me 109, it was found during diving trials that aileron reversibility occurred at very high speeds, which seems to confirm my speculation. When the Me 109 was dived to Mach 0.8 for tests, aileron gain was reduced to 50% to avoid this (and a catapult seat fitted, just in case ...)

(The diving trials are described by Radinger/Otto/Schick in the Me 109 books.)

To sum it up, I suspect there were some reservations against Flettner tabs because they might have made the aircraft unsafe at high speeds and high Gs.

(As far as technology is concerned, I think there was a variant of the Flettner tab where the tab was linked via a spring that made the Flettners less effective at higher speeds. In US technology, Flettner tabs are "geared tabs", and the spring-loaded variant are "spring tabs").

Flettners gave control feel, by the way, but of course the forces were reduced. Hydraulic controls were "irreversible" and didn't give any feedback, so they were provided with "artificial" feel, usually simply by fitting some springs. "Testing for Combat" by Eric Brown lists variations of this control combination for almost every post-war plane he describes.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)
END QUOTE


<div style="background:#222222;color:#e0e0e0;font-size:24px;font-weight:bold;font-face:courier;"> TAGERT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If WAR was not the ANSWER.. Than what the H was your QUESTION?
</div>
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=forum
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=discussion

XyZspineZyX
10-04-2003, 11:01 PM
Thx

<CENTER> http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/ah_109_1065290873.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
10-04-2003, 11:55 PM
tagert wrote:
- Negative Pig! I actually love German aircraft! Love
- flying them! I just love the truth more than any
- aircraft, US, USSR, Lw.. etc.. So much that I even
- had a thread the other day that DOCUMENTS that the
- Me262 *may have been* th 1st AC to break the sound
- barrier.. NOT CHUCK! Does that sound like a Lw
- hater.. Or someone seaking the truth?

Sure....just someone who prefers to beleive that negative comments are the truth. Perhaps you are just a hapless victim of propaganda though.


- And just so you know, these pictures of 109K's
- without Flettner Tabs are at the requests of Iggie
- himself, where he said to me.. And I quote

'cept many of them weren't Ks.

XyZspineZyX
10-05-2003, 12:01 AM
BlitzPig_DDT wrote:
- Sure....just someone who prefers to beleive that
- negative comments are the truth. Perhaps you are
- just a hapless victim of propaganda though.

Ah.. so which is it now? Or should I say which will it be next? In that I *was* a Lw Hater... Now Im a victim? What is next?

- 'cept many of them weren't Ks.

Sorry but you are wrong.

<div style="background:#222222;color:#e0e0e0;font-size:24px;font-weight:bold;font-face:courier;"> TAGERT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If WAR was not the ANSWER.. Than what the H was your QUESTION?
</div>
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=forum
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=discussion

XyZspineZyX
10-05-2003, 12:07 AM
BlitzPig_DDT wrote:

-
- 'cept many of them weren't Ks.
-
-

Which pics posted were not Ks? Every one has the DF loop mounted rearward. Isegrim says this is one of the ways to ID a K-4.

The small access hatch on top of the fuselage, just behind the canopy, says they are K-4s.

The pics are from books by Radinger/Otto and Prien/Rodieke who identify them as K-4s.

XyZspineZyX
10-05-2003, 12:13 AM
tagert wrote:
- BlitzPig_DDT wrote:
-- Sure....just someone who prefers to beleive that
-- negative comments are the truth. Perhaps you are
-- just a hapless victim of propaganda though.
-
- Ah.. so which is it now? Or should I say which will
- it be next? In that I *was* a Lw Hater... Now Im a
- victim? What is next?

Either or. Not one then the other. If your protests are true, you are a victim, if not, just an LW hater. Pretty simple. Kinda like your attempt to turn it around.


-- 'cept many of them weren't Ks.
-
- Sorry but you are wrong.

Not at all. As was pointed out.

XyZspineZyX
10-05-2003, 12:17 AM
No the late G-10 had those DF loops also./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

The K-4 had some things you can differ from G-10.

the access hatch for master compass was deleted
DF loop moved backwards by 1 vertical frame
Radio hatch moved forward and higher
wheel bays completely closed now
larger tail wheel door



"......und mein Herz steigt wie ein Falke in die Lüfte!"

EJGr.Ost Kimura

http://www.jagdgruppe-ost.de/image/ejgrost.gif


http://www.jagdgruppe-ost.de/Forums/

XyZspineZyX
10-05-2003, 12:20 AM
BlitzPig_DDT wrote:
- Either or. Not one then the other. If your protests
- are true, you are a victim, if not, just an LW
- hater. Pretty simple. Kinda like your attempt to
- turn it around.

LOL! U B FUNNY!

- Not at all. As was pointed out.

LOL! U B FUNNY!



<div style="background:#222222;color:#e0e0e0;font-size:24px;font-weight:bold;font-face:courier;"> TAGERT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If WAR was not the ANSWER.. Than what the H was your QUESTION?
</div>
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=forum
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=discussion

XyZspineZyX
10-05-2003, 12:40 AM
KIMURA wrote:
- No the late G-10 had those DF loops also.

Hmmmm..

- The K-4 had some things you can differ from G-10.
-
- the access hatch for master compass was deleted

Ok.. not sure where that is/was

- DF loop moved backwards by 1 vertical frame

Roger.

- Radio hatch moved forward and higher

Roger, that is clear on most of my pictures.. kid in one of them.. Funny, Iggie's BLUE PRINT shows the old smaller lower one.

- wheel bays completely closed now

Hard to tell on most of these pics

- larger tail wheel door

Hard to tell on most of these pics

Any of those pics not meet these req?


-

<div style="background:#222222;color:#e0e0e0;font-size:24px;font-weight:bold;font-face:courier;"> TAGERT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If WAR was not the ANSWER.. Than what the H was your QUESTION?
</div>
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=forum
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=discussion

XyZspineZyX
10-05-2003, 12:51 AM
KIMURA wrote:
- No the late G-10 had those DF loops also./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif -
- The K-4 had some things you can differ from G-10.
-
- the access hatch for master compass was deleted
- DF loop moved backwards by 1 vertical frame
- Radio hatch moved forward and higher
- wheel bays completely closed now
- larger tail wheel door
-

Yes the G-10 had those DF loops but they were further forward than on the K-4s. The G-10s did not have the SMALL access hatchs in the same position as on the K-4s. They were behind the DF loop on the G-10.

See the profile drawings pg 189 of Prien/Rodieke.

XyZspineZyX
10-05-2003, 01:10 AM
Roachclip you repeat what I wrote./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif



"......und mein Herz steigt wie ein Falke in die Lüfte!"

EJGr.Ost Kimura

http://www.jagdgruppe-ost.de/image/ejgrost.gif


http://www.jagdgruppe-ost.de/Forums/

XyZspineZyX
10-05-2003, 01:17 AM
You did not say anything about the small access hatchs./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif The repeat of the other stuff was for the emphasis./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

XyZspineZyX
10-05-2003, 05:57 AM
quack

www.fighterjocks.net (http://www.fighterjocks.net) home of the 11 time Champions Team AFJ. 6 Years Flying. Semper Invictus! <img src ="http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/ah_120_1064715546.jpg">

XyZspineZyX
10-05-2003, 06:15 AM
Okay,obviously I've missed something. Why do the Luftwaffe guys find it offensive if the K-4 didn't have Flettner tabs? I don't know anything about this one way or the other,but Tagert's claim seems to have hit a nerve. Why? Is it a big deal if the K-4 didn't have these tabs? I'm not partial to either side of the argument here,I'd just like to know what the big deal is....

47|FC
http://rangerring.com/wwii/p-47.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-05-2003, 07:16 AM
Because it refutes a factually unsubstantiated belief that a majority of late model 109s had the tabs; a few people here are depending on ANY evidence at all to support their hypothesis that as the 109 evolved, it's high speed roll rate improved. And was even competitive with more advanced types. Of course NO ONE has produced any actual evidence that this is the case.

Barfly
Executive Officer
7. Staffel, JG 77 "Black Eagles"

http://www.7jg77.com

XyZspineZyX
10-05-2003, 07:19 AM
necrobaron wrote:
- Okay,obviously I've missed something. Why do the
- Luftwaffe guys find it offensive if the K-4 didn't
- have Flettner tabs? I don't know anything about this
- one way or the other,but Tagert's claim seems to
- have hit a nerve. Why? Is it a big deal if the K-4
- didn't have these tabs? I'm not partial to either
- side of the argument here,I'd just like to know what
- the big deal is....

Readers's Digest version.. Many people have said that the 109 *series* did not roll well at speeds above 300mph.. In that the stick forces became very large.. excessive.. test pilots refered to the stick feeling like it was in a bucket of cement... Flettner tabs worked is such a way as to eleviate some of the stick forces enabling the pilot to deflect the ailerons more.. thus better roll rate. Up to now it has long been *felt* that Flettner tabs were *standard* practace by the time the 109K-4 started rolling off the assembly lines.. But butch has noted that the flettner tabs dont show up on any of the parts list for K's.. And, I have yet to see a picture of a "K" with Flettner tabs.. except for a few post war *drawings* (not blue prints) and even thouse VARY alot!

Thus my take on all this data and more is that Flettner tabs were far from *standard* pratace in production and or filed mod.. ie the Exception NOT the Rule.



<div style="background:#222222;color:#e0e0e0;font-size:24px;font-weight:bold;font-face:courier;"> TAGERT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If WAR was not the ANSWER.. Than what the H was your QUESTION?
</div>
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=forum
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=discussion

Message Edited on 10/04/0311:22PM by tagert

XyZspineZyX
10-05-2003, 09:55 AM
Rgr that,Panelboy and Tagert. Thanks...

47|FC
http://rangerring.com/wwii/p-47.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-05-2003, 10:32 AM
necrobaron wrote:
- Okay,obviously I've missed something. Why do the
- Luftwaffe guys find it offensive if the K-4 didn't
- have Flettner tabs?

I think the answer lies in the peculiar way some people have invested a lot of their self esteem in what they see as the "hidden knowledge" that Nazi Germany was in some way better than the the Allied nations (They admire aircraft, so for them this is expressed in the belief that Nazi Germany produced wonder aircraft).

To overcome the awkward historical fact that the Nazis actually lost the war and the Luftwaffe performed poorly they have invented a myth of victimhood in which the Allies in some way "cheated" - by using more aircraft or by cutting off fuel supplies or whatever. In this way the unimpressive real-life performance of their totems is excused by the scheming and underhand behaviour of their opponents. This allows the central core of their belief in Nazi super aircraft to remain intact in the face of rather obvious evidence to the contrary.

All pure speculation, of course /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif .

Regards,

RocketDog.

XyZspineZyX
10-05-2003, 11:06 AM
LOL, let`s see what taggy makes up of reality:

tagert wrote:
-
- Readers's Digest version.. Many people have said
- that the 109 *series* did not roll well at speeds
- above 300mph..

Sure, in tagert`s mind there are voices constantly heard. "109s were bad". "Luftwaffe is bad, hate them, hate them". "The truth is just MINE, MINE, MINE, my preccciioossss ding!"

Fact is: tagert and a few of his degenerated buddies ran amok on this boards, and up to now opened two threads of 7 page each, where they go 109 basing. They started it with a pathetich article full of errors to prove it, and ever since they are twisting their own words to new ones every time they were proven wrong. They



- In that the stick forces became very
- large.. excessive.. test pilots refered to the stick
- feeling like it was in a bucket of cement...


At least according to the voices in taggy`s head... he can hear them constantly.



- Flettner tabs worked is such a way as to eleviate
- some of the stick forces enabling the pilot to
- deflect the ailerons more.. thus better roll rate.
- Up to now it has long been *felt* that Flettner tabs
- were *standard* practace by the time the 109K-4
- started rolling off the assembly lines.. But butch
- has noted that the flettner tabs dont show up on any
- of the parts list for K's..
- And, I have yet to see a
- picture of a "K" with Flettner tabs.. except for a
- few post war *drawings* (not blue prints) and even
- thouse VARY alot!


Now that`s taggy`s version. A very original one indeed. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif Butch said that spare parts manuals he had seen doesn`t have them showed, but before that he also said the K-4 Handbuch shows them clearly, and I posted WARTIME factory drawings from Messerscmitt that show the Flettner tabs on ailerons, indicating that they were intended as STANDARD. I have also shown drawings from WARTIME German aircraft type sheet, which shows them again, indicating they were intended as STANDARD. I also shown a WARTIME picture of 109G-6/G-14 with a frontline unit, that most obviously has the Flettners, which tagert denied first, then changed his argument that they were locked... /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif


Now if you ask me why do some open 3 threads just to tell how bad 109 roll rate was, why do some post several masseges full of nonsense, with stinking and constantly changing theories...

I say he lives alone, unemployed, doesn`t have a girlfriend, and a passionate Luftwaffe hater.

http://vo101isegrim.piranho.com/FB-desktopweb.jpg
'Only a dead Indianer is a good Indianer!'

Vezérünk a Bátorság, K*sérµnk a Szerencse!
(Courage leads, Luck escorts us! - Historical motto of the 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)

Flight tests and other aviation performance data: http://www.pbase.com/isegrim

Message Edited on 10/14/0303:48PM by Vo101_Isegrim

XyZspineZyX
10-05-2003, 12:12 PM
Vo101_Isegrim wrote:

Fact is: tagert and a few of his degenerated buddies
- ran amok on this boards, and up to now opened two
- threads of 7 page each, where they go 109 basing.

I meen this most sincerly,Why is it "109 bashing" to say something in his or her opinon is bad?

If you say something about lets say the mustang, are you mustang bashing or just stating your opinion?

No1RAAF_Pourshot
http://members.optusnet.com.au/~andycarroll68/CA-15%20Kangaroo.jpg

No1_RAAF

XyZspineZyX
10-05-2003, 01:45 PM
Vo101_Isegrim wrote:

-
-
- Now that`s taggy`s version. A very original one
- indeed.
- Butch said that spare
- parts manuals he had seen doesn`t have them showed,
- but before that he also said the K-4 Handbuch shows
- them clearly, and I posted WARTIME factory drawings
- from Messerscmitt that show the Flettner tabs on
- ailerons, indicating their STANDARD nature. I have
- also shown drawings from WARTIME German aircraft
- type sheet, which shows them again, indicating they
- were STANDARD. I also shown a WARTIME picture of
- 109G-6/G-14 with a frontline unit, that most
- obviously has the Flettners, which tagert denied
- first, then changed his argument that they were
- locked...
-

The 109 pics posted in this thread are all 109Ks. The one tagert says has a control surface lock is W.Nr.330130, NOT the G-6/14, as you claim. Why? By your own description that the DF loop was further to the rear of the cockpit than on other 109s. There is the small access hatchs directly behind the cockpit that also say these are 109K a/c. Are you disputing the models designations of the pics tagert posted?

-
- Now if you ask me why do some open 3 threads just to
- tell how bad 109 roll rate was, why do some post
- several masseges full of nonsense, with stinking and
- constantly changing theories...
-
-

I only see 2 threads and only one is titled 109 roll. The other is titled Flettner tabs. This thread is only 2 pages not 7 pages./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
10-05-2003, 03:44 PM
So we all agree, Flettner Tabs were next to non-existent on late Bf-109s. And stick forces were high resulting in mediocre roll rate at low speed, poor roll rate at high speed.

Regards,

SkyChimp

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

XyZspineZyX
10-05-2003, 05:12 PM
Vo101_Isegrim wrote:
- LOL, let`s see what taggy makes up of reality: *snip*

Iggie.. I am so proud of you! That is the first post in a long time that you didnt make a referance to the bung hole fixation of yours... Good Work! Keep it up! You will soon be back to adult status and ready to join the discussion on flettner tabs! Hang in there buddy.. I know you can do it!





<div style="background:#222222;color:#e0e0e0;font-size:24px;font-weight:bold;font-face:courier;"> TAGERT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If WAR was not the ANSWER.. Than what the H was your QUESTION?
</div>
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=forum
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=discussion

XyZspineZyX
10-05-2003, 05:13 PM
SkyChimp wrote:
- So we all agree, Flettner Tabs were next to
- non-existent on late Bf-109s. And stick forces were
- high resulting in mediocre roll rate at low speed,
- poor roll rate at high speed.
-
- Regards,
-
- SkyChimp

Agreed 100%



<div style="background:#222222;color:#e0e0e0;font-size:24px;font-weight:bold;font-face:courier;"> TAGERT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If WAR was not the ANSWER.. Than what the H was your QUESTION?
</div>
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=forum
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=discussion

XyZspineZyX
10-05-2003, 05:14 PM
I asked Issy in the other thread about Hungarian cuisine, as I plane on going to an authentic Hungarian restaurant this weekend. But all his talk about a$$-licking makes me want to reconsider. I'm not even sure what wine goes well with a$$.

Regards,

SkyChimp

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

XyZspineZyX
10-05-2003, 05:19 PM
SkyChimp wrote:
- I asked Issy in the other thread about Hungarian
- cuisine, as I plane on going to an authentic
- Hungarian restaurant this weekend. But all his talk
- about a$$-licking makes me want to reconsider. I'm
- not even sure what wine goes well with a$$.
-
- Regards,
-
- SkyChimp

I too would be worried.. As for wine.. Just a guess, but ask to see the whine list.. I mean wine list.. look for a vintage 45 and see if there is one called "Flettner Tablonk" I hear it is a very rare whine.. but it is supose to be really good.. I just cant find anyone who has actully drank the stuff.. but they all hear it is very good! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif


<div style="background:#222222;color:#e0e0e0;font-size:24px;font-weight:bold;font-face:courier;"> TAGERT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If WAR was not the ANSWER.. Than what the H was your QUESTION?
</div>
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=forum
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=discussion

XyZspineZyX
10-05-2003, 09:33 PM
RocketDog wrote:
- All pure speculation, of course

Of course! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif



<div style="background:#222222;color:#e0e0e0;font-size:24px;font-weight:bold;font-face:courier;"> TAGERT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If WAR was not the ANSWER.. Than what the H was your QUESTION?
</div>
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=forum
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=discussion

XyZspineZyX
10-05-2003, 09:35 PM
tagert wrote:
- SkyChimp wrote:
-- So we all agree, Flettner Tabs were next to
-- non-existent on late Bf-109s. And stick forces were
-- high resulting in mediocre roll rate at low speed,
-- poor roll rate at high speed.
--
-- Regards,
--
-- SkyChimp
-
- Agreed 100%



LOL, after a short break, tagert is back on line for his favourite activity ! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Don`t finish until it shines ! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

http://vo101isegrim.piranho.com/FB-desktopweb.jpg
'Only a dead Indianer is a good Indianer!'

Vezérünk a Bátorság, K*sérµnk a Szerencse!
(Courage leads, Luck escorts us! - Historical motto of the 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)

Flight tests and other aviation performance data: http://www.pbase.com/isegrim

XyZspineZyX
10-06-2003, 12:27 AM
Vo101_Isegrim wrote:
- LOL, after a short break, tagert is back on line for
- his favourite activity
-
- Don`t finish until it shines !

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/baghdadBf109k.jpg


Shinny enough? /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

<div style="background:#222222;color:#e0e0e0;font-size:24px;font-weight:bold;font-face:courier;"> TAGERT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If WAR was not the ANSWER.. Than what the H was your QUESTION?
</div>
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=forum
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=discussion

Message Edited on 10/05/0304:30PM by tagert

XyZspineZyX
10-06-2003, 12:34 AM
Vo101_Isegrim wrote:

- Don`t finish until it shines !

lol

Regards,

SkyChimp

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

XyZspineZyX
10-06-2003, 06:48 AM
and another

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/bf109k-4-r1.jpg




<div style="background:#222222;color:#e0e0e0;font-size:24px;font-weight:bold;font-face:courier;"> TAGERT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If WAR was not the ANSWER.. Than what the H was your QUESTION?
</div>
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=forum
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=discussion

XyZspineZyX
10-06-2003, 10:14 AM
The Flettner were absolutly not standard !!!
I have spare part listing for nearly every G and K version, up to the K-4 and including the 109H and K-2 and none mention the inclusing of the Flettner tabbed ailerons.
Every spare list that i checked including some barely readable february 45 listing list the standard Aileron, not the tabbed one.
I believe a small stock of Flettner tabbed ailerons were produce but not fitted as standard for some reason. So you'll see some aircraft equipped with them but not the majority.


Butch

XyZspineZyX
10-06-2003, 11:01 AM
butch2k wrote:
- The Flettner were absolutly not standard !!!
- I have spare part listing for nearly every G and K
- version, up to the K-4 and including the 109H and
- K-2 and none mention the inclusing of the Flettner
- tabbed ailerons.
- Every spare list that i checked including some
- barely readable february 45 listing list the
- standard Aileron, not the tabbed one.
- I believe a small stock of Flettner tabbed ailerons
- were produce but not fitted as standard for some
- reason. So you'll see some aircraft equipped with
- them but not the majority.
-
-
-
- Butch
-

Issegrim - you really need to respond to this rather than just continually insisting that 109s actually did have Flettner tabs.

Butch - any data on the high-speed roll rate of this aircraft? I've stopped taking Isse and Huck seriously on this matter, but it would be nice to have some concrete data rather than just more speculation.

Regards,

RocketDog.

XyZspineZyX
10-06-2003, 11:03 AM
SkyChimp wrote:
- So we all agree...

You really think that's likely?? /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Kernow
249 IAP

XyZspineZyX
10-06-2003, 11:13 AM
LOL

<CENTER> http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/ah_109_1065290873.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
10-06-2003, 12:11 PM
you guys crack me up

XyZspineZyX
10-06-2003, 12:19 PM
butch2k wrote:
- The Flettner were absolutly not standard !!!
- I have spare part listing for nearly every G and K
- version, up to the K-4 and including the 109H and
- K-2 and none mention the inclusing of the Flettner
- tabbed ailerons.
- Every spare list that i checked including some
- barely readable february 45 listing list the
- standard Aileron, not the tabbed one.
- I believe a small stock of Flettner tabbed ailerons
- were produce but not fitted as standard for some
- reason. So you'll see some aircraft equipped with
- them but not the majority.
-


Where have the "uber twins", especially Issy, disappeared to? /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif You going to give Butch one of your usual insulting, derogatory, ranting posts for disagreeing with you?


http://www.stenbergaa.com/stenberg/west-battleline.jpg



"Only a dead 'chamber pot' is a good 'chamber pot'!"

XyZspineZyX
10-06-2003, 04:36 PM
butch2k wrote:
- The Flettner were absolutly not standard !!!
- I have spare part listing for nearly every G and K
- version, up to the K-4 and including the 109H and
- K-2 and none mention the inclusing of the Flettner
- tabbed ailerons.
- Every spare list that i checked including some
- barely readable february 45 listing list the
- standard Aileron, not the tabbed one.
- I believe a small stock of Flettner tabbed ailerons
- were produce but not fitted as standard for some
- reason. So you'll see some aircraft equipped with
- them but not the majority.
-
-
-
- Butch

Very interesting... What do you have in the way of drawings? Any blue print quality? I was amazed that iggie posted the 3 different drawings he called blue prints.. They are hardly blue prints.. And they also imply that fletters were not a standard in that in 3 drawings we got 3 different size, locations and implimentations of flettners.

Eitherway, thanks for the info.. And if you ever get around to scanning those in.. let me know, I would be willing to send $ for a copy of those documents!!



<div style="background:#222222;color:#e0e0e0;font-size:24px;font-weight:bold;font-face:courier;"> TAGERT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If WAR was not the ANSWER.. Than what the H was your QUESTION?
</div>
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=forum
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=discussion

XyZspineZyX
10-06-2003, 04:50 PM
MiloMorai wrote:
- Where have the "uber twins", especially Issy,
- disappeared to?

I found one...

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/109kwithflettnertab.jpg


But I can not tell if it is iggie or hickie

- You going to give Butch one of your usual
- insulting, derogatory, ranting posts for
- disagreeing with you?

If any /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif



<div style="background:#222222;color:#e0e0e0;font-size:24px;font-weight:bold;font-face:courier;"> TAGERT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If WAR was not the ANSWER.. Than what the H was your QUESTION?
</div>
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=forum
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=discussion

XyZspineZyX
10-06-2003, 10:22 PM
butch2k wrote:
- The Flettner were absolutly not standard !!!
- I have spare part listing for nearly every G and K
- version, up to the K-4 and including the 109H and
- K-2 and none mention the inclusing of the Flettner
- tabbed ailerons.
- Every spare list that i checked including some
- barely readable february 45 listing list the
- standard Aileron, not the tabbed one.
- I believe a small stock of Flettner tabbed ailerons
- were produce but not fitted as standard for some
- reason. So you'll see some aircraft equipped with
- them but not the majority.
-

Still no sign of the Hungarian goulash brain? Will do a quick check tomorrow AM before I am off for another several months. Sure should be an interesting post, if he makes one./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
10-06-2003, 10:45 PM
Tagert,

You can tell from the DF loop that this is a Model K4 hen. Look closely at his left wing and you CAN see the Flettner tab!

Phooey on you!


Blutarski

XyZspineZyX
10-06-2003, 11:06 PM
since I really dont understand much of these tab thingys all I can comment on is the pictures you posted, which I can say are very, very interesting shots of a once beautiful plane. Thanks for posting.

<center>http://www.blitzpigs.com/john/BP-johann-9-4-03.gif <center>

XyZspineZyX
10-07-2003, 12:00 AM
You guys are whining that you STILL cant beat 109 and more porking is needed? For upcoming P-51 I'm sure.

Nice.

Don't worry, every patch downgrades 109's. It is a tradition which cannot be broken. Oleg raged some time ago in ORR with style we can be sure about decisions are calm and objective. You'll get what you want.

XyZspineZyX
10-07-2003, 12:17 PM
The Hungarian goulash brain still has not shown up with a reply to Butch2k's post?? Oh well, to be expected, /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif not man enough to admit that he was WRONG./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
10-07-2003, 12:36 PM
Well, what do you expect to pour out from Sh*thead... loads of BS of course.

Flettner tabs are shown in K-4`s manual, argue that.
Shown on Messerscmitt factory drawings, argue that.
Shown on the drawings on EVERY single serious author on WW2, shown on examples of Bf 109G-6, shown on Bf 109K-4 Argue all that.

Not listed in spare parts catalogs, but can be seen on planes? In that case, I tend to believe the physical reality, they ARE there.

You have told that Flettners were not used on 109s at all, you have told that they were not used on Gs, you have told that these "non-existent" tabs were "locked", you have told the wing`s design never changed. You said the tabs that never existed and were locked were "no longer produced" on the K-6 that was most likely never produced. All wrong.

You have attempted to show G-10 as K-4. You used this tricks as using other subtypes as "examples", you have posted pics of the very same plane TWICE, you have carefully selected only the early Werknummers (that`s why Wrknummers are cut off by you), you posted posted pictures that doesn`t even show the ailerons visible, and not even a close picture, still, based on a red circle drawn by YOURSELF, you claimed all these planes don`t have it.

This are your methods and actions.

You showed enourmous amounts of lies, dishonesty, and cheat. These foundation stones of your true nature.



http://vo101isegrim.piranho.com/FB-desktopweb.jpg
'Only a dead Indianer is a good Indianer!'

Vezérünk a Bátorság, K*sérµnk a Szerencse!
(Courage leads, Luck escorts us! - Historical motto of the 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)

Flight tests and other aviation performance data: http://www.pbase.com/isegrim

XyZspineZyX
10-07-2003, 12:41 PM
Klaus Niska`s drawings :

http://www.jiop.fi/ksimuseo/kuvat140903/Bf109K4left.gif


http://www.jiop.fi/ksimuseo/kuvat140903/Bf109K4under.gif


http://www.jiop.fi/ksimuseo/Bf109K4up_83.gif


http://vo101isegrim.piranho.com/FB-desktopweb.jpg
'Only a dead Indianer is a good Indianer!'

Vezérünk a Bátorság, K*sérµnk a Szerencse!
(Courage leads, Luck escorts us! - Historical motto of the 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)

Flight tests and other aviation performance data: http://www.pbase.com/isegrim

XyZspineZyX
10-07-2003, 02:16 PM
Let me see. We have:

Vo101_Isegrim wrote:
- Well, what do you expect to pour out from
- Sh*thead... loads of BS of course.
-
- Flettner tabs are shown in K-4`s manual, argue that.
-
-
- Shown on Messerscmitt factory drawings, argue that.
- Shown on the drawings on EVERY single serious author
- on WW2, shown on examples of Bf 109G-6, shown on Bf
- 109K-4 Argue all that.
<snip>
- You showed enourmous amounts of lies, dishonesty,
- and cheat. These foundation stones of your true
- nature.

or,

butch2k wrote:
- The Flettner were absolutly not standard !!!
- I have spare part listing for nearly every G and K
- version, up to the K-4 and including the 109H and
- K-2 and none mention the inclusing of the Flettner
- tabbed ailerons.
- Every spare list that i checked including some
- barely readable february 45 listing list the
- standard Aileron, not the tabbed one.
- I believe a small stock of Flettner tabbed ailerons
- were produce but not fitted as standard for some
- reason. So you'll see some aircraft equipped with
- them but not the majority.
-
-
-
- Butch
-

I believe Butch.

Regards,

RocketDog.

XyZspineZyX
10-07-2003, 02:23 PM
Vo101_Isegrim wrote:
- Well, what do you expect to pour out from
- Sh*thead... loads of BS of course.
-
-

So you are calling Butch a "Sh*thead".

----------

Got any pics of late production 109K-4s with Flettner tabs showing?



http://www.stenbergaa.com/stenberg/west-battleline.jpg



"Only a dead 'chamber pot' is a good 'chamber pot'!"

Message Edited on 10/07/0309:30AM by MiloMorai

XyZspineZyX
10-07-2003, 09:55 PM
scale drawings do not hold a lot of water. I have seen some inaccurate drawings in books. how about some pics and figures of how many 109ks were produced with these tabs. how do I know that these were not just a few proto types since there are pics of k-4s with out the tabs.

XyZspineZyX
10-08-2003, 02:01 AM
from the book "Messerschmitt Bf-109F,G,& K series" isbn 0887404243

G-6

"from early 1944 many G-6s were fitted with a larger fin and rudder at the factory, but a condiderable number of aircraft undergoing major repairs at repair facilities also recieved the new tail unit, which had a straight, vertical rudder line. The rudder featured a flettner tab which was controlled via a linkage on the right side. A number of conversion kits were installed in a G-6 series."

G-14

"many G-14s received the small G-6 tail unit. equally common was the larger fin and rudder also seen on the G-6. On the G-14 this often featured two fixed trim tabs in addition to the usual flettner tab. another style of rudder also appeared at this time, whose bottom edge was sloped at a somewhat sharper angle and whose rear corner wsa somewhat more pointed than the earlier version. The new type of rudder was also to be seen with just the flettner tab, as well as with the flettner tab and two fixed tabs." this book suggests that as many as 5,500 G-14s were built

G-10

"deliveries of the G-10, which was planned as a supplement to the K series and which represented a connection link between it and the G series, began in the autumn of 1944. The G-10 production of which ran from october 1944 until the end of the war, resulted from conversions of older series, like hte G-6 and G-14. as a result it was referred to as a "bastard aircraft" in the bf 109 type sheet. it was not actually a further developent of the g series, rather it represented and attempt to bring older, repairable machines up to the standard of the K 4."

"attempts to achieve a standard model G-10 failed" it seems that some G-10s had a mix match of old G-6 parts so that you could see just about anything on a G-10.

K-4

"the enlarged tail unit was a standard fit on the K-4, and in most cases the aircraft's rudder featured the flettner tab as well as the two fixed tabs; however, there were rare examples which did not receive the fixed tabs. In general all K-4s were supposed to receive the long tailwheel, which was intended to be retractable. a few K-4s were nevertheless fitted with the short tailwheel of the G-6."

so according to this book, the bulk of G-6s did not have a trimable rudder while the bulk of G-10s, G-14s and K-4s did have a trimmable rudder. so it appears possible to find late model 109s that do not have the flettner tabs.

my question is what is the scoop on this flettner tab? why were two additional fixed tabs added to the rudder? wasnt the flettner tab effective enough to be used as a stand alone device?

XyZspineZyX
10-08-2003, 02:05 AM
Vo101_Isegrim wrote:

- Shown on Messerscmitt factory drawings, argue that.
- Shown on the drawings on EVERY single serious author
- on WW2, shown on examples of Bf 109G-6, shown on Bf
- 109K-4 Argue all that.

Not shown on any photos, except ONE that you produced. Argue that.

Regards,

SkyChimp

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

XyZspineZyX
10-08-2003, 04:33 AM
STFU

"Doctor Fact is knocking at the door. Someone, please, let the man in!"
Chris Morris

XyZspineZyX
10-08-2003, 06:38 AM
Vo101_Isegrim wrote:
- Well, what do you expect to pour out from
- Sh*thead... loads of BS of course.

Now now.. don't be too hard on yourself.. It takes time to come to the realization that you were wrong, one almost expects a child like mind to fight the truth for a little while.. But you are exceeding that threshold.

- Flettner tabs are shown in K-4`s manual, argue that.
- Shown on Messerscmitt factory drawings, argue that.
- Shown on the drawings on EVERY single serious author
- on WW2, shown on examples of Bf 109G-6, shown on Bf
- 109K-4 Argue all that.

No Problem! It is very simple.. Making a *LINE DRAWING* of something is very VERY easy to do.. MUCH easier than a BLUE PRINT or actually BUILDING SOMETHING!

For example iggie.. If one was to apply your logic... Hmmm no, *logic* gives what you do too much credit... Let call it *your way of reasoning*. Using... YOUR WAY OF REASONING one could say the sky was FULL of *THIS* if he could present *ONE* real picture and *ONE* line drawing (not to be confused with BLUE PRINT) of something... THAN it *MUST* be accepted as the RULE and not the EXCEPTION... right? Ok, here is *ONE* real picture of something the Germans were *TOYING* with along with *ONE* real line drawing of it..

Line Drawing:

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/LippischLP13aDrawing.jpg


Actual Hardware:
http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/LippischLP13aActual.jpg


Now using IGGIE's WAY OF REASONING... This real picture and real line drawing **MEANS** THE SKYS WERE FULL OF THESE AIRCRAFT IN 1945.... Right? But all reasonable people KNOW that was NOT the case... And that was just ONE example.. There are so many I could have used.. The Germans were so desperate near the end of the war that they *TOYED* with many ideas... most of which NEVER got past a *LINE DRAWING* stage. i.e. the EASY PART!!

- Not listed in spare parts catalogs, but can be seen
- on planes? In that case, I tend to believe the
- physical reality, they ARE there.

What about the physical reality of all the pictures of them NOT there? Keep in mind.. I'm *NOT* saying that the Germans didn't *TOY* with the idea of flettner tabs.. AND I'm not saying they didn't implement them in a few test cases.. All I *AM* saying is the flettner tabs were NOT STANDARD PRACTICE!

- You have told that Flettner were not used on 109s at all,

Not true, and if I implied that then I was wrong, and if you inferred that then you were wrong.

- you have told that they were not used on Gs,

Not true, and if I implied that then I was wrong, and if you inferred that then you were wrong.

- you have told that these "non-existent" tabs were "locked"

True. I have read that there was an adverse effect of the flettner tab that cased the whole wing to twist, thus canceling the benefit of the flettner tab and introducing the possibility of damaging the wing itself and causing fatigue to the point of failler.

- you have told the wing`s design never changed.

Not true, and if I implied that then I was wrong, and if you inferred that then you were wrong.

- You said the tabs that never existed and
- were locked were "no longer produced" on the K-6
- that was most likely never produced. All wrong.

What? Please.. take a deep breath.. count to ten.. and try again.

- You have attempted to show G-10 as K-4.

True.. I found a picture on a web sight that stated that G-14 was a K-6. Sense then I have educated myself to the point that I am on par with you about what is and is not a K model... with regards to the exterior that is. For example.. In the picture you posted before and called it a *FACTORY* drawing.. You really should have looked at it closer in that it does not help your argument at all.. and helps mine very much so! In that the drawing shows a lot of errors and inconsistency.. All in all which helps my argument that flettner tabs were NOT STANDARD.. in that if they were the drawing would NOT very so much. For example the FACTORY DRAWING you posted has an 3 errors in it.

1) ACCESS HATCH was enlarged and mover forward on the K model, this FACTORY DRAWING OF THE K shows the old hatch and location
2) DOES NOT show the TWO trim tabs on the rudder
3) LAST but FAR FROM LEAST it shows an inconsistent location, size, and implementing of the flettner tab on the aileron.

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/K4drawingtypesheet.jpg


So, I want to be the first to thank you for helping my argument on NONE STANDARD.

Also take another look at your 3 FACTORY DRAWINGS of the wing itself, NOTE that these 3 drawings show 3 different location, size, and implementing of the flettner tabs on the ailerons.

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/differanceindrawings.jpg


- You used this tricks as using other subtypes as "examples",

Not true, and if I implied that then I was wrong, and if you inferred that then you were wrong.

- you have posted pics of the very same plane TWICE,

So? I gave you all the pictures I found, if there was more than one I posted them.. I even went as far as to CIRCLE the number 265 so folks would know if was the same picture.. And that is really not the point any ways.. THE POINT IS you can find MANY pictures of "K"'s WITHOUT FLETTNER TABS but I have yet to find one with!! NOT ONE!!

- you have carefully selected only the early
- Werknummers (that`s why Wrknummers are cut off by
- you),

Not true! And if necessary I can post the links to the ORIGINAL pictures of EVERY picture I posted. So, tell me which picture you *THINK* I edited and I will provide you with the link to the original.

- you posted posted pictures that doesn`t even
- show the ailerons visible, and not even a close
- picture, still, based on a red circle drawn by
- YOURSELF,

That would be one of those double posts of mine? And YES I put the red circles in there! Just encase any other NOOB thought those RED circles where part of the ORIGINAL BLACK AND WHITE PICTURE! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

- you claimed all these planes don`t have it.

Exactly.

- This are your methods and actions.

Exactly.

- You showed enourmous amounts of lies, dishonesty,
- and cheat. These foundation stones of your true
- nature.

Not true at all.. On that note, PLEASE give me and example of each of your accusations.. I can easily explained any one of them in detail.. But I know you wont because you prefer to keep it all *GENERAL* in the hopes that someone might buy into your argument. Well in light of all the LACK of support your getting on this I think you better think twice!


<div style="background:#222222;color:#e0e0e0;font-size:24px;font-weight:bold;font-face:courier;"> TAGERT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If WAR was not the ANSWER.. Than what the H was your QUESTION?
</div>
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=forum
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=discussion


Message Edited on 10/07/0310:57PM by tagert

XyZspineZyX
10-08-2003, 08:42 AM
Issegrim, be sure that i have checked thoroughly the subject. If you did, you'll know that the part 109.360-10 is not listed as standard in any part list you'll find.
The standard part (with a large stamp on the part sheet: GROSSSERIE) IS 109.360-01 which is w/o flettner tab.
Most drawings you'll find are based on easily available material, like for instance the readily available plan of the K Flügel with 109.360-10 ailerons.

Don't put too much faith on the K manual, especially so since it was written nearly 3-4 months before actual delivery of aircraft began. Moreover there are quite q few errors inside. Btw the G-10 manual show exactly the same drawing as the K-4, and you'll agree with me that they are two different birds.
Gerlan manuals were usualy written reusing old material if possible and based on prototype aircraft, so beware of them.


Butch

XyZspineZyX
10-08-2003, 12:34 PM
tagert, what K-4 (as shown in the 3-view sketch and so labelled) has an antenna mast for the radio? /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif Can Issy produce some K-4 photos of this a/c?

In one of Issy's posts he also said the variation of position was minimal for the Flettner tab in the drawings/sketchs. Would you call a ~30cm/11" variation minimal?

When is Issy going to produce a photo of a late production K-4 with Flettners? (since he accuses you of only producing early production a/c photos)

How about an a/c from the 335000-335300 block Issy?


http://www.thundercycle.com/photos/dropdead2.gif



"Only a dead 'chamber pot' is a good 'chamber pot'!"

XyZspineZyX
10-08-2003, 04:16 PM
MiloMorai wrote:
- tagert, what K-4 (as shown in the 3-view sketch and
- so labelled) has an antenna mast for the radio?

GOOD EYE! I didnt call that one out.. because if you look close.. they have BOTH antenna styles drawn in there.. So I let iggie slide because Im sure he would have pointed that out and made some excuse for the mast.

- Can Issy produce some K-4 photos of this a/c?

I hope so... Personally I would love to see one.. He did post one early on, but I pointed out that it was not a flettner tab but a LOCK BLOCK used when an aircraft is parked to keep the controls from blowing in the wind. It is clear that it is a LOCK BLOCK because for one, you can not see any flettner tab on the aleiron and two it is not the linkage, because the linkage is on the bottom not the top... per iggie's drawings! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

- In one of Issy's posts he also said the variation of
- position was minimal for the Flettner tab in the
- drawings/sketchs. Would you call a ~30cm/11"
- variation minimal?

Personally I wouldnt! But iggie would have us belive those drawings are FACTORY BLUE PRINTS! If so there were 3 styles of flettner tabs... Hmmmmmm maybe they are BLUE PRINTS and that is why we cant find flettner tabs... the assembly line guys couldnt decide on which three to use, so, stick with what you got! NONE! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

- When is Issy going to produce a photo of a late
- production K-4 with Flettners? (since he accuses you
- of only producing early production a/c photos)

I know.. Best part is he challenged me to post ANY picture.. He wanted 50 of them.. but after just 5 he was whinning so bad and making up such lame excuses I figured I would stop at 5.

- How about an a/c from the 335000-335300 block Issy?

How about ANY 109K! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

- "Only a dead 'chamber pot' is a good 'chamber pot'!"

ROTFLMAO!


<div style="background:#222222;color:#e0e0e0;font-size:24px;font-weight:bold;font-face:courier;"> TAGERT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If WAR was not the ANSWER.. Than what the H was your QUESTION?
</div>
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=forum
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=discussion

XyZspineZyX
10-08-2003, 10:32 PM
Panelboy wrote:
- Because it refutes a factually unsubstantiated
- belief that a majority of late model 109s had the
- tabs; a few people here are depending on ANY
- evidence at all to support their hypothesis that as
- the 109 evolved, it's high speed roll rate improved.
- And was even competitive with more advanced types.
- Of course NO ONE has produced any actual evidence
- that this is the case.

That sums it up pretty well IMHO.



<div style="background:#222222;color:#e0e0e0;font-size:24px;font-weight:bold;font-face:courier;"> TAGERT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If WAR was not the ANSWER.. Than what the H was your QUESTION?
</div>
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=forum
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=discussion

XyZspineZyX
10-09-2003, 01:25 AM
pinche_gabacho wrote:
- so according to this book, the bulk of G-6s did not
- have a trimable rudder while the bulk of G-10s,
- G-14s and K-4s did have a trimmable rudder. so it
- appears possible to find late model 109s that do not
- have the flettner tabs.

Hey pinche!

Keep in mind that the purpose of the flettner tab is to reduce the stick forces of what ever it is attached to. As you pointed out, they were used on the rudders early on, and appear to be standard practace... for the rudders. But the subject at hand is if flettner tabs were ever standard practace on the ailerons. It is odd that no picture of a flettner tab can be found on the ailerons of a K. Yet you can find the flettner tab on the rudder in just about every picture. So, the whole *IDEA* of what a flettner tab can do was NOT a big secret.. There is *SOME* reason why they were not adopted as standard practace on the ailerons.. My guess is that they were not that effective, or, they actually had adverse effects.

If not one of those two reaons... then why? That is to say if they were that GREAT! They would have made them standard practace like they did on the rudder.. So, I think it is safe to assume that they were just not that great.. And may have actually been a bad thing.

Or are we to belive that the Germans that were so smart in so many areas of aircraft building were too stupid add something that was SO GREAT and SO SIMPLE to do.

I think not, they had a reason for NOT ADDING them.. We may never know exactally what that reason was.. but it is safe to assume that there was a reason.

- my question is what is the scoop on this flettner
- tab? why were two additional fixed tabs added to the
- rudder? wasnt the flettner tab effective enough to
- be used as a stand alone device?

The two other tabs are TRIM tabs that they had to adj on the gnd.. ie could not adj them in flight. The flettner tab, in a nut shell, works in oposition to the rudder/aileron to releave some of the stick forces, thus allowing the pilot to deflect the rudder/aileron farther with less force. For a good visual of how a flettner tab works start up IL2 and fly a IL2 and look at the ailerons.. you will see a flettner tab with the linkage.. notice how it works in the op directioin.



<div style="background:#222222;color:#e0e0e0;font-size:24px;font-weight:bold;font-face:courier;"> TAGERT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If WAR was not the ANSWER.. Than what the H was your QUESTION?
</div>
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=forum
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=discussion

XyZspineZyX
10-09-2003, 03:41 AM
oh, I see. I now know what the flettner tab is. I have seen them on corsairs, there was also one of these devices put on the elevator of the 38 while trying to find a fix for compressablility. the 38 achieved tas of 530 mph and was able to pull out of the dive (this is with out dive recovery flaps) however on one of the dives with the added muscle of the flettner tab the pilot pulled the tail of the a/c and it crashed.

so the debate on the flettner tab in this thread, is whether or not they were on the ailerons of the K model to improve the roll rate at high speed. well I will look into it and see if I can find anything.

XyZspineZyX
10-09-2003, 04:27 AM
maybe it was just squadron modification for location or something. Or maybe different versions of the same version of the same plane. Even though 2 planes are the "same plane" on paper no 2 aircraft are exactly the same.

well my name was spelled wrong

XyZspineZyX
10-09-2003, 09:13 AM
I dont know why I didnt read the thread correctly the first time and see how you guys were talking about ailerons and not the rudder /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif well anyway. I cannot help you with this subject. the two books I have both named messerschmitt bf 109 f-k series isnb 0764310232 and 0887404243 do not show a picture of a 109k with this flettner tab on the aileron. it may be possible that it has pictures of the tab, but none are visible in the clear shots where ailerons are depicted.

I thought that the poor rate of roll of the 109 series was finally addressed with the K series with the use of the flettner tab, however it looks like not all K series had them because there are clear pics of K series that do not have them. it is my understanding that even though the k series attempted to address the poor rate of roll at high speed it still rolled poorly at high speeds. in other words, even if you could double or triple the rate of roll of a G series at 400 mph it still would be poor

the two books I speak of do show several drawings with aileron flettner tabs, but a drawing is not as credible as a picture.

too bad nobody can produce a roll performance chart for the 109G-k series

XyZspineZyX
10-09-2003, 05:55 PM
What, still NO late model K-4s photos with Flettner tabs posted.

Where you hiding Issy?


http://www.thundercycle.com/photos/dropdead2.gif



"Only a dead 'chamber pot' is a good 'chamber pot'!"

XyZspineZyX
10-09-2003, 06:28 PM
I can find a few Milo, but really a few, i can't comment much on this issue since i intend to publish some brand new informations in my book...
But yes they were fitted to some late war aircraft, but i would say that maybe 200 set on tabbed ailerons were fitted to various variants.

Butch

XyZspineZyX
10-09-2003, 07:49 PM
Butch2k,

I will be very interested to see your book. Any projected publishing date?

Without giving away any specific data which might appear in your upcoming book, could you perhaps provide at least a general statement on late model 109 high speed roll performance? Good, bad, or indifferent? It has been a compelling topic for a lot of folks on the forum.


Blutarski

XyZspineZyX
10-09-2003, 08:00 PM
Butch don't forget announcing the release of your book. Best write it in big letters at that board - with "bumps" too./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif



"......und mein Herz steigt wie ein Falke in die Lüfte!"

EJGr.Ost Kimura

http://www.jagdgruppe-ost.de/image/ejgrost.gif


http://www.jagdgruppe-ost.de/Forums/

XyZspineZyX
10-09-2003, 08:53 PM
butch2k wrote:
- I can find a few Milo, but really a few, i can't
- comment much on this issue since i intend to publish
- some brand new informations in my book...

A book? COOL!

- But yes they were fitted to some late war aircraft,
- but i would say that maybe 200 set on tabbed
- ailerons were fitted to various variants.

If flettner tabs were not standard practice, ie not production line... then were they some sort of "mod kit" like the early "tall rudder" mod kit, the one that added that cap to the existing rudder. And was this something they could do in the field, or was it something they had to send it back to the rear for? I get the impression that, for the tall rudder mod, it was something that could be done in the field.. ie front line units. A kit could explain how a early G ended up with them?

I have also read about German factory production numbers... But I have also read that those numbers did not necssarly mean brand new ac rolling of the assembly lines. That is to say those numbers included re-worked and repaired aircraft that were sent to the rear. Again, that might explain how a G ended up with them?

Anyway, keep us posted on that book! I defintally want a copy of that!!



<div style="background:#222222;color:#e0e0e0;font-size:24px;font-weight:bold;font-face:courier;"> TAGERT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If WAR was not the ANSWER.. Than what the H was your QUESTION?
</div>
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=forum
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=discussion

XyZspineZyX
10-09-2003, 10:34 PM
Number of aircraft produced are actual production numbers, repaired airframes appear on another list. It was mostly small factories which were given the task of repairing aircraft.
I have theorical roll-rate calculation for several models but not yet for the K-4. Calculation on the Friedrich show a 95? roll rate at 480km/h.

Butch

XyZspineZyX
10-09-2003, 10:39 PM
butch2k wrote:
- Number of aircraft produced are actual production
- numbers, repaired airframes appear on another list.

Agreed, that is the way it should be.. but I have seen where they lumped the two togther and called produced.

- It was mostly small factories which were given the
- task of repairing aircraft.

Makes sense.. Any idea if it was these small factorys that also did the "mods" or was that done at the unit level?

- I have theorical roll-rate calculation for several
- models but not yet for the K-4. Calculation on the
- Friedrich show a 95? roll rate at 480km/h.

Cool.. And how much did the wing change from the F threw the K.. if any? Structlly I mean.. I know there was a big chage from E to F.. but from that point on.. did much go on underneath the skin?




<div style="background:#222222;color:#e0e0e0;font-size:24px;font-weight:bold;font-face:courier;"> TAGERT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If WAR was not the ANSWER.. Than what the H was your QUESTION?
</div>
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=forum
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=discussion

Message Edited on 10/09/0302:43PM by tagert

XyZspineZyX
10-09-2003, 10:43 PM
Butch,

Great news on your book. I had no idea you were publishing one. I'm looking forward to adding it to my collection.

Can you say who your publisher (company) is?

Regards,

SkyChimp

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

XyZspineZyX
10-10-2003, 11:26 AM
Thanks for the info Butch./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif Just for clarification, when you say 'variants', do you mean all 109GKs or just the K model?

I was hoping Issy would produce some, since he was so adiment that the Flettner aileron tabs were common on the K-4; 200 out of ~1700 dispells Issy's claim that 'tabs' were 'common' on the K-4.



You can put me on the list of buyers for your 109 book.


http://www.thundercycle.com/photos/dropdead2.gif



"Only a dead 'chamber pot' is a good 'chamber pot'!"

XyZspineZyX
10-10-2003, 12:25 PM
After having read the thread, and long it is, I get the following:

The Flettner tab was introduced in later models of the 109-series, but due to production- and other problems caused by bombing and the allies ending the war, none of the later aircrafts produced (from scratch or disabled aircrafts) were really "clean" models which included all the planned features??
Are we then to introduce two or more model G's and K's in FB, one with and one without the tab? Or should we simply accept that we're unable to model the end of the war for the Germans correct (as for the beginning for the Brits and their patching up?) and have the planned version with the tab? Which to my understanding was produced, but not to a wider extend?

rgds

XyZspineZyX
10-10-2003, 03:54 PM
jmmoric wrote:
- After having read the thread, and long it is, I get
- the following:
-
- The Flettner tab was introduced in later models of
- the 109-series, but due to production- and other
- problems caused by bombing and the allies ending the
- war, none of the later aircrafts produced (from
- scratch or disabled aircrafts) were really "clean"
- models which included all the planned features??
- Are we then to introduce two or more model G's and
- K's in FB, one with and one without the tab? Or
- should we simply accept that we're unable to model
- the end of the war for the Germans correct (as for
- the beginning for the Brits and their patching up?)
- and have the planned version with the tab? Which to
- my understanding was produced, but not to a wider
- extend?

Im not totally convinced the flettner tab on the aileron was a planned feature. Flettner tab technolgy was not new, it had been around sense WWI. It was used on later model G's for the rudder for some time.. There is one picture of an early G with them on the ailerion. Up to now those *reason* were used to lead us to belive that flettner tabs were standard practice in production by the end of the G and *ALL* of the K's just like they were for the rudders. Yet we find many pictures of K's with flettners tabs on the rudders and not the ailerions.

This leads me to belive that it was not shortages in production as much as it was just not worth doing in the fist place. Either the benifit was not that great, or, it actually had adverse effects. BASICALLY.. if the benift was a *good* as they claim it was, and it was an easy thing to do.. then why is it not as common as the rudder flettner tab? Both require the same amount of workman ship, both showed up on an early G, but only the rudder became standard practace in production.. why?

If only 200 out of the 1700+ K's had them, then model them without them. Unless you can show that the break down was say 1500 K-4 without and 200 K-6 with.. then dump them on the 4 and add a 109K-6.

In summary, the one thing this does prove is that Kit Carson was correct in his evaluation of the 109 because he was evaluating the RULE not the EXCEPTIONS

As for modeling in the sim.. I say model what was the predomint vaiant.. Not was showed up in some wish list drawing.. because if a wish list line drawing is all we need as proff them this sim would be called Luft46 ( http://www.luft46.com) not IL2.


<div style="background:#222222;color:#e0e0e0;font-size:24px;font-weight:bold;font-face:courier;"> TAGERT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If WAR was not the ANSWER.. Than what the H was your QUESTION?
</div>
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=forum
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=discussion

XyZspineZyX
10-10-2003, 04:35 PM
Hi Guys, someone said this about Flattner Tabs hope it helps! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

"...I found some references as to the flettner tabs on the ailerons. Wiili Radinger & Wolfgang Otto, Messerschmitt Bf 109 F-K, Page 124 and 125, there is a scale drawing in 1:25 from 30 december 1944 that shows the flettner tabs on the aileron and the rudder with the proposed deflection angles. I believe since a flettner tab is an installation that reduces pilot workload and to some extent control forces, it is not as critical on an aileron as it would be on a rudder. Since the aileron is only deflected when rolling into the turn or out of the turn. During the turn the aileron is at zero degree deflection, that means the stick is back in neutal and no control forces are felt by the pilot. I think this maybe the reason you cannot find it on operational aircraft. All it did was add weight and create more maintenance issues. One also has to remeber that the flettner tab was not connected to a trim device in the Bf 109. I also checked the above mentioned publications and indeed on page 113 of Priens book you can see the flettner tab on the aileron. You would be looking for a small rectengular insert at the inbord trailing edge of the aileronand the rod would be attached on the undersurface of the wing. Also if the aileron is deflected down the tab would be pointing up. Like on the rudder it is on the right side. I asume since JGr 50 was a special unit they had some interesting aircraft. Maybe after having it it did not proof to be much of an improvement and was dropped during final production of future aircraft. Hope this helps..."

Regards.

Mesh.

XyZspineZyX
10-10-2003, 05:27 PM
Meshsmoother

if you look back through the thread you will find those drawings, NOT blueprints, you mention.



http://www.thundercycle.com/photos/dropdead2.gif



"Only a dead 'chamber pot' is a good 'chamber pot'!"

XyZspineZyX
10-10-2003, 06:04 PM
Meshsmoother wrote:
- Hi Guys, someone said this about Flattner Tabs hope
- it helps!

Hey Meshmoother!

Say, *WHO* said that? In that I agree with him on the following

>>I think this maybe the reason you cannot find
>>it on operational aircraft. All it did was add
>>weight and create more maintenance issues.

and

>>I asume since JGr 50 was a special unit they had
>>some interesting aircraft. Maybe after having it
>>it did not proof to be much of an improvement and
>>was dropped during final production of future
>>aircraft.

Which once again leads to the conclusion that the benifits of the flettner tab were either not worth the trouble, or actually had adverse effects. In that it was no secret, it was easy to do, which only leaves us asking "What was the reason they did not become standard practace?" like the rudder... if they were SO GREAT?



<div style="background:#222222;color:#e0e0e0;font-size:24px;font-weight:bold;font-face:courier;"> TAGERT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If WAR was not the ANSWER.. Than what the H was your QUESTION?
</div>
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=forum
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=discussion

XyZspineZyX
10-10-2003, 06:11 PM
pinche_gabacho wrote:
- I dont know why I didnt read the thread correctly
- the first time and see how you guys were talking
- about ailerons and not the rudder well anyway.

No biggie, I was off initally too! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

- I cannot help you
- with this subject. the two books I have both named
- messerschmitt bf 109 f-k series isnb 0764310232 and
- 0887404243 do not show a picture of a 109k with this
- flettner tab on the aileron. it may be possible that
- it has pictures of the tab, but none are visible in
- the clear shots where ailerons are depicted.

True I have found alot of pictures of K's but not that many that show the alerion area clearly.. I had one that was so crystal clear you could see dirt on the wing.. but it stopped just short of the ailerion! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

- I thought that the poor rate of roll of the 109
- series was finally addressed with the K series with
- the use of the flettner tab, however it looks like
- not all K series had them because there are clear
- pics of K series that do not have them.

Agreed.

- it is my understanding that even though the k series
- attempted to address the poor rate of roll at high
- speed it still rolled poorly at high speeds.

Agreed.

- in other words, even if you could double or triple the
- rate of roll of a G series at 400 mph it still would
- be poor

Also true!

- the two books I speak of do show several drawings
- with aileron flettner tabs, but a drawing is not as
- credible as a picture.

Agreed 100%

- too bad nobody can produce a roll performance chart
- for the 109G-k series

Agreed

On that note, I would love to hear more about that flettner tab on the P38. The one that took the tail off! Those are some of the advers effects Im guessing at with the 109, in that the wing with it's single support was subject to twist. Thus the flettner may have twisted the wing to the point that it negated the effect of the flettner tab, and opened up the posiablty of stressing the wing to the point of failer.


<div style="background:#222222;color:#e0e0e0;font-size:24px;font-weight:bold;font-face:courier;"> TAGERT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If WAR was not the ANSWER.. Than what the H was your QUESTION?
</div>
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=forum
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=discussion

XyZspineZyX
10-10-2003, 06:15 PM
Meshsmoother

JG50, and JG25, were formed as special anti-Mosquito units after a raid on Jan 31 1943 that interrupted a parade for Goering. He was not happy./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif Two experience fighter leaders from the east to head the units. They used 109s with 'special' engines but had no success (no know claims) intercepting the Mosquiotos and were soon disbanded(Aug. '43).


http://www.thundercycle.com/photos/dropdead2.gif



"Only a dead 'chamber pot' is a good 'chamber pot'!"

XyZspineZyX
10-10-2003, 06:57 PM
Special engine was meant --> DB605 with GM-1 injection.



"......und mein Herz steigt wie ein Falke in die Lüfte!"

EJGr.Ost Kimura

http://www.jagdgruppe-ost.de/image/ejgrost.gif


http://www.jagdgruppe-ost.de/Forums/

XyZspineZyX
10-13-2003, 07:10 AM
I found one! Actually one with and one without!

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/real109alerionswithandwithoutflettnertab.jpg



<div style="background:#222222;color:#e0e0e0;font-size:24px;font-weight:bold;font-face:courier;"> TAGERT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If WAR was not the ANSWER.. Than what the H was your QUESTION?
</div>
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=forum
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=discussion

XyZspineZyX
10-13-2003, 07:15 AM
well tell us more !

U.S INFANTRY 1984-1991

XyZspineZyX
10-13-2003, 07:54 AM
Seems these are ailerons of a model kit, looks like Resin./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif



"......und mein Herz steigt wie ein Falke in die Lüfte!"

EJGr.Ost Kimura

http://www.jagdgruppe-ost.de/image/ejgrost.gif


http://www.jagdgruppe-ost.de/Forums/

XyZspineZyX
10-13-2003, 09:38 AM
ZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzz

"Doctor Fact is knocking at the door. Someone, please, let the man in!"

XyZspineZyX
10-13-2003, 09:48 AM
http://members.chello.se/ven/camera.gif



This thread is under surveillance so plz remember to...



http://members.chello.se/ven/behave.jpg


http://members.chello.se/ven/milton.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-13-2003, 09:59 AM
I assume you are referring to me?

I apologise /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

"Doctor Fact is knocking at the door. Someone, please, let the man in!"

XyZspineZyX
10-13-2003, 10:10 AM
Vengeanze, how's about the 30 kilo sig limit/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

You as a mod???./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif



"......und mein Herz steigt wie ein Falke in die Lüfte!"

EJGr.Ost Kimura

http://www.jagdgruppe-ost.de/image/ejgrost.gif


http://www.jagdgruppe-ost.de/Forums/

XyZspineZyX
10-13-2003, 10:20 AM
KIMURA wrote:
- Vengeanze, how's about the 30 kilo sig limit/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
-
- You as a mod???./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif


A T-shirt, the pleasure of bossing u guys around and unlimited sigpic is what we get for our work here. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

But I'm about to change it anyhow. Can't seem to find da stapler.


http://members.chello.se/ven/milton.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-13-2003, 10:34 AM
butch2k wrote:
- Isegrim, be sure that i have checked thoroughly the
- subject.

I have absolutely no doubt about that, be sure.

- If you did, you'll know that the part
- 109.360-10 is not listed as standard in any part
- list you'll find.

Now that`s the part we disagree. Let`s get through it - all spare parts list you have read through don`t show Flettners. Does this show they were not produced serially ? I think no. There are a lot more possible conclusions, like that there are spare part catagogs you may have not seen yet or were lost in the war, or in some archieve.

If there appearance in spare part catalog would be the deciding factor, we wouldn`t see any aileron Flettners on any serially produced 109 at all... but we do. Not even tagert denies that any longer (he did).

So in brief, I think you have come to a conclusion that is not neccesarily the only valid conclusion.

Anyone who has doubts about Flettners were added to serially produced Bf 109G in factories should check Otto/Radinger`s book for the picture of WNF final assmebly plant for G-6s or -14s, page 131, it has two pictures of the same place from 2 different angles.

If you look closely to the drawings, you will see that on ALL THREE wings that are visible enough the Flettners are there. No 'toying', no 'prototypes', no 'field kits', or other nonsense, these are all just plain machines, which isn`t supposed to get it according to the spare parts manual..

You can see the silhoutte of the Flettner on the left where a worker just doing something on the wing. Indeed it`s blurry, but if you look on the other wing behind the foremost a/c, and luckikly, it`s just upside down, you can clearly see the Flettner, and it`s actuator link just next to the balance tab. Clear case. On the other, smaller picture of the same assembly area at around the same time, you can see another wing in the front, showing the Fletner again.

You can also see them on the G-6/G-14 picture I posted, which was taken in Automn (October IIRC) 1944, according to the Sarhidai/Rozsos book. It too has a Flettner tab on the aileron. Serial plane again.



- The standard part (with a large stamp on the part
- sheet: GROSSSERIE) IS 109.360-01 which is w/o
- flettner tab.
- Most drawings you'll find are based on easily
- available material, like for instance the readily
- available plan of the K Flügel with 109.360-10
- ailerons.

Yep, it`s probably all there in the spare parts manual, but still, you can see them on the picture, where 109s are build in Wiener Neustadt`s final assembly plant. I presume that means they were produced in the GroBserie-s, even though the existent and known catalogs don`t show them.


It also disproves the theory that they were some kind of "field kits", and not factory applied. They WERE factory applied. I would like to see the proof behind all those statements told and endlessly repeated by SOME that :

-Flettners were never fitted to 109s (I doubt anyone would still say that, it would be plain ridiculus, in the view of evidence)

-they were never fitted to 109Gs. Later saying only to prototype, later changing that again and again etc.

-they were "removed from subsequent K-6" - which most likely weren`t serially produced anyway, and even the factory`s drawings for K-6 controls show the opposite..

-that Flettners weren`t effective, despite we have seen the results of flight tests that showed high deflections could still be achieved at excessive airspeeds (Mach .70+).

-the source for the claim wing torsion was so limiting, that Flettners even reduced roll rate, according to some at least (ridiculus..)

-Or the source of the claim that 109F/G/K series had poor roll rate at high speed, when undisputable evidence had showed
a, Good wing stiffness qualities
b, Very light aileron forces
c, Considerably high actual roll rate with very light stickforces even at 300mph-350mph.

This latter nonsense is repeated continously, with religious belief, even if nothing was shown to support it.

In fact, it can be said safely, that tagert and the others have absolutely no idea wheter the 109F/G/Ks roll rate at high speed was good or bad.


All of these were stated by individuals we all know, and in NO CASE were these claims supported by ANYTHING.

So far what disturbs me, is the attempt of some who want to repeat old, unfounded myths and set them into stone, coming up with claims and hypothesis lacking ANY kind of foundation, and always denying EVERYTHING, including objective facts (like results of tests), trying to pursue their goal with every means they can find, no matter how filthy, pathetic it is.

http://vo101isegrim.piranho.com/FB-desktopweb.jpg
'Only a dead Indianer is a good Indianer!'

Vezérünk a Bátorság, K*sérµnk a Szerencse!
(Courage leads, Luck escorts us! - Historical motto of the 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)

Flight tests and other aviation performance data: http://www.pbase.com/isegrim

XyZspineZyX
10-13-2003, 10:35 AM
/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif



"......und mein Herz steigt wie ein Falke in die Lüfte!"

EJGr.Ost Kimura

http://www.jagdgruppe-ost.de/image/ejgrost.gif


http://www.jagdgruppe-ost.de/Forums/

XyZspineZyX
10-13-2003, 02:30 PM
Isegrim, I was going to go OT with your impressions of the P-47, in relation to myths and facts, however, it dosen't really matter about your impressions. Your last post would have a some shred of merit had you supported each of your claims with referance and fact supporting. Instead, you merely took the gist of statements and countered them with your own gists. Some of these statements are already proven, by your own and the interested parties admission. Why keep bringing them up? (like the wing redsign) Just because someone is wrong about a particular point, dosen't make them automatically wrong about the discussion.

Extremely rare is the person who is absolutly right, 100% of the time. There are some famous examples of those who were right, 100% of the time, at least in their own minds. Some of them were leaders of nations during WWII. Germany and Russia were very similar in this respect.

Your devotion to the Bf/Me-109 is admirable in a way, but in my opinion, making the 109 into something its not is taking away from the men who flew her into combat. Despite some of their personal beliefs and disbeliefs about politics and race, most fought for Germany, not Nazism, and just like Allied airmen, thought of their families each and every flight. Toward the end, they were doing it in a plane that was not superior to the ones they were facing, and at the very end, going up was almost a death sentence, especially for the young ones. Your claims about the 109s uberism diminish their sacrifice in a terrible war. Just think about it please.

Good hunting,
Cajun76

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."
-Aristotle

XyZspineZyX
10-13-2003, 03:35 PM
Vo101_Isegrim wrote:
-

-
- You can see the silhoutte of the Flettner on the
- left where a worker just doing something on the
- wing. Indeed it`s blurry, but if you look on the
- other wing behind the foremost a/c, and luckikly,
- it`s just upside down, you can clearly see the
- Flettner, and it`s actuator link just next to the
- balance tab. Clear case. On the other, smaller
- picture of the same assembly area at around the same
- time, you can see another wing in the front, showing
- the Fletner again.
-
-

No one is saying they were not fitted Issy, only that they were NOT FITTED ON THE LARGE QUANTATIES OF A/C as you would like us to believe they were fitted on. Butch said ~200 of the ~1700(your numnber) K-4s produced had Flettner aileron tabs. That is only ~12%.

Now the question is, if the Flettner aileron tabs were as good as you claim them to be, then why was the percentage of a/c so fitted, so small?

Glad to see you say the Flettner lingage was on the bottom of the wing. Now why do you say that W.Nr.330130, used for factory trials, had Flettner tab ailerons when there is 'something' on the upper surface of the wing? That 'something' is positioned at the aileron-flap line. If it is a Flettner aileron tab, it should be further outboard. see pg 122 Radinger/Otto Bf109F-K.



http://www.thundercycle.com/photos/dropdead2.gif



"Only a dead 'chamber pot' is a good 'chamber pot'!"

XyZspineZyX
10-13-2003, 04:59 PM
Dunno "who"... i just found this on a discussion board, by searching "flattner tabs" in Google... sorry that cannot help... /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

Regards.

Mesh

XyZspineZyX
10-13-2003, 06:27 PM
Vo101_Isegrim wrote:
- There are a lot more possible conclusions, like that
- there are spare part catagogs you may have not seen
- yet or were lost in the war, or in some archieve.

Another possible conclusion is that the flettner tabs were not worth the trouble.

- If there appearance in spare part catalog would be
- the deciding factor, we wouldn`t see any aileron
- Flettners on any serially produced 109 at all... but
- we do.

We do? Where? Did I miss a posting? I have yet to see ANY picture of a K with a flettner tab on it. If you have one please post it!

- Not even tagert denies that any longer (he did).

What? I think I may have found the root cause of a lot of your errors. You assume to much! I still belive that flettner tabs on the ailerons were the exception and not the rule. Unlike some people here when I find info I post it, even if it does NOT support my argument. In that unlike some here my ultimate goal is the truth. And so far I have not seen anything presented by you or anyone else here that would lead me to belive that flettner tabs were the RULE and not the EXCEPTION.

- So in brief, I think you have come to a conclusion
- that is not neccesarily the only valid conclusion.

Same could be said about your conclusion.

- Anyone who has doubts about Flettners were added to
- serially produced Bf 109G in factories should check
- Otto/Radinger`s book for the picture of WNF final
- assmebly plant for G-6s or -14s, page 131, it has
- two pictures of the same place from 2 different
- angles.

I would love it if someone would post these pictures. In that this would not be the fist time something was mistaken for a flettner tab. Remember that picture of the K you posted where you claimed it to be a flettner tab and it turns out it was just a lock block.

- If you look closely to the drawings, you will see
- that on ALL THREE wings that are visible enough the
- Flettners are there. No 'toying', no 'prototypes',
- no 'field kits', or other nonsense, these are all
- just plain machines, which isn`t supposed to get it
- according to the spare parts manual..

Are you talking about those hand drawings you posted? The ones that show ABSOLUTELY NO STANDARD in size, location or implementation?

- You can see the silhoutte of the Flettner on the
- left where a worker just doing something on the
- wing. Indeed it`s blurry, but if you look on the
- other wing behind the foremost a/c, and luckikly,
- it`s just upside down, you can clearly see the
- Flettner, and it`s actuator link just next to the
- balance tab. Clear case. On the other, smaller
- picture of the same assembly area at around the same
- time, you can see another wing in the front, showing
- the Fletner again.

I hold judgment on that until I see it, until then all I have to go by are the 10+ pictures I have found that show 109K's without them.

- You can also see them on the G-6/G-14 picture I
- posted, which was taken in Automn (October IIRC)
- 1944, according to the Sarhidai/Rozsos book. It too
- has a Flettner tab on the aileron. Serial plane
- again.

Again, no one is saying they didn't exist in test or limited use. We are only saying that they were not standard practice in production. I cut the rest of your post out of my reply.... Issy... To summarizing what your saying.. Flettner tabs fixed all the problems with regards to roll rates. You have shown us a picture of a 109G with a clear picture of a flettner tab.. From that you lead us to belive that flettner tabs were STANDARD PRACTICE as far back as the 109G series... So.. Answer me this simple question... If the flettner tabs was SO GREAT and they knew about it way back around the 109G series... Then why do we see so many pictures of 109K's without them... On top of that why cant we find ONE picture of a 109K with them?



<div style="background:#222222;color:#e0e0e0;font-size:24px;font-weight:bold;font-face:courier;"> TAGERT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If WAR was not the ANSWER.. Than what the H was your QUESTION?
</div>
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=forum
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=discussion

XyZspineZyX
10-13-2003, 10:53 PM
KIMURA wrote:
- Seems these are ailerons of a model kit, looks like
- Resin.

LOL! No.. they are real.. And for sale.. Im trying to contact the guy to see how much he wants for them! And to try and get a little history on them.. and a part number would be cool too!



<div style="background:#222222;color:#e0e0e0;font-size:24px;font-weight:bold;font-face:courier;"> TAGERT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If WAR was not the ANSWER.. Than what the H was your QUESTION?
</div>
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=forum
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=discussion

XyZspineZyX
10-14-2003, 12:32 AM
Face it guys... the Flettner tab won the war!

<center>



http://www.fornberg.com/mystery0074.jpg
</center>
<center>
<div style="width:400;color:F0FFFF;fontsize:11pt;filter: glow[color=black,strength=4)">
Beauty lies in the eye of the beholder

XyZspineZyX
10-14-2003, 03:54 PM
Fornixx wrote:
- Face it guys... the Flettner tab won the war!

ROTFL!

- Beauty lies in the eye of the beholder

Than the guy looking at this airplane is blind! Or a lawyer who took on the case to defend this ugly plane /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

<div style="background:#222222;color:#e0e0e0;font-size:24px;font-weight:bold;font-face:courier;"> TAGERT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If WAR was not the ANSWER.. Than what the H was your QUESTION?
</div>
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=forum
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=discussion


Message Edited on 10/14/0307:58AM by tagert

XyZspineZyX
10-14-2003, 04:00 PM
Good God! here we go again another of the Fw-190 type threads! UGGGG!
http://www.netwings.org/dcforum/Images/banghead.gif



<CENTER>
http://invisionfree.com:54/40/30/upload/p1022.jpg

<FONT COLOR="White">Ghost Skies Matches Starting soon!
<CENTER><FONT COLOR="blue">
FOR INFORMATION ON THE 310TH FS OR 380TH BG Please visit the 310th FS Online @:
<CENTER><FONT COLOR="orange" http://members.tripod.com/tophatssquadron/
<CENTER><FONT COLOR="RED">
A proud member Squadron of Ghost Skies Forgotten Battles Tournament League.
<CENTER><FONT COLOR="orange"> 310th VF/BS Public forum:
<CENTER><FONT COLOR="YELLOW"> http://invisionfree.com/forums/310th_VFBG/
<CENTER><CENTER><FONT COLOR="YELLOW">
Proud Sponsor of IL-2 Hangar Forums
<CENTER> Visit the Hangar at:
http://srm.racesimcentral.com/il2.shtml
<FONT COLOR="purple">Slainte Mhath- Good Health to you!

XyZspineZyX
10-14-2003, 04:13 PM
Copperhead310th wrote:
- Good God! here we go again another of the Fw-190
- type threads! UGGGG!

Did someone say the Fw-190 had flettner tabs? Interesting!

http://www.netwings.org/dcforum/Images/banghead.gif

That looks painful!



<div style="background:#222222;color:#e0e0e0;font-size:24px;font-weight:bold;font-face:courier;"> TAGERT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If WAR was not the ANSWER.. Than what the H was your QUESTION?
</div>
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=forum
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=discussion

XyZspineZyX
10-14-2003, 04:17 PM
Tagert, could you find any source that would support you in your following claims :

1, Wing structure on Bf 109 was never changed, it was the same on all versions

2, Bf 109 suffered from heavy wing twist at high speed

3a, Flettner tabs were never used on Bf 109 series at all

3b, Flettner tabs were not used on Bf 109G at all (v1.1)

3c, Flettner tabs were only used for Bf 109 prototypes (v1.2)

3d, Flettner tabs that were used on Bf 109G were only field kits (v2.0)

3e, Use Flettner tabs was discontinued on Bf 109K-6 production aircraft

3ea, Which brings us to ask you for evidence of Bf 109K-6 serial production

3f, Your reason why you claim that on the picturial evidence I have shown (Bf 109G-6/G-14 with aileron Flettner tab) the Flettner is "locked".

4, Use of Flettner tabs actually decreased roll rate on Bf 109

5, On what reasonable basis do you deny the factual data regarding aileron deflection given by Bf 109G/Flettner flight tests ?


http://forums.ubi.com/messages/message_view-topic.asp?name=us_il2sturmovik_gd&id=yxkmo

Last time I asked you to support your statements with sources and references, you utterly failed in it. It shows clearly that all you state here is just a product of your wild imagination, and has no connection to the reality. You are making up claims regarding a plane on which you have proved your ignorance already. Even the tricks and cheats you used didn`t help in that.

Did you managed to find the WNF picture ? Or there`s some other reason that you suddenly cannot find a picture in a book from which you already qouted from ?

Oh wait, how was that last time ? Tagert was parroting his mantra about the 109 had poor, if not next to zero roll rate at high speed (bullocks), was unable to prove, support or back it up, then he was shown REAL result, REAL tests, and he denied their very existance, and suddely told he has "vision problems"? Of course, he`s hatred against all LW aircrafts blinds him !

http://vo101isegrim.piranho.com/FB-desktopweb.jpg
'Only a dead Indianer is a good Indianer!'

Vezérünk a Bátorság, K*sérµnk a Szerencse!
(Courage leads, Luck escorts us! - Historical motto of the 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)

Flight tests and other aviation performance data: http://www.pbase.com/isegrim

XyZspineZyX
10-14-2003, 04:32 PM
Vo101_Isegrim wrote:
-
-
- Tagert, could you find any source that would support
- you in your following claims :
-
- 1, Wing structure on Bf 109 was never changed, it
- was the same on all versions
-
- 2, Bf 109 suffered from heavy wing twist at high
- speed
-
- 3a, Flettner tabs were never used on Bf 109 series
- at all
-
- 3b, Flettner tabs were not used on Bf 109G at all
- (v1.1)
-
- 3c, Flettner tabs were only used for Bf 109
- prototypes (v1.2)
-
- 3d, Flettner tabs that were used on Bf 109G were
- only field kits (v2.0)
-
- 3e, Use Flettner tabs was discontinued on Bf 109K-6
- production aircraft
-
- 3ea, Which brings us to ask you for evidence of Bf
- 109K-6 serial production
-
- 3f, Your reason why you claim that on the picturial
- evidence I have shown (Bf 109G-6/G-14 with aileron
- Flettner tab) the Flettner is "locked".
-
- 4, Use of Flettner tabs actually decreased roll rate
- on Bf 109
-
- 5, On what reasonable basis do you deny the factual
- data regarding aileron deflection given by Bf
- 109G/Flettner flight tests ?
-
-
- <a
- href="http://forums.ubi.com/messages/message_view-
- topic.asp?name=us_il2sturmovik_gd&id=yxkmo"
- target=_blank>http://forums.ubi.com/messages/messa
- ge_view-topic.asp?name=us_il2sturmovik_gd&id=yxkmo
- </a>
-
-
- Last time I asked you to support your statements
- with sources and references, you utterly failed in
- it. It shows clearly that all you state here is just
- a product of your wild imagination, and has no
- connection to the reality. You are making up claims
- regarding a plane on which you have proved your
- ignorance already. Even the tricks and cheats you
- used didn`t help in that.
-
- Did you managed to find the WNF picture ? Or there`s
- some other reason that you suddenly cannot find a
- picture in a book from which you already qouted from
- ?
-
- Oh wait, how was that last time ? Tagert was
- parroting his mantra about the 109 had poor, if not
- next to zero roll rate at high speed (bullocks), was
- unable to prove, support or back it up, then he was
- shown REAL result, REAL tests, and he denied their
- very existance, and suddely told he has "vision
- problems"? Of course, he`s hatred against all LW
- aircrafts blinds him !

Hey iggie! I answered all these questions in that seperate thread you stated.. As a mater of fact Milo and I addresed them clearly! You know the thread that got locked because the MOD noted how worthless it was the 1st time you posted it. Are you just trying to get this thread locked? Please if you have something to contribute.. ie answere the simple question I put to you before your seperate thread.. then please do. But dont come in here and SPAM us with something from another thread.. A simple link would sufice. I would hate to have the MOD's determine that this CUT-N-PASTE is a form of SPAM and kick you out. That would just break my hart!



<div style="background:#222222;color:#e0e0e0;font-size:24px;font-weight:bold;font-face:courier;"> TAGERT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If WAR was not the ANSWER.. Than what the H was your QUESTION?
</div>
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=forum
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=discussion

XyZspineZyX
10-14-2003, 04:38 PM
Vo101_Isegrim wrote:
-- connection to the reality. You are making up claims
- regarding a plane on which you have proved your
- ignorance already. Even the tricks and cheats you
- used didn`t help in that.
-

Isegrim,

By resorting to abuse you undermine your own case. It might make you feel better to vent off against those you disagree with, but it doesn't help your cause at all and just ends up with threads getting locked. Please try to keep your temper under control for everyone's benefit.

Regards,

RocketDog.

XyZspineZyX
10-14-2003, 04:42 PM
tagert wrote:

-
- Hey iggie! I answered all these questions in that
- seperate thread you stated..

No, you DID NOT answered and give the source of any of your ridiculus statements. You said the following :

"No need to respond".

Now we all know you could name not even ONE source for your statements.


- As a mater of fact Milo
- and I addresed them clearly!

This is just as true as your previous..

- You know the thread
- that got locked because the MOD noted how worthless
- it was the 1st time you posted it.

No it was locked as the Mod gave you ONE chance to give an answer. You couldn`t give an answer.

- Are you just
- trying to get this thread locked? Please if you have
- something to contribute.. ie answere the simple
- question I put to you before your seperate thread..
- then please do. But dont come in here and SPAM us
- with something from another thread.. A simple link
- would sufice.

Very, very convincing of your very, very honest behaviour, taggy.

Answer the questions.

- I would hate to have the MOD's
- determine that this CUT-N-PASTE is a form of SPAM
- and kick you out. That would just break my hart!

You threatening me? LOL, how pathetic! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Answer the questions, or simply admit that you just making up things. That would your greatest contribution to us.

http://vo101isegrim.piranho.com/FB-desktopweb.jpg
'Only a dead Indianer is a good Indianer!'

Vezérünk a Bátorság, K*sérµnk a Szerencse!
(Courage leads, Luck escorts us! - Historical motto of the 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)

Flight tests and other aviation performance data: http://www.pbase.com/isegrim

Message Edited on 10/14/0305:49PM by Vo101_Isegrim

BlitzPig_Rock
10-14-2003, 04:46 PM
2 relevant quotes from the other thread.

Vengeanze
I'll give Tagert the chance to respond once but I won't allow this idiotic private pi$$in-contest any further.

EURO_Snoopy
Perhaps you should do this by PM or email I'm sure nobody else is really interested in another thread full of over bloated egos, face slapping and handbag fights





<center>http://mysite.freeserve.com/bpstuff/bobharris_image.jpg
<center><FONT COLOR="Red">UBI/IL2 Forum Moderator</FONT>
http://www.ubi.com/US/CommunityZone/Forums/guidelines

XyZspineZyX
10-14-2003, 05:37 PM
Did the Fw190 have Flettner tabs?

Edit: I hope you forgive me Tagert for borrowing your K4 for a while? /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

<center>



http://www.fornberg.com/109k4.jpg
</center>
<center>
<div style="width:400;color:F0FFFF;fontsize:11pt;filter: glow[color=black,strength=4)">
The Flettner tab won the war



Message Edited on 10/14/0306:39PM by Fornixx

XyZspineZyX
10-14-2003, 06:14 PM
/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

"Doctor Fact is knocking at the door. Someone, please, let the man in!"

XyZspineZyX
10-15-2003, 05:47 AM
Vo101_Isegrim wrote:
- Tagert, could you find any source that would support
- you in your following claims :

Well.. only if you promise to pay att this time. I have said all this before, but for you, Ill say it again.

- 1, Wing structure on Bf 109 was never changed, it
- was the same on all versions

ANSWER #1: I never said that.

- 2, Bf 109 suffered from heavy wing twist at high speed

ANSWER #2: I never said that. I simple noted that a wing with a single I-Beam spar, like the 109, is more apt to twist than a wing with a single BOX spar, or twin I-Beam design torsion box design.

http://www.bath.ac.uk/~en0daar/Wing%20Structure.htm

- 3a, Flettner tabs were never used on Bf 109 series at all

ANSWER #3a: I never said that. As a mater of FACT I have said on several occasions in several threads that flettner tabs on the ailerons were used... Defiantly tested! We have agree on that sense your first picture of the G with them. The only question left is why were they not standard practice? That is if they were so beneficial to roll rates, and they were first used as far back as the G series, why can we find so many pictures of K's and hundreds of pictures of G's without them? Put another way, why were they the EXCEPTION and not the rule? Especially when you consider the FACT that the flettner tab for the rudders appeared in and around the same time as the late G series. They did become standard practice, in that it is hard to NOT find a picture of a K without them and hundreds of pictures of G's with them. In light of no hard evidence to PROVE or DISPROVE either argument one has to apply a little common sense and make an assumption.

I have come up with TWO that I think are plausible.

ASSUMPTION #1: The flettner tab had little effect, thus not worth upsetting the production and logistic lines"

That assumption is based off my common sense and the following quote


QUOTE
In Spate's "Test Pilots", Heinrich Beauvais comments thusly on the flight controls: "One would have liked to have more effective ailerons, as well as lower control forces, at high speeds. I do not remember all the different methods tried to improve this, but the following two are still clear in my mind. One was designed by Blohm & Voss, adding a Flettner trim tab which resulted in a reduction of control forces: however performance was not as smooth and effectiveness had not improved at all.... The rudder had no trim: it was 'ironed out' especially for the dive and produced fairly high aerodynamic forces during the climb. Nevertheless, it seemed the best of compromises: a spring to counteract the strong forces during the climb was considered, but never incorporated." (Page 74)
END QUOTE



ASSUMPTION #2 "The flettner tab had an adverse effect"

That assumption is based off my common sense and the following quote


QUOTE:
By Henning HoHen's on the LUFTWAFFE EXPERTEN MESSAGE BOARD (LEMB)
I'd imagine the downside of the Flettner ailerons was that they were too effective at high speeds.

Just like the Flettner tab deflects to one side to cause the aileron to deflect to the opposite side, the deflected aileron would work as a Flettner to try and deflect the entire wing (by bending it).

Since the Me 109 had a single-spar wing, it probably wasn't stiff enough to resist. The bent wing would create a rolling force opposite to the one induced by the aileron. If you go fast enough, the wing might be stronger than the aileron, so the plane would be rolling in the opposite sense of the aileron input!

(And if you go yet faster, and perhaps are pulling some G's, the wing might be bent beyond the point of failure. For the Me 109, this is speculation, but it certainly happened to the Spitfire which had a very similar wing construction. "Up in Harms Way" by fighter pilot/test pilot Mike Crosley explains the Spitfire problem in detail.)

With regard to the Me 109, it was found during diving trials that aileron reversibility occurred at very high speeds, which seems to confirm my speculation. When the Me 109 was dived to Mach 0.8 for tests, aileron gain was reduced to 50% to avoid this (and a catapult seat fitted, just in case ...)

(The diving trials are described by Radinger/Otto/Schick in the Me 109 books.)

To sum it up, I suspect there were some reservations against Flettner tabs because they might have made the aircraft unsafe at high speeds and high Gs.
END QUOTE


In that it agrees with what I alluded two in ANSWER #2, But those are the only two I could come up with, I'm sure there are others, as to why flettner tabs on the ailerons were the EXCEPTION and not the RULE.

- 3b, Flettner tabs were not used on Bf 109G at all (v1.1)

ANSWER #3b: See ANSWER #3a:

- 3c, Flettner tabs were only used for Bf 109
- prototypes (v1.2)

ANSWER #3c: See ANSWER #3a:

- 3d, Flettner tabs that were used on Bf 109G were
- only field kits (v2.0)

ANSWER #3d: I never said that. I ask if they were a KIT like the TALL TALE Kit for the 109 rudders that converted the short tails to tall tails. Reason I asked is at the end of the war they were still finding operational 109 without the tall tails. Reason being that the KITS were not implemented on all. If the aileron flettner tab was a kit.. then logistic would/could have explained why so many G's and K's could be found without them. Therefor I wondered if they were a kit. Butch noted that the aileron with the flettner tab does NOT show up in the parts book. Which further supports the idea of it being a field mod kit slash upgrade. But, you have assured us it was all PRODUCTION and not a field kit.. So back to square one... Why were they the EXCEPTION and not the RULE?

- 3e, Use Flettner tabs was discontinued on Bf 109K-6
- production aircraft

ANSWER #3e: I never said that.

- 3ea, Which brings us to ask you for evidence of Bf
- 109K-6 serial production

ANSWER #3ea: See ANSWER #3e

- 3f, Your reason why you claim that on the picturial
- evidence I have shown (Bf 109G-6/G-14 with aileron
- Flettner tab) the Flettner is "locked".

ANSWER #3f: There were only two pictures you have provided thus far. The first picture you provided was of the 109G with a clear picture of a flettner tab. At that time we did not have all the pictures we have now, but at that time I asked if that flettner tab was locked down. In that Kutscha on the LUFTWAFFE EXPERTEN MESSAGE BOARD (LEMB) said


QUOTE
I came across a reference that the K had Flettner tabs fitted to the ailerons? How effective were they? The reason I ask is there was a comment that they were locked due to controllability problems from being overly sensitive to pilot input.
END QUOTE


The second picture you provided was of that 109K (W.Nr.330130) used for factory trials. At which time you incorrectly stated it had a flettner tab because you could see the LINKAGE on the UPPER surface of the aileron. I pointed out to you that it was not a flettner tab because the LINKAGE is on UNDERNEATH the surface of the aileron. I also explained to you that what you see there is a not a flettner tab, it is a PARKING LOCK used to keep the wind from blowing the controls around. If you look close you will see there is NO TAB and that the PARKING LOCK is located at the seam between the aileron and the flap.

- 4, Use of Flettner tabs actually decreased roll rate on Bf 109

ANSWER #4: See ANSWER #2

- 5, On what reasonable basis do you deny the factual
- data regarding aileron deflection given by Bf
- 109G/Flettner flight tests ?

ANSWER #5 See ANSWER #3a


- Last time I asked you to support your statements
- with sources and references, you utterly failed in
- it.

Not True.

- It shows clearly that all you state here is just
- a product of your wild imagination, and has no
- connection to the reality.

Not True. I never claimed the 109 was the best airplane in ever category.

- You are making up claims
- regarding a plane on which you have proved your
- ignorance already.

Not True. I never claimed had drawings to be blue prints.

- Even the tricks and cheats you
- used didn`t help in that.

Not True. I never posted a picture of a 109K with a PARKING LOCK and called it a flettner tab.

- Did you managed to find the WNF picture ? Or there`s
- some other reason that you suddenly cannot find a
- picture in a book from which you already qouted from
- ?

I quoted from? If I did I got it from someone else quote. Care to back up that statement with a link? I didn't think so. Just so you know, I have that book on order and it should be here any day now.

- Oh wait, how was that last time ? Tagert was
- parroting his mantra about the 109 had poor, if not
- next to zero roll rate at high speed (bullocks), was
- unable to prove, support or back it up, then he was
- shown REAL result, REAL tests, and he denied their
- very existance, and suddely told he has "vision
- problems"?

Take a deep breath, count to ten, and try again.

- Of course, he`s hatred against all LW
- aircrafts blinds him !

Hatred against all Lw aircrafts? Question.. Would a guy who hates all Lw aircraft make a statement like

"Were the Germans the 1st ones to break the sound barrier in the Me262.. NOT CHUCK YEAGER?"

Does that sound like something a Lw hater would say? Or someone that is willing to question the status quo in that he feels the truth is more important? If your not sure, see this link

http://forums.ubi.com/messages/message_view.asp?name=us_il2sturmovik_gd&id=yydar


Now I have answered you 11 questions and more.. Can you answer me the ONE question I asked you before you asked me the 11.. but never answered?

QUESTION #1
If the flettner tabs were SO BENEFICIAL to the 109 roll rate, and they knew about it way back around the G series... Why do we see so many pictures of 109K's without them and hundreds of pictures of 109G's without them?




<div style="background:#222222;color:#e0e0e0;font-size:24px;font-weight:bold;font-face:courier;"> TAGERT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If WAR was not the ANSWER.. Than what the H was your QUESTION?
</div>
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=forum
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=discussion

XyZspineZyX
10-15-2003, 05:48 AM
Fornixx wrote:
- Did the Fw190 have Flettner tabs?
-
- Edit: I hope you forgive me Tagert for borrowing
- your K4 for a while?

No feel free! Only you might want to DL it now, in that I dont plan on having them up there for YEARS! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

On the other hand.. what is your point anyways?


<div style="background:#222222;color:#e0e0e0;font-size:24px;font-weight:bold;font-face:courier;"> TAGERT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If WAR was not the ANSWER.. Than what the H was your QUESTION?
</div>
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=forum
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=discussion

XyZspineZyX
10-15-2003, 06:24 AM
I forgot to give credit to Flex99 of the LUFTWAFFE EXPERTEN MESSAGE BOARD (LEMB) for the following quote



QUOTE
In Spate's "Test Pilots", Heinrich Beauvais comments thusly on the flight controls: "One would have liked to have more effective ailerons, as well as lower control forces, at high speeds. I do not remember all the different methods tried to improve this, but the following two are still clear in my mind. One was designed by Blohm & Voss, adding a Flettner trim tab which resulted in a reduction of control forces: however performance was not as smooth and effectiveness had not improved at all.... The rudder had no trim: it was 'ironed out' especially for the dive and produced fairly high aerodynamic forces during the climb. Nevertheless, it seemed the best of compromises: a spring to counteract the strong forces during the climb was considered, but never incorporated." (Page 74)
END QUOTE



<div style="background:#222222;color:#e0e0e0;font-size:24px;font-weight:bold;font-face:courier;"> TAGERT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If WAR was not the ANSWER.. Than what the H was your QUESTION?
</div>
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=forum
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=discussion

Message Edited on 10/14/0310:24PM by tagert

XyZspineZyX
10-15-2003, 06:57 AM
Vo101_Isegrim wrote:
- No, you DID NOT answered and give the source of any
- of your ridiculus statements. You said the following
-
- "No need to respond".

In that I have answered them many times in the past.

- Now we all know you could name not even ONE source
- for your statements.

Well, just to make you happy I answered them all again and posted the sources. see above

- This is just as true as your previous..

Agreed 100%

-- You know the thread that got locked because
-- the MOD noted how worthless it was the 1st
-- time you posted it.
-
- No it was locked as the Mod gave you ONE chance to
- give an answer. You couldn`t give an answer.

Nice try, but the fact is that the MOD made note of your first post being like a pi$$ing contest. Sense I had answered all those questions before in other posts I didnt see the need to add to the pi$$ing contest.. But sense you insist in CUT-N-PASTING these questions over and over in sevral threads you force me to pi$$ one more time! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

see above

- Very, very convincing of your very, very honest
- behaviour, taggy.

Agreed 100%

- Answer the questions.

see above

-- I would hate to have the MOD's
-- determine that this CUT-N-PASTE is a form of SPAM
-- and kick you out. That would just break my hart!
-
- You threatening me? LOL, how pathetic!

Threatening? Are you really that paranoid? I was just trying to help you out in that you have not been around the past few days.. There is a new sheriff in town.. and they aint putting up with the kind of stuff we use to do.. So shape up or ship out.. If you think that is a threat from me, think twice! It is a promise from the MOD's not a threat from me!

- Answer the questions,

see above

- or simply admit that you just making up things.

I have yet to post a picture of a 109K with PARKING BLOCKS and call them flettner tabs.

- That would your greatest contribution to us.

see above

<div style="background:#222222;color:#e0e0e0;font-size:24px;font-weight:bold;font-face:courier;"> TAGERT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If WAR was not the ANSWER.. Than what the H was your QUESTION?
</div>
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=forum
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=discussion


Message Edited on 10/14/0311:00PM by tagert

XyZspineZyX
10-15-2003, 10:25 AM
tagert wrote:
- Fornixx wrote:
-- Did the Fw190 have Flettner tabs?
--
-- Edit: I hope you forgive me Tagert for borrowing
-- your K4 for a while?
-
- No feel free! Only you might want to DL it now, in
- that I dont plan on having them up there for YEARS!
-
- On the other hand.. what is your point anyways?
-

Thx, you'll get her back as new. I'll even wash it for you and put in a wunderbaum in the rear view mirror. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

No serious point here, It's just a bit sad that a certain individual here has to resort to invectives, attacks on character and re-writing of history in order to debate a little thingy as a flettner-whatever.

Thus me combining this discussion with the classic "Weapon Of Mass Destruction" the Fw190 debate.

It's like a combination of a political statement and "cheer-up-guys-the-sun-shines-outside"! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

S!

But seriously.... did it have a flettner tab?

<center>



http://www.fornberg.com/109k4.jpg
</center>
<center>
<div style="width:400;color:F0FFFF;fontsize:11pt;filter: glow[color=black,strength=4)">
The Flettner tab won the war

XyZspineZyX
10-15-2003, 01:38 PM
Still waiting for the reason why only 12%(200/1700) of the K-4s produced had Flettner aileron tabs fitted Issy.

The obvious conclusion to be drawn is they were not as 'great' a benefit as certain people posting here would like us to believe they were.


http://www.thundercycle.com/photos/dropdead2.gif



"Only a dead 'chamber pot' is a good 'chamber pot'!"

XyZspineZyX
10-15-2003, 03:30 PM
Fornixx wrote:
- Thx, you'll get her back as new. I'll even wash it
- for you and put in a wunderbaum in the rear view
- mirror.

LOL... just dont hang that pine tree air fressiner around the gun sight!

- No serious point here, It's just a bit sad that a
- certain individual here has to resort to invectives,
- attacks on character and re-writing of history in
- order to debate a little thingy as a
- flettner-whatever.

Agreed

- Thus me combining this discussion with the classic
- "Weapon Of Mass Destruction" the Fw190 debate.

Guess I missed that one?

- It's like a combination of a political statement and
- "cheer-up-guys-the-sun-shines-outside"!

Well sim guys like us are into the details! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

- But seriously.... did it have a flettner tab?

That particular picture? It is not as evident as other pictures I have posted.. And you have to have spent some time in the snow to know.. but the good thing about that picture is it has crisp clean lines.. ie a good clear picture. And *IF* that 109 K *WOULD* have had a flettner tab you would have seen a break in the line at the tail edge of the ailerion. In that you can tell by looking at the far left side the ailerion is slightly up, thus theflettner would have been slightly down.. if it was there.


<div style="background:#222222;color:#e0e0e0;font-size:24px;font-weight:bold;font-face:courier;"> TAGERT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If WAR was not the ANSWER.. Than what the H was your QUESTION?
</div>
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=forum
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=discussion

XyZspineZyX
10-15-2003, 03:43 PM
I have a warehouse full of brand new, unused Flettner tabs if anyone is interested ....... ;-]


Blutarski

XyZspineZyX
10-15-2003, 03:54 PM
BLUTARSKI wrote:
- I have a warehouse full of brand new, unused
- Flettner tabs if anyone is interested ....... ;-]

How Much? /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

<div style="background:#222222;color:#e0e0e0;font-size:24px;font-weight:bold;font-face:courier;"> TAGERT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If WAR was not the ANSWER.. Than what the H was your QUESTION?
</div>
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=forum
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=discussion

XyZspineZyX
10-15-2003, 04:00 PM
Hello and let me start by saying I am not taking a side on this issue(non-issue???)

I don't really get into the tech aspects all that much. The advantage of a simple mind I suppose, I just like this game. I have nothing for or against 109's except for when they are turning me into a fireball. I have in turn piloted them for many enjoyable hours of simming.

I throw this in only because reading this made me go crack open one of my favorite books. The title of said is
Complete book of WWII Combat Aircraft be E. Angelucci, P. Matricardi & P. Pinto . I belive I purchased it at a Barnes & Noble.

Let me state up front this book contains more than a few innacuracies. What makes it one of my favorites are the beautiful detailed full coler plates from a nose on, top down & profile view, which thanfully are accurate in even minute detail as opposed to much of the written text.

On page 143 there is a plate of the Me 109 K-4, it is identified as belonging to the II Gruppe Jagdgeschwader 3. based at Pasewalk,1945. It is pictured with flettner tabs.
On the following page are 2 photo's one being disassembled , the other the angle and qaulity are to poor to judge.

Oh btw, if y'all can't play nice, I'll make you sit and hold hands taking turns saying I wuv u, it worked well on my children.

XyZspineZyX
10-16-2003, 02:31 AM
J.D.Carter wrote:
- Hello and let me start by saying I am not
- taking a side on this issue(non-issue???)

Time Will Tell! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

- I don't really get into the tech aspects all
- that much. The advantage of a simple mind I suppose,
- I just like this game. I have nothing for or against
- 109's except for when they are turning me into a
- fireball. I have in turn piloted them for many
- enjoyable hours of simming.

Ok

- I throw this in only because reading this made
- me go crack open one of my favorite books. The title
- of said is
-
- Complete book of WWII Combat Aircraft be E.
- Angelucci, P. Matricardi & P. Pinto . I belive I
- purchased it at a Barnes & Noble.

Got it! Just so you know.. that book fall into the catagory of a Neat Summary Picture Book. You know, all the general types of info you could find just about anywhere and some really nice pictures of the airplanes.


- Let me state up front this book contains more
- than a few innacuracies.

Agreed.

- What makes it one of my
- favorites are the beautiful detailed full coler
- plates from a nose on, top down & profile view,
- which thanfully are accurate in even minute detail
- as opposed to much of the written text.

Actually some of those drawings have errors too, so, not so minute detail.

- On page 143 there is a plate of the Me 109
- K-4, it is identified as belonging to the II Gruppe
- Jagdgeschwader 3. based at Pasewalk,1945. It is
- pictured with flettner tabs.

Yes that DRAWING is a good one.. Problem is, like the drawings that have been presented thus far.. They are not blue prints someone would build from.

- On the following page are 2 photo's one being
- disassembled , the other the angle and qaulity are
- to poor to judge.

Seen them, and they are clear enough to tell that they dont have flettner tabs on them. You can see the trim tab, but no flettner.

- Oh btw, if y'all can't play nice, I'll make
- you sit and hold hands taking turns saying I wuv u,
- it worked well on my children.

Roger.. a fence walker in all aspects of life.. Hey what ever works for you! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif


<div style="background:#222222;color:#e0e0e0;font-size:24px;font-weight:bold;font-face:courier;"> TAGERT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If WAR was not the ANSWER.. Than what the H was your QUESTION?
</div>
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=forum
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=discussion

XyZspineZyX
10-16-2003, 03:41 AM
Yep, you've got me pegged dude from the word go! Fence walker...lol actually I'm a steel walker ya mouthy punk. come on up to my world on the 18th plus and tell me all about you tabs.

XyZspineZyX
10-16-2003, 03:45 AM
J.D.Carter wrote:
-
- Yep, you've got me pegged dude from the word go!
- Fence walker...lol

Wasnt hard! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

- actually I'm a steel walker ya mouthy punk.

Easy Big Fella I would hate to take your spud wrench and put it where it hurts! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

- come on up to my world on the 18th plus
- and tell me all about you tabs.

Thanks but no thanks, an iron workin bud of mine took me up there once.. and once was enough! I dont know how you guys do it! Salute! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif





<div style="background:#222222;color:#e0e0e0;font-size:24px;font-weight:bold;font-face:courier;"> TAGERT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If WAR was not the ANSWER.. Than what the H was your QUESTION?
</div>
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=forum
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=discussion

XyZspineZyX
10-16-2003, 03:54 AM
Wow taggert! I can't belive I typed that other post out loud?? thats pretty bold , you know for a fence walker. I'm cured bro, Cured ! Thank you.

P.S. I hope some of you will see how easy this is, no flame war. I don't hate this guy, I hope he don't hate me. Its just a simm/game.whats with all the nationalistic/you don't know squat/ push me shove you bitterness.
and to answer your question Taggert, we were all abused as children, lol

XyZspineZyX
10-16-2003, 04:03 AM
J.D.Carter wrote:
- Wow taggert! I can't belive I typed that other post
- out loud?? thats pretty bold

For a touchie feelie PC world forum like this.. maybe.. but for me.. Enh! No biggie!

- you know for a fence walker. I'm cured bro,
- Cured ! Thank you.

Glad to be of service... Hmmm what side of the fence did you land on? /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

- P.S. I hope some of you will see how easy
- this is, no flame war. I don't hate this guy, I hope
- he don't hate me.

Hate? Nah I save that for rubber neckers on the 91 freeway heading into LA! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

- Its just a simm/game.whats with all the
- nationalistic/you don't know squat/push me
- shove you bitterness.

LOL!

- and to answer your question Taggert,
- we were all abused as children, lol

Well I know my friend.. And I know his dad... There might be alot of truth in that! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif


<div style="background:#222222;color:#e0e0e0;font-size:24px;font-weight:bold;font-face:courier;"> TAGERT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If WAR was not the ANSWER.. Than what the H was your QUESTION?
</div>
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=forum
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=discussion