PDA

View Full Version : Any Me-109 experts here? A question for you.



stalkervision
03-26-2007, 10:31 AM
I just read in the book "Fighters" by Mike Spick that apparently the 109's ailerons "drooped" to increase lift for it's small wing when the flaps were lowered on landing. As slats were also fitted this seems an excellent idea. At least the early ones with slotted ailerons did like the 109E apparently. That may have been changed later. This makes perfect sense to me because other aircraft have used this feature too. Does anyone know about this on the me-109?

In the 109 e in our game the ailerons do the exact opposite of "droop" when one puts on the flaps. They both actually raise! I don't believe this is a good idea when a plane is landing because it triples the elevator surfaces! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif


I do believe someone goofed here! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif


They did get one thing right. The ailerons do work in unison with the flaps. They just work the wrong way.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

stalkervision
03-26-2007, 10:31 AM
I just read in the book "Fighters" by Mike Spick that apparently the 109's ailerons "drooped" to increase lift for it's small wing when the flaps were lowered on landing. As slats were also fitted this seems an excellent idea. At least the early ones with slotted ailerons did like the 109E apparently. That may have been changed later. This makes perfect sense to me because other aircraft have used this feature too. Does anyone know about this on the me-109?

In the 109 e in our game the ailerons do the exact opposite of "droop" when one puts on the flaps. They both actually raise! I don't believe this is a good idea when a plane is landing because it triples the elevator surfaces! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif


I do believe someone goofed here! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif


They did get one thing right. The ailerons do work in unison with the flaps. They just work the wrong way.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Brain32
03-26-2007, 10:38 AM
According to 80% of members here the slats would explode immidiately after take off dewinging the aircarft and killing the pilot http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

stalkervision
03-26-2007, 10:55 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Brain32:
According to 80% of members here the slats would explode immidiately after take off dewinging the aircarft and killing the pilot http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Pirschjaeger
03-26-2007, 10:55 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Brain32:
According to 80% of members here the slats would explode immidiately after take off dewinging the aircarft and killing the pilot http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, 79.986%.

I've reconsidered my position. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif

alert_1
03-26-2007, 11:22 AM
If the slats were that good, they would had been on Spitfire too http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Dagnabit
03-26-2007, 11:32 AM
Dang!!

Ok how do you make a poll on this forum????? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/crackwhip.gif
This is outrageous. Oleg should have been on his toes, but as usual he blew it!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blush.gif
Im removing this from my machine!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/compsmash.gif


Well as soon as I finish a couple of campaigns Im working on........................(mebby http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/halo.gif)

K_Freddie
03-26-2007, 11:35 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by alert_1:
If the slats were that good, they would had been on Spitfire too http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No no and another NO... They were that good - they later appeared on the LA's and many other a/c today, but no WW2 British a/c AFAIK. Why, probably designer ego, or they never thought that it would be necessary.
Imagine the blow to 'British is Best' when a spit appears with slats.. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif

"I say old chap, we don't copy the Hun you know.. we'd rather send many more of our brave pilots to their doom, what!!"

stathem
03-26-2007, 12:11 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by K_Freddie:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by alert_1:
If the slats were that good, they would had been on Spitfire too http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No no and another NO... They were that good - they later appeared on the LA's and many other a/c today, but no WW2 British a/c AFAIK. Why, probably designer ego, or they never thought that it would be necessary.
Imagine the blow to 'British is Best' when a spit appears with slats.. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif

"I say old chap, we don't copy the Hun you know.. we'd rather send many more of our brave pilots to their doom, what!!" </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think you'll find that Handley Page Slots, were indeed, invented by the very British Frederick Handley Page (http://www.answers.com/topic/geoffrey-de-havilland-with-frederick-handley-page-jpg) .

stalkervision
03-26-2007, 12:12 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by alert_1:
If the slats were that good, they would had been on Spitfire too http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

spits can go into nasty spins because they don't have slats.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Manu-6S
03-26-2007, 12:19 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stalkervision:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by alert_1:
If the slats were that good, they would had been on Spitfire too http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

spits can go into nasty spins because they don't have slats.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

And they autorecover from the spin in 2 seconds because they don't have slats... mhmm... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

JtD
03-26-2007, 12:24 PM
Ailerons on the Bf 109E do not raise when you drop flaps in game.

Xiolablu3
03-26-2007, 12:57 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by K_Freddie:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by alert_1:
If the slats were that good, they would had been on Spitfire too http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No no and another NO... They were that good - they later appeared on the LA's and many other a/c today, but no WW2 British a/c AFAIK. Why, probably designer ego, or they never thought that it would be necessary.
Imagine the blow to 'British is Best' when a spit appears with slats.. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif

"I say old chap, we don't copy the Hun you know.. we'd rather send many more of our brave pilots to their doom, what!!" </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Slats were invented in Britain, look up Handley page slats.

'Slats were first developed by Handley-Page in 1919; licensing the design became one of their major sources of income in the 1920s. The original designs were in the form of a fixed slot in the front of the wing, a design that was found on a number of STOL aircraft.'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slats



They are 'aerodynamic band aids'. Better left off if possible, but better used if the plane has problems with low speed handling - Or if performance isnt really a big factor such as Airliners where safety at low speeds is paramount. Especially for landing/take-off.

stalkervision
03-26-2007, 01:03 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Manu-6S:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stalkervision:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by alert_1:
If the slats were that good, they would had been on Spitfire too http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

spits can go into nasty spins because they don't have slats.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

And they autorecover from the spin in 2 seconds because they don't have slats... mhmm... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Nope. There are many instances of spits going into the ground from a unrecoverable spin. The 109 never had this problem because of the slats. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

stalkervision
03-26-2007, 01:05 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JtD:
Ailerons on the Bf 109E do not raise when you drop flaps in game. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes indeed I tested this out. Doesn't mean it is correct though.

p-11.cAce
03-26-2007, 01:05 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Ailerons on the Bf 109E do not raise when you drop flaps in game. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Tis true http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Stackhouse25th
03-26-2007, 01:06 PM
our 109 has slats, no wai!

stalkervision
03-26-2007, 01:13 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by p-11.cAce:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Ailerons on the Bf 109E do not raise when you drop flaps in game. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Tis true http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

"In game" that is absolutely true..

stalkervision
03-26-2007, 01:24 PM
Here is what Mike Spick says..

"with an eye to future weight increases,automatic slats were fitted to the outboard section of the wing's leading edge,with large slotted flaps to the trailing edge, <span class="ev_code_RED">supplemented by slotted ailerons which drooped when the flaps were lowered."</span>

Manu-6S
03-26-2007, 01:45 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stalkervision:
Nope. There are many instances of spits going into the ground from a unrecoverable spin. The 109 never had this problem because of the slats. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

In game? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

Oh, I remember when I could stall in a bf109 for not recovering him anymore: now it's difficult to me only to enter in a stall. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

Xiolablu3
03-26-2007, 01:52 PM
IRL its apparantly almost impossible to put the Spitfire into a spin.

Mark Hanna talking about it says that the plane 'talks' to you in the form of buffets and noises, a little more the harder you push it, until you would have to be 'crass' to push her any further and end up in a spin.

He also said something like :- 'The Spitfire has none of the dangerous traits that most of the other high performance WW2 fighters have, where you have to be very careful exactly what manouvres you pull when flying them'

You have to do it on purpose to push the SPitfire into a spin according to him. If I can find the video again of him talking about MH434 SPit IX, I will post it.

I prefer the FW190 as a fighting machine, and prefer the Bf109F4 to the Spitfire V, but anyone has to admit how every person to ever pilot a SPitfire talks about its beatiful handling compared to other WW2 prop planes. Its the same in game - its a very 'noob friendly' aircraft, and also a dream to fly. It also takes a very good pilot to fly it WELL vs veteran FW190 and Me109 pilots.

stalkervision
03-26-2007, 02:10 PM
apparently it is very hard to get a 109 into a spin and even then if one just relaxes the controls it will recovery almost instantly. With the spit it is probably a bit easier to do but still not easy but I believe if one get a spit into a real good spin it is much more difficult to recover. This is what I have read from many different sources.

pilots of spits almost never ever will admit to their plane having even the slightest of flaws of any kind though.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

p-11.cAce
03-26-2007, 02:54 PM
You guys do realize that ALL WWII fighter aircraft were designed to be flown by men with minimal training, in combat, possibly with wounds, for hours at a time in non-pressurized (for the most part) non-climate controlled cockpits don't you? I hate to break it to you but you don't need to be a super slick uberman to fly an airplane, even a big multi-thousand hp fighter. If anyone designed an aircraft, even a fighting one, that was waiting to bite you and spin you down to your grave every second it was in the air it would never make it beyond prototype stage.

The main problem in the game is that other than the "rumble" right at the stall there is little to war of an impending loss of control. Modeling FM's is one thing, modeling the seat of the pants is quite another.

GRIMREAPER_204
03-26-2007, 05:43 PM
why don't you guys just type it in google ex.
''do ME 109E's have slats'' they must tell you something

stalkervision
03-26-2007, 09:34 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GRIMREAPER_204:
why don't you guys just type it in google ex.
''do ME 109E's have slats'' they must tell you something </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's more like an early version of "flaperons" http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

AVG_WarHawk
03-26-2007, 10:05 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by p-11.cAce:
You guys do realize that ALL WWII fighter aircraft were designed to be flown by men with minimal training, in combat, possibly with wounds, for hours at a time in non-pressurized (for the most part) non-climate controlled cockpits don't you? I hate to break it to you but you don't need to be a super slick uberman to fly an airplane, even a big multi-thousand hp fighter. If anyone designed an aircraft, even a fighting one, that was waiting to bite you and spin you down to your grave every second it was in the air it would never make it beyond prototype stage.

The main problem in the game is that other than the "rumble" right at the stall there is little to war of an impending loss of control. Modeling FM's is one thing, modeling the seat of the pants is quite another. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Gosh, with that comment, I think I've lost my lust for flight simulation and my super slick uberman attitude. Be seeing you lads, oh and lass http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

Kurfurst__
03-27-2007, 02:46 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by alert_1:
If the slats were that good, they would had been on Spitfire too http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If the Spitfire would be good, they would have slats. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Regarding the Handley-Page slats, slats were 'invented in Britain' as much as radar or jets... they were not. The slats are named Handley-Page only because Handley-Page licensed the patent invention under his name.

In reality, the idea was first invented during WW1 by a German combat pilot, Herr Lachmann, who was the first to receive a (imperial) patent for such design in the world; after the war he went to Britiain working for Handley-Page and sold his patent to H-P. That's how it become 'H-P slats' after the company that recorded a patent in Britiain . In truth, Handley-Page and Junkers (trailing edge slots) were also working on the idea, but this guy was the first and foremost executor of the idea.

Just to stick to the facts before our local Brits claim everything for themselves as usual. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

"Slotted Wings, Flaps, and High Lift Devices

The wings on most modern-day airplanes are equipped with control devices not only to steer the airplane, but also to improve its flying capabilities at specific times, particularly during landing and takeoff. Devices such as slotted wings and flaps increase lift when an aircraft requires it the most. They are also excellent examples of how different people working in isolation from each other can arrive at similar solutions for a problem simultaneously.

The design feature generally known as the slotted wing is a long slot that runs lengthwise along the wing, either at the leading edge of the wing or at its trailing edge. It creates greater lift, but also increases drag. It was invented nearly simultaneously in three different places"”by two individuals working independently in Germany and also by a research team in the United Kingdom.

In 1917, German pilot G. V. Lachmann crashed his airplane into the ground after stalling it. A stall happens when a wing no longer generates sufficient lift to keep the airplane in the air. This can happen because the plane is traveling too slowly and/or because the angle of the wing to the airflow is too sharp (such as what happens in a climb). This latter situation is commonly called too high an angle of attack. Lachmann was lying in his hospital bed recovering from his injuries when he started thinking about airplane wings. He surmised that if a wing was made up of several smaller wings, separated by open spaces or "slots" that ran straight outward from the fuselage parallel to each other, then air would flow between the slots at high angles of attack at low speeds. The wing would act like a group of separate wings, each operating at a normal angle of attack. In normal, level flight, air would pass over the slots, not through them, and this slotted wing would act like a normal wing. As a result, a plane equipped with a slotted wing would not stall as easily as one without it. Lachmann made some model tests and applied for a patent for his slotted wing design in February 1918, but his patent was rejected because the patent authorities argued that the slots would destroy the wing lift. Lachmann had to conduct further tests to prove his doubters wrong.

Around the same time, the British firm Handley Page was trying to solve a problem similar to stalling; just before a wing stalls, the airflow "burbles," or becomes turbulent over the upper surface of the wing, increasing drag and decreasing lift. Handley Page engineers tried slots that ran chordwise, or front to back, to reduce this burbling. But they soon found that a slot near the leading edge of the wing and running parallel to the span increased lift dramatically, by an astounding 60 percent.

Handley Page engineers made a number of different tests, including a retractable slat (a piece of metal that ran along the length of the wing from the fuselage) in front of the wing that could be extended (pushed forward from its position at the front of the wing) so that a slot would open up between the wing and the slat. Another design involved a multi-slotted wing that increased lift by 300 percent; it looked like a venetian blind, but it also increased drag and had other drawbacks. In the meantime, the German Lachmann was ultimately able to gain a patent for his design and soon joined forces with Handley Page.

At the same time as Lachmann's theorizing and the Handley Page company's experiments, O. Mader of the German airplane manufacturer Junkers was also testing a wing design to reduce burbling and increase lift, but in a slightly different way. Mader's approach involved mounting an auxiliary airfoil behind the main wing. It had a larger slot between it and the main wing, running parallel to the main wing and auxiliary airfoil, but worked in a manner similar to the Lachmann and Handley Page designs. Junkers incorporated slotted wings in some of its aircraft. Meanwhile, leading-edge slots were incorporated into military airplanes in the United States and Britain."

FritzGryphon
03-27-2007, 03:15 AM
I've never seen or heard of a 109 with drooping ailerons. You can see plenty of pictures of 109s with their flaps down, and the ailerons are normal.

I'd be suspicious of anything in a Mike Spick book. For example, in 'Luftwaffe Fighter Aces' he claimed that the Shvak shell was heavier than a MG/FF, and the RoF was "more than double that of a MG/FF". The book also calls the FW-190 maneuverable.

I don't recall seeing anything about drooping ailerons in 'Warplanes of the Third Reich', either.

In fact, what WWII fighter -does- have drooping ailerons? I can only think of the I-16.

Pinker15
03-27-2007, 03:39 AM
Spitfire contrary to 109 was such plesant to fly that there was no need to use slats. For spitfire this would give more problems ( much higher drag) than benefits. Spitfire had thin simi eliptical wing not for to equip slats and ruin all profits of this. Slats for 109 was not some kind uber idea but it was necessary for quite safe handling and landing ability on this plane. Bugs of our game leads to think that was something wonder cause 109 are handle so great compare to spits when u fly on edge but in real that spit was much easier to fly. Please notice this that only verry few late war fighters had wing slats and was used to patch some nasty handling difficulties.

M_Gunz
03-27-2007, 03:40 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stalkervision:
I just read in the book "Fighters" by Mike Spick that apparently the 109's ailerons "drooped" to increase lift for it's small wing when the flaps were lowered on landing. As slats were also fitted this seems an excellent idea. At least the early ones with slotted ailerons did like the 109E apparently. That may have been changed later. This makes perfect sense to me because other aircraft have used this feature too. Does anyone know about this on the me-109?

In the 109 e in our game the ailerons do the exact opposite of "droop" when one puts on the flaps. They both actually raise! I don't believe this is a good idea when a plane is landing because it triples the elevator surfaces! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif


I do believe someone goofed here! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif


They did get one thing right. The ailerons do work in unison with the flaps. They just work the wrong way.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You want to criticise Oleg to Oleg then you'd better be able to do more than point at details
in the graphics, tie them to unqualified (as in no limits placed on them) statements trying
for Yet Another Agenda then you had better start with putting numbers on them or be left
looking like a housewife nagging over her discontent.

Just for fun, do you think that trying to drag specious bits and pieces about this or that
plane is going to change the performance data of them? Gee, I know that Rechlin says that
plane tested to such and such Oleg but the ailerons drooped with the flaps so you must add
some more or we will call you names http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif and mount a campaign http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif till we get more!

Revisionists unite, you sorry sacks of dirt. Stand up and be counted as whiners.
None of yuns are any much better than Hayate-Acehole, just after different goals.
Good thing for the rest of us that Oleg is not your Average Game Producer.

tigertalon
03-27-2007, 03:48 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
They are 'aerodynamic band aids'. Better left off if possible, but better used if the plane has problems with low speed handling - Or if performance isnt really a big factor... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hmmm...

http://i155.photobucket.com/albums/s307/TigerTalon/slats_F111.jpg

http://i155.photobucket.com/albums/s307/TigerTalon/Slats_phantom.jpg

http://i155.photobucket.com/albums/s307/TigerTalon/Slats_5.jpg

http://i155.photobucket.com/albums/s307/TigerTalon/Slats_tomcat.jpg

http://i155.photobucket.com/albums/s307/TigerTalon/slats_F16.jpg

http://i155.photobucket.com/albums/s307/TigerTalon/Slats_F18.jpg

http://i155.photobucket.com/albums/s307/TigerTalon/Slats_F22.jpg

http://i155.photobucket.com/albums/s307/TigerTalon/slats_mig29.jpg

http://i155.photobucket.com/albums/s307/TigerTalon/Slats_Su27.jpg

http://i155.photobucket.com/albums/s307/TigerTalon/Slats_mirage.jpg

http://i155.photobucket.com/albums/s307/TigerTalon/slats_rafale.jpg

http://i155.photobucket.com/albums/s307/TigerTalon/Slats_gripen.jpg

http://i155.photobucket.com/albums/s307/TigerTalon/tornado_slats.jpg

http://i155.photobucket.com/albums/s307/TigerTalon/Slats_typhoon.jpg

Ratsack
03-27-2007, 03:52 AM
In D.A. Lande, Messerschmitt 109, (MBI Publishing Company, Osceola, 2000), ISBN 0-7603-0803-9, p. 74, discussing changes from the E series to the F:

'Changed the slotted flaps to the close-fitting standard type and reduced their size and area (and removed a linkage connecting ailerons and flaps in preceding versions).'

In relation to the game, the ailerons on the E series most definitely do NOT go up when the flaps are lowered. Test it on the ground for your selves.

cheers,
Ratsack

PS - what the he11 have leading edge slats got to do with the original poster's issue concerning flaps and ailerons?

M_Gunz
03-27-2007, 03:52 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by p-11.cAce:
If anyone designed an aircraft, even a fighting one, that was waiting to bite you and spin you down to your grave every second it was in the air it would never make it beyond prototype stage.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

At least not since WWI. The Camel springs to mind as one example of just such an unstable
machine but there were others. Check out training losses in SPAD's, the extreme roll rate
due to the lack of dihedral (from old Brittanicas one wing had 2 degrees anhedral). You
did not the stick of planes like those go. Yet there were others in the same era that you
could, they were slower to maneuver and yes had more wingtip vortex drag which is what the
dihedral wings extract in trade for stability, unless you have additional wing devices.

M_Gunz
03-27-2007, 03:59 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by tigertalon:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
They are 'aerodynamic band aids'. Better left off if possible, but better used if the plane has problems with low speed handling - Or if performance isnt really a big factor... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hmmm...
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, all good examples of planes with low speed handling problems without those slats.
Tie them shut and see how fast any of those planes will have to take off or land!

tigertalon
03-27-2007, 04:15 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by tigertalon:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
They are 'aerodynamic band aids'. Better left off if possible, but better used if the plane has problems with low speed handling - Or if performance isnt really a big factor... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hmmm...
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, all good examples of planes with low speed handling problems without those slats.
Tie them shut and see how fast any of those planes will have to take off or land! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Tie them shut or tear them off and see the improvement in any kind of performance...

The question is not what do you loose without them. The question is, what do you gain with them.

stalkervision
03-27-2007, 05:36 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by alert_1:
If the slats were that good, they would had been on Spitfire too http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If the Spitfire would be good, they would have slats. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Regarding the Handley-Page slats, slats were 'invented in Britain' as much as radar or jets... they were not. The slats are named Handley-Page only because Handley-Page licensed the patent invention under his name.

In reality, the idea was first invented during WW1 by a German combat pilot, Herr Lachmann, who was the first to receive a (imperial) patent for such design in the world; after the war he went to Britiain working for Handley-Page and sold his patent to H-P. That's how it become 'H-P slats' after the company that recorded a patent in Britiain . In truth, Handley-Page and Junkers (trailing edge slots) were also working on the idea, but this guy was the first and foremost executor of the idea.

Just to stick to the facts before our local Brits claim everything for themselves as usual. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

"Slotted Wings, Flaps, and High Lift Devices

The wings on most modern-day airplanes are equipped with control devices not only to steer the airplane, but also to improve its flying capabilities at specific times, particularly during landing and takeoff. Devices such as slotted wings and flaps increase lift when an aircraft requires it the most. They are also excellent examples of how different people working in isolation from each other can arrive at similar solutions for a problem simultaneously.

The design feature generally known as the slotted wing is a long slot that runs lengthwise along the wing, either at the leading edge of the wing or at its trailing edge. It creates greater lift, but also increases drag. It was invented nearly simultaneously in three different places"”by two individuals working independently in Germany and also by a research team in the United Kingdom.

In 1917, German pilot G. V. Lachmann crashed his airplane into the ground after stalling it. A stall happens when a wing no longer generates sufficient lift to keep the airplane in the air. This can happen because the plane is traveling too slowly and/or because the angle of the wing to the airflow is too sharp (such as what happens in a climb). This latter situation is commonly called too high an angle of attack. Lachmann was lying in his hospital bed recovering from his injuries when he started thinking about airplane wings. He surmised that if a wing was made up of several smaller wings, separated by open spaces or "slots" that ran straight outward from the fuselage parallel to each other, then air would flow between the slots at high angles of attack at low speeds. The wing would act like a group of separate wings, each operating at a normal angle of attack. In normal, level flight, air would pass over the slots, not through them, and this slotted wing would act like a normal wing. As a result, a plane equipped with a slotted wing would not stall as easily as one without it. Lachmann made some model tests and applied for a patent for his slotted wing design in February 1918, but his patent was rejected because the patent authorities argued that the slots would destroy the wing lift. Lachmann had to conduct further tests to prove his doubters wrong.

Around the same time, the British firm Handley Page was trying to solve a problem similar to stalling; just before a wing stalls, the airflow "burbles," or becomes turbulent over the upper surface of the wing, increasing drag and decreasing lift. Handley Page engineers tried slots that ran chordwise, or front to back, to reduce this burbling. But they soon found that a slot near the leading edge of the wing and running parallel to the span increased lift dramatically, by an astounding 60 percent.

Handley Page engineers made a number of different tests, including a retractable slat (a piece of metal that ran along the length of the wing from the fuselage) in front of the wing that could be extended (pushed forward from its position at the front of the wing) so that a slot would open up between the wing and the slat. Another design involved a multi-slotted wing that increased lift by 300 percent; it looked like a venetian blind, but it also increased drag and had other drawbacks. In the meantime, the German Lachmann was ultimately able to gain a patent for his design and soon joined forces with Handley Page.

At the same time as Lachmann's theorizing and the Handley Page company's experiments, O. Mader of the German airplane manufacturer Junkers was also testing a wing design to reduce burbling and increase lift, but in a slightly different way. Mader's approach involved mounting an auxiliary airfoil behind the main wing. It had a larger slot between it and the main wing, running parallel to the main wing and auxiliary airfoil, but worked in a manner similar to the Lachmann and Handley Page designs. Junkers incorporated slotted wings in some of its aircraft. Meanwhile, leading-edge slots were incorporated into military airplanes in the United States and Britain." </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Interesting stuff Kurfurst thanks for posting it. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Ratsack
03-27-2007, 05:44 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stalkervision:
...

In the 109 e in our game the ailerons do the exact opposite of "droop" when one puts on the flaps. They both actually raise! ... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just in case you missed it above, try testing this on the ground. It's not the case. The ailerons do not move when you activate the flaps in the game.

cheers,
Ratsack

Brain32
03-27-2007, 05:46 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by tigertalon:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
They are 'aerodynamic band aids'. Better left off if possible, but better used if the plane has problems with low speed handling - Or if performance isnt really a big factor... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hmmm...
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, all good examples of planes with low speed handling problems without those slats.
Tie them shut and see how fast any of those planes will have to take off or land! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yes all those planes are POS, Spitfire is better.

stalkervision
03-27-2007, 05:47 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ratsack:
In D.A. Lande, Messerschmitt 109, (MBI Publishing Company, Osceola, 2000), ISBN 0-7603-0803-9, p. 74, discussing changes from the E series to the F:

'Changed the slotted flaps to the close-fitting standard type and reduced their size and area (and removed a linkage connecting ailerons and flaps in preceding versions).'

In relation to the game, the ailerons on the E series most definitely do NOT go up when the flaps are lowered. Test it on the ground for your selves.

cheers,
Ratsack

PS - what the he11 have leading edge slats got to do with the original poster's issue concerning flaps and ailerons? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Excellent Ratsack! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif So the Ailerons and Flaps WERE connected on the E! I don't see any other reason then for additional flap area.


Your probably right about the ailerons in the game not going up Ratsack. I was flying the E model at the time trying this all out and thought I saw the ailerons in a slightly raised position with the flaps on but it was very minor effect at best and I probably was mistaken..

stalkervision
03-27-2007, 05:50 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ratsack:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stalkervision:
...

In the 109 e in our game the ailerons do the exact opposite of "droop" when one puts on the flaps. They both actually raise! ... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just in case you missed it above, try testing this on the ground. It's not the case. The ailerons do not move when you activate the flaps in the game.

cheers,
Ratsack </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Ya I wasn't very sure when I was flying it that this was the case. It looked like it though. A much better test is to be on the ground and lower the flaps and watch what the ailerons do at the same time.

Smart idea! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

stalkervision
03-27-2007, 05:55 AM
Now the 64 dollar question is if the e model ailerons "drooped' at combat flaps settings or just the landing setting? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Probably just landing settings.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Kurfurst__
03-27-2007, 09:14 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Pinker15:
Spitfire contrary to 109 was such plesant to fly that there was no need to use slats. For spitfire this would give more problems ( much higher drag) than benefits. Spitfire had thin simi eliptical wing not for to equip slats and ruin all profits of this. Slats for 109 was not some kind uber idea but it was necessary for quite safe handling and landing ability on this plane. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's a bit semi-informed. The Spitfire was pleasant to fly, but not contrary to the 109 which was also blessed with very benign flight characteristics during stall. As for the ellipitic profile on the Spitifre, quite the contrary! A true elliptic profile has very poor stall characteristics, since the wing lift distribution is very similiar along the span, which leads the whole elliptic wing to stall all at once, literally falling out of the sky! This is undesireble, as it's neccesary to retain aileron control at near-stall conditions. In order to ruin the elliptics wing's poor stall characteristics, the Spitfire (and many other) uses washout, basically a twist in the wing which means the outer wing in front of ailerons has lower angle of attack than the other sections of the wing, delaying the stall at those portions while the other parts are already stall. The leading edge slats do exactly the same when they're deployed. The drawback of washout is that it - unlike automatic leading edge slats which deploy only when its needed - they decrease lift in all conditions of normal flight attitude. The particular execution of the Spit's washout also had a drawback that it shadowed the Spit's Frise ailerons, which is one of the reason why aileron control had issues until the wing re-design.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Bugs of our game leads to think that was something wonder cause 109 are handle so great compare to spits when u fly on edge but in real that spit was much easier to fly. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Our 'game' was created by a Russian aero engineer by profession, who switched profile after the collapse of the USSR.

It's a historical fact that the 109 handled great at high angle of attack, noted by many pilots who flew the type. Fact is that both aircraft had very benign stall characteristics, though slats of course are more beneficial for high AoA. The You seem to think that the fact that the Spit was pleasant to fly automatically excludes the possibilty that any other aircraft was possible just as pleasant and/or forgiving.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Please notice this that only verry few late war fighters had wing slats and was used to patch some nasty handling difficulties. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's false, both in context of the the amount of slatted designs and the reasons to employ them. Wing slats are a common design alternative to washout that is needed to ensure good stalling charactheristics. And, as noted the advantage of slats as opposed to washout that they don't decrease lift and only deploy and in effect when they're actually needed.

And as for 'very few late war fighters' - hmm. The Lavochkin fighters, all Messerschmitt fighters (108,109,110,210,410,262 etc) the amazing STOL Fi 156 Storch and so on, they all had slats off the top of my head, and it was very common in the post war period high performance jets.

Regarding the 109E (not sure about pre-war variants), indeed the ailerons dropped down as the flaps were deployed, effectively operating as a sort of aux. flaps. This connection was discontinued with the 109F/G/K, however on these later types the radiator flaps were interconnected with the normal flaps and operated similiarly, dropping with the flaps and adding to their effect.

stalkervision
03-27-2007, 09:36 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Pinker15:
Spitfire contrary to 109 was such plesant to fly that there was no need to use slats. For spitfire this would give more problems ( much higher drag) than benefits. Spitfire had thin simi eliptical wing not for to equip slats and ruin all profits of this. Slats for 109 was not some kind uber idea but it was necessary for quite safe handling and landing ability on this plane. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's a bit semi-informed. The Spitfire was pleasant to fly, but not contrary to the 109 which was also blessed with very benign flight characteristics during stall. As for the ellipitic profile on the Spitifre, quite the contrary! A true elliptic profile has very poor stall characteristics, since the wing lift distribution is very similiar along the span, which leads the whole elliptic wing to stall all at once, literally falling out of the sky! This is undesireble, as it's neccesary to retain aileron control at near-stall conditions. In order to ruin the elliptics wing's poor stall characteristics, the Spitfire (and many other) uses washout, basically a twist in the wing which means the outer wing in front of ailerons has lower angle of attack than the other sections of the wing, delaying the stall at those portions while the other parts are already stall. The leading edge slats do exactly the same when they're deployed. The drawback of washout is that it - unlike automatic leading edge slats which deploy only when its needed - they decrease lift in all conditions of normal flight attitude. The particular execution of the Spit's washout also had a drawback that it shadowed the Spit's Frise ailerons, which is one of the reason why aileron control had issues until the wing re-design.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Bugs of our game leads to think that was something wonder cause 109 are handle so great compare to spits when u fly on edge but in real that spit was much easier to fly. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Our 'game' was created by a Russian aero engineer by profession, who switched profile after the collapse of the USSR.

It's a historical fact that the 109 handled great at high angle of attack, noted by many pilots who flew the type. Fact is that both aircraft had very benign stall characteristics, though slats of course are more beneficial for high AoA. The You seem to think that the fact that the Spit was pleasant to fly automatically excludes the possibilty that any other aircraft was possible just as pleasant and/or forgiving.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Please notice this that only verry few late war fighters had wing slats and was used to patch some nasty handling difficulties. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's false, both in context of the the amount of slatted designs and the reasons to employ them. Wing slats are a common design alternative to washout that is needed to ensure good stalling charactheristics. And, as noted the advantage of slats as opposed to washout that they don't decrease lift and only deploy and in effect when they're actually needed.

And as for 'very few late war fighters' - hmm. The Lavochkin fighters, all Messerschmitt fighters (108,109,110,210,410,262 etc) the amazing STOL Fi 156 Storch and so on, they all had slats off the top of my head, and it was very common in the post war period high performance jets.

Regarding the 109E (not sure about pre-war variants), indeed the ailerons dropped down as the flaps were deployed, effectively operating as a sort of aux. flaps. This connection was discontinued with the 109F/G/K, however on these later types the radiator flaps were interconnected with the normal flaps and operated similiarly, dropping with the flaps and adding to their effect. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks for confirming this Kurfurst. I just found out the He-219 has this same feature! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

whiteladder
03-27-2007, 09:48 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Why, probably designer ego, or they never thought that it would be necessary.
Imagine the blow to 'British is Best' when a spit appears with slats..

"I say old chap, we don't copy the Hun you know.. we'd rather send many more of our brave pilots to their doom, what!!" </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


or more likely in an aircraft originally designed to have 8 machine guns spread across the wing there wasn`t any space to put slats. Seems pretty obvious don`t you think?

faustnik
03-27-2007, 09:50 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by whiteladder:

or more likely in an aircraft originally designed to have 8 machine guns spread across the wing there wasn`t any space to put slats. Seems pretty obvious don`t you think? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Or maybe the stall characteristics were already so good that slats were not needed?

stalkervision
03-27-2007, 09:57 AM
when one looks at both designs the 109 was truly ahead of it's time. The use of high lift devices and slats is common now. One doesn't see to many elleptical wings anymore on modern aircraft.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

XyZspineZyX
03-27-2007, 10:21 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by p-11.cAce:
You guys do realize that ALL WWII fighter aircraft were designed to be flown by men with minimal training, in combat, possibly with wounds, for hours at a time in non-pressurized (for the most part) non-climate controlled cockpits don't you? I hate to break it to you but you don't need to be a super slick uberman to fly an airplane, even a big multi-thousand hp fighter. If anyone designed an aircraft, even a fighting one, that was waiting to bite you and spin you down to your grave every second it was in the air it would never make it beyond prototype stage.

The main problem in the game is that other than the "rumble" right at the stall there is little to war of an impending loss of control. Modeling FM's is one thing, modeling the seat of the pants is quite another. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

err....I am sorry, but I can't agree with the notion.

High performance fighters were diesigned to be high performance, not to be "untrained pilot friendly"

In the USA between the wars, it was tried. They made very stable, easy to fly aircraft for a while. It was determined that they were teaching the cadets bad habits that hurt them when they had to push the planes harder.

A fighter needs to be manueverable, and that means some inherent instability comes with the territory

As the war progressed, all air forces relaxed on qualifications to one degree or another. But they were not taking just anyone, and you still needed ground school and at least the rudiments of aptitude and familiarity with the theories of operation. I disagree strongly with the notion of "ALL WWII fighter aircraft were designed to be flown by men with minimal training". They may have BEEN flown often by those men, but their design criteria did not have the focus on minimum requirements, they were focused on making the best plane for the job. Certainly they didn't want planes that were so hard to fly it required un-necessary training. But as the planes became more sophisticated, of course additional training is needed. Case in point:

The Me 262

JG14_Josf
03-27-2007, 10:31 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Or maybe the stall characteristics were already so good that slats were not needed? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

To Whom It May Concern:

Looking at Fighter Combat from a myopic view is limiting. A necessity exists in designing easy handling characteristics at the cost of other things. Two other things are obvious in this case; wing twist versus leading edge slats.

Two obvious things:

The twisted wing is never clean or uniform in profile. Looking at the wing head-on will present the perspective (angle of attack) of a thin profile portion of the wing twisting into a thick profile – relatively speaking. In other words the minimum drag angle of attack will always include a compromise due to the twist in the wing. Having the ability to tuck the twist back in (automatic leading edge slat) offers a very clean minimum drag wing when the airplane is seeking higher rates of acceleration (unloaded flight) and top speed (minimum drag or minimizing power required).

Almost everyone is aware of the fact that the Spitfire was not the best fighter plane during unloaded acceleration (real reality not game reality).

Obvious thing two:

The slatted wing can maximum L/D (with the slat in) and minimize sink rate (slat out). This may not be as obvious as the minimum parasite drag during unloaded acceleration and at top speed perspective (obvious reality) so the question to ask may be this:

At best climb rate will the slat be closed?

At best glide angle will the slat be closed?

At best climb angle with the slat be open?

At best sink rate with the slat be open?

In any case the twisted wing will always be twisted unless g force causes an elastic deformation of the wing shape such as what happens with the Fw190 wing as it untwists and becomes elliptical in function (more wing area generates lift along the entire span) during high g as the wing loads up.

The twisted wing will also require more energy to compress air mass at speeds above 200 mph, 220 mph, .3 Mach, or 355 km/h (depending upon the source documenting the threshold for compressibility effect) compared to the untwisted wing (leading edge slat).

The effect of having a wing with a leading edge slat on high speed performance can be illustrated on an EM chart.

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

Note: The F-86 employed leading edge slats. The Mig-15 did not. Both planes used the same wing sweep @ 35 degrees.

During a maximum performance turn from high speed to slow speed (loaded deceleration) the slat can increase CLmax and increase lift force while minimizing Dynamic Pressure i.e. Maximize lift production while decelerating and minimize parasite drag.

If the leading edge slat is a full span slat, then, handling will be elliptical in function; in other words the stall will be abrupt and the warnings before the stall will be slight or non-existent.

If the leading edge slat is not full span, then, the handling at high g during a loaded deceleration will be less abrupt at the cost of less lift force and the cost of higher Dynamic Pressure just like a twisted (wash-out) wing. The difference being, again, the slat wing will retract and the washout wing will not retract once the plane unloads to accelerate in a dive or unloads to decelerate during a vertical zoom climb (the twisted wing will decelerate faster in the unloaded vertical zoom climb because the wash-out will not retract and the slatted wing will not decelerate as fast in the vertical unloaded zoom climb because the wing has no twist).

Is this a discussion or is this just another personal attack flame fest?

tomtheyak
03-27-2007, 10:32 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stalkervision:
when one looks at both designs the 109 was truly ahead of it's time. The use of high lift devices and slats is common now. One doesn't see to many elleptical wings anymore on modern aircraft.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Unfortunately, those high lift devices on 90% of the modern jets that TigerTalon presented AREN'T SLATS. They are drooping leading edge camber flaps. They change the camber of the wing to make the entire shape of the wing change in concert with the flaps. There are no gaps between them and the mainplane, which ids how a slat is defined.

Of them all the phantom has them and they are fixed.

Not saying that the 109 wasn't a technically advanced irplane for its time, it certainly was. Just some of this praise is inaccurately directed.

ViktorViktor
03-27-2007, 11:27 AM
BBB462cid wrote in response to P11cAce:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">quote:
******************************************
Originally posted by p-11.cAce:
You guys do realize that ALL WWII fighter aircraft were designed to be flown by men with minimal training, in combat, possibly with wounds, for hours at a time in non-pressurized (for the most part) non-climate controlled cockpits don't you? I hate to break it to you but you don't need to be a super slick uberman to fly an airplane, even a big multi-thousand hp fighter. If anyone designed an aircraft, even a fighting one, that was waiting to bite you and spin you down to your grave every second it was in the air it would never make it beyond prototype stage.

The main problem in the game is that other than the "rumble" right at the stall there is little to war of an impending loss of control. Modeling FM's is one thing, modeling the seat of the pants is quite another.
***************************************

err....I am sorry, but I can't agree with the notion.

High performance fighters were diesigned to be high performance, not to be "untrained pilot friendly"
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
A good example of this type of fighter would be the F4U Corsair, which earned the nickname of 'Ensign Eliminator' due to it's stall characteristics and difficult spin-recovery, when it was first introduced.

stalkervision
03-27-2007, 12:13 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by tomtheyak:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stalkervision:
when one looks at both designs the 109 was truly ahead of it's time. The use of high lift devices and slats is common now. One doesn't see to many elleptical wings anymore on modern aircraft.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Unfortunately, those high lift devices on 90% of the modern jets that TigerTalon presented AREN'T SLATS. They are drooping leading edge camber flaps. They change the camber of the wing to make the entire shape of the wing change in concert with the flaps. There are no gaps between them and the mainplane, which ids how a slat is defined.

Of them all the phantom has them and they are fixed.

Not saying that the 109 wasn't a technically advanced irplane for its time, it certainly was. Just some of this praise is inaccurately directed. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Your right most modern aircraft have drooping leading edges. I don't believe these were practical till recently. The slats don't function like them exactly but they are a high lift device. The 109 uses them for stall control though. Whitness the Fielser Storch...

http://www.bolesta.home.pl/pg2/strony/sklep/covers/068.jpg


actually now that I have been looking into more a varation of this slat which btw is called "a slat" is mentioned right in this NASA paper on high lift devices..

http://virtualskies.arc.nasa.gov/aeronautics/tutorial/wings2.html


http://virtualskies.arc.nasa.gov/aeronautics/tutorial/images/flap,slat,spoiler.gif

stalkervision
03-27-2007, 12:34 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ViktorViktor:
BBB462cid wrote in response to P11cAce:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">quote:
******************************************
Originally posted by p-11.cAce:
You guys do realize that ALL WWII fighter aircraft were designed to be flown by men with minimal training, in combat, possibly with wounds, for hours at a time in non-pressurized (for the most part) non-climate controlled cockpits don't you? I hate to break it to you but you don't need to be a super slick uberman to fly an airplane, even a big multi-thousand hp fighter. If anyone designed an aircraft, even a fighting one, that was waiting to bite you and spin you down to your grave every second it was in the air it would never make it beyond prototype stage.

The main problem in the game is that other than the "rumble" right at the stall there is little to war of an impending loss of control. Modeling FM's is one thing, modeling the seat of the pants is quite another.
***************************************

err....I am sorry, but I can't agree with the notion.

High performance fighters were diesigned to be high performance, not to be "untrained pilot friendly"
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
A good example of this type of fighter would be the F4U Corsair, which earned the nickname of 'Ensign Eliminator' due to it's stall characteristics and difficult spin-recovery, when it was first introduced. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Corsair could have used a set of slats big time from what I have heard of it's stall characteristics.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

stalkervision
03-27-2007, 12:37 PM
willies idea of "shoe horning" the biggest engine into the smallest airframe is pretty modern too. Witness the F-16 and the Mig 21.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

stalkervision
03-27-2007, 04:05 PM
Just found some excellent photos of the e model 109 with the ailerons "drooping" when the landing flaps are engaged. Wish I could post them here but they are from my book "encylopedia of aircraft of ww 2" http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

anyone with a good photo of a 109 e or older model of a 109 showing this feature will you post it here? Look for a close up picture of a 109 on the ground with it's landing flaps fully deployed.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Ratsack
03-27-2007, 04:20 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by faustnik:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by whiteladder:

or more likely in an aircraft originally designed to have 8 machine guns spread across the wing there wasn`t any space to put slats. Seems pretty obvious don`t you think? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Or maybe the stall characteristics were already so good that slats were not needed? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

On the original concept for the Spitfire, they were experimenting with a steam-cooled engine. In this system, the cooling is effected by condensing the hot steam heated by the engine back into water. In theory the cooling potential is excellent because it takes advantage of water's very large latent heat of vapourization. It also does it without a radiator. That's right: NO aerodynamic penalty.

The 'D' section leading edge of the Spitfire's wing was going to be the condenser, which is why it's a single chamber. You could no more stick holes in it to accommodate the mechanisms for slats than you could poke holes in it to take guns.

There were four drawbacks to the steam-cooling system. The first was that it didn't handle high boost for long periods well. There were plans to stick a secondary, retractable radiator under the fuselage for cruise flight, so the steam system could be used exclusively for combat.

Secondly, the large condenser was vulnerable to battle damage in the same way a radiator is.

Thirdly, it meant there was nowhere to stick a large number of guns.

The fourth was that it just didn't work very well in practice, and in the meantime a bright young engineer had come up with the idea of ducted radiators. Meredith.

cheers,
Ratsack

faustnik
03-27-2007, 04:30 PM
Interesting info Ratsack! Was the Spitfire wing cooling system similar to the He-100 system?

Abbuzze
03-27-2007, 04:35 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stalkervision:
willies idea of "shoe horning" the biggest engine into the smallest airframe is pretty modern too. Witness the F-16 and the Mig 21.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Or the F104... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

stalkervision
03-27-2007, 05:13 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Abbuzze:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stalkervision:
willies idea of "shoe horning" the biggest engine into the smallest airframe is pretty modern too. Witness the F-16 and the Mig 21.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Or the F104... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Absolutely true that! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif

Ratsack
03-27-2007, 08:35 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stalkervision:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Abbuzze:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stalkervision:
willies idea of "shoe horning" the biggest engine into the smallest airframe is pretty modern too. Witness the F-16 and the Mig 21.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Or the F104... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Absolutely true that! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Or the Spitfire.

Or the Hawker Fury.

Or the Sopwith Camel.

Or the Fokker Eindekker.


While we're on the subject of 'modern', what about the I-16? Low-wing, cantilever monoplane, retractable undercarriage, a robust air-cooled engine driving a variable pitch propeller, and with armor protection for the pilot. The Mosca was superior to the early 109s in some respects, particularly the armor and the prop. The first B series 109s had a fixed wooden Schwarz prop, and only two guns. Similar top speeds to the early 109s, too, at about 290 mph.

And yet the only thing you usually hear about this plane in popular English-language sources are the disparaging remarks of German veterans from Spain.

Good thing it didn't have slats!

Ratsack

M_Gunz
03-27-2007, 09:03 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by tigertalon:
Tie them shut or tear them off and see the improvement in any kind of performance...

The question is not what do you loose without them. The question is, what do you gain with them. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

On those jets? You get to land more than once by having them for starts.

M_Gunz
03-27-2007, 09:10 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stalkervision:
Excellent Ratsack! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif So the Ailerons and Flaps WERE connected on the E! I don't see any other reason then for additional flap area. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

They worked so "well" that they took it out to make the 109F's and later.
Wasn't the F's supposed to be the height of 109's as far as maneuverability?
Maybe Mike Spick didn't catch everything they did?
But hey, you found some good, durable bait!

M_Gunz
03-27-2007, 09:18 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by faustnik:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by whiteladder:

or more likely in an aircraft originally designed to have 8 machine guns spread across the wing there wasn`t any space to put slats. Seems pretty obvious don`t you think? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Or maybe the stall characteristics were already so good that slats were not needed? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not that you, Faust, disagree with this or don't know but I think it needs saying that;

They had enough lift without needing higher AOA. Once you're greying out, what's the hurry?
If you're too slow to pull 4-5 G's then why take on a ton of extra drag?

M_Gunz
03-27-2007, 09:33 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
The twisted wing will also require more energy to compress air mass at speeds above 200 mph, 220 mph, .3 Mach, or 355 km/h (depending upon the source documenting the threshold for compressibility effect) compared to the untwisted wing (leading edge slat). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

At what air temperature is .3 mach 220mph? Is it the same at 1km higher?

HOW MUCH "more energy to compress air mass" does the Spitfire wing take than the 109 wing
at 3. mach? Is it 5% more, 50% more? .05% more? Or enough to sound like it's important more?
Oh, wait... then you'd need to know how much instead of just making empty noises.

M_Gunz
03-27-2007, 09:39 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stalkervision:
willies idea of "shoe horning" the biggest engine into the smallest airframe is pretty modern too. Witness the F-16 and the Mig 21.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Or the BeeGee Racer, or the Hughes racers, or the I-16 series, or many other WWII planes.
Yes, entirely modern. All face Augsburg and plant your unworthy faces on the ground.

stalkervision
03-28-2007, 05:42 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stalkervision:
Excellent Ratsack! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif So the Ailerons and Flaps WERE connected on the E! I don't see any other reason then for additional flap area. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

They worked so "well" that they took it out to make the 109F's and later.
Wasn't the F's supposed to be the height of 109's as far as maneuverability?
Maybe Mike Spick didn't catch everything they did?
But hey, you found some good, durable bait! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The whole plane was streamlined begining with the f model. The wings were totally redesigned to lower drag with smaller radiators. As Kurfurst pointed out the radiators were designed with their own set of flaps. Probably the added linkage to to the ailerons wasn't needed anymore because of this.

stalkervision
03-28-2007, 05:45 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stalkervision:
willies idea of "shoe horning" the biggest engine into the smallest airframe is pretty modern too. Witness the F-16 and the Mig 21.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Or the BeeGee Racer, or the Hughes racers, or the I-16 series, or many other WWII planes.
Yes, entirely modern. All face Augsburg and plant your unworthy faces on the ground. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you look at your own examples they aren't exactly the most streamlined planes in the world. Old willie always had an eye toward streamlined planes with 12 cylinder inline engines. In fact they are actually pretty poor simplistic solutions to getting the most performance from an aircraft.

Obviously you have a little hate complex going on there about the german aircraft industry. Heck Willie only managed to claim the world piston land speed record for how many years after ww2 with a plane that was designed in the late thirties..the Me-209r and the germans came out with the first practical jet fighter the me-262. Btw Howard Hughes managed to aquire one after the war and was going to race it in the Bendix races but it was specifically disallowed because the sponsers were afraid this german warbird would show up later allied jets!

M_Gunz
03-28-2007, 06:20 AM
The Hughes Racer wasn't the most streamlined plane in the world compared to the Bf-109???

And I like the part about the ailerons not drooping when the FLAPS ARE DOWN being changed
to streamline the 109 which was "The whole plane was streamlined begining with the f model"
yet the other examples I gave to show that most engine in least airframe don't count because
"If you look at your own examples they aren't exactly the most streamlined planes in the world."
and "Old willie always had an eye toward streamlined planes with 12 cylinder inline engines."

FYI, the BeeGee is at least as streamlined as the 109E and the Hughes Racer is far more so.

Not that streamlining was part of "willies idea of "shoe horning" the biggest engine into the
smallest airframe is pretty modern too. ". That's just a dodge for the phoney point you try
to lay out. Willie wasn't some decades ahead aircraft designer except in the light of SOME
older planes that were around at the time. He is just ONE of the crowd of designers that you
could point to and say "ahead of his time" on any basis of what was around later. There were
military biplanes used in WWII so does that make WWI biplanes "decades ahead"? I can find at
least 2 designers of every major country that qualify as "ahead by decades" using the same
HISTORY CHANNEL STANDARDS criteria you and others want to use. All it takes is forget 50% of
what was going on and concentrate on the little god buildup desired.

And I do mean HISTORY/MILITARY/DISCOVERY CHANNEL STANDARDS as I've watched enough of their
journalistic paint-ups to see how often one supplies exception to another and another. The
films are good in the bits they provide but the conclusions they come to are more often wrong
than right, the facts they base those on are always incomplete and sometimes flat out errors,
and the tone they employ is purely adjusted to slant their presentations strongly. They are
made by not the best journalists and script-read by professional mouths to convince naieve,
credulous and just plain wanting-to-believe viewers. I pity those with short attention spans
and shorter memories when they watch those shows, they will believe and pass it off as facts.

M_Gunz
03-28-2007, 06:23 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stalkervision:
Obviously you have a little hate complex going on there about the german aircraft industry. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you can believe that then you have more than just blinders on.

luftluuver
03-28-2007, 06:28 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stalkervision:
If you look at your own examples they aren't exactly the most streamlined planes in the world. Old willie always had an eye toward streamlined planes with 12 cylinder inline engines. In fact they are actually pretty poor simplistic solutions to getting the most performance from an aircraft.

Obviously you have a little hate complex going on there about the german aircraft industry. Heck Willie only managed to claim the world piston land speed record for how many years after ww2 with a plane that was designed in the late thirties..the Me-209r and the germans came out with the first practical jet fighter the me-262. Btw Howard Hughes managed to aquire one after the war and was going to race it in the Bendix races but it was specifically disallowed because the sponsers were afraid this german warbird would show up later allied jets! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>My, my one who thinks the 109A and B were streamlined. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

It is always the same for the Nazi Germany weapons of war fanatics to claim those who point out anything negative have a hate on. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

Only because there was no attempts to beat the record, with jets being the main object. It should be pointed out that it was a modified WW2 fighter that beat the record set by a specifically designed a/c. Oh yes, Heinkel would most likely would have beat the Mtt record if he had not told he he could not make another record attempt.

Neccessity is the mother of invention. With Nazi Germany loosing the war they had to do something &gt; the introduction of incomplete weapons, like the 262.

stalkervision
03-28-2007, 07:35 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by luftluuver:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stalkervision:
If you look at your own examples they aren't exactly the most streamlined planes in the world. Old willie always had an eye toward streamlined planes with 12 cylinder inline engines. In fact they are actually pretty poor simplistic solutions to getting the most performance from an aircraft.

Obviously you have a little hate complex going on there about the german aircraft industry. Heck Willie only managed to claim the world piston land speed record for how many years after ww2 with a plane that was designed in the late thirties..the Me-209r and the germans came out with the first practical jet fighter the me-262. Btw Howard Hughes managed to aquire one after the war and was going to race it in the Bendix races but it was specifically disallowed because the sponsers were afraid this german warbird would show up later allied jets! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>My, my one who thinks the 109A and B were streamlined. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif


&gt; Compaired to the Gee Bee racer and the I-16 it sure is! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif &lt;

It is always the same for the Nazi Germany weapons of war fanatics to claim those who point out anything negative have a hate on. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

Yup that me. you nailed it right on the head.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif



Only because there was no attempts to beat the record, with jets being the main object.

&gt;&gt; No attempts to beat the piston speed record after ww 2? I highly doubt it..&lt;

It should be pointed out that it was a modified WW2 fighter that beat the record set by a specifically designed a/c.

&gt; yes indeed it was but so were Supermarine racers weren't they? They sure were't practical fight aircraft were they?&lt;

Oh yes, Heinkel would most likely would have beat the Mtt record if he had not told he he could not make another record attempt.

&gt; This may be but is unimportant. I doubt he had a ship that would do 469 mph though..&lt;



Neccessity is the mother of invention. With Nazi Germany loosing the war they had to do something &gt; the introduction of incomplete weapons, like the 262. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


&gt; Actually major german advances such jets were being worked on and developed before the war and also in the very early stages of the war well before "neccessity" took over. The only reason they were not developed sooner was the german high command didn't see the need with the 109 working out so well.&lt;

"the introduction of incomplete weapons, like the 262"

the only thing "incomplete" on the 262 was not the design but that the german's were forced to use inferior metals to build the jets because of allied bombing. The 262 outperformed British jets not only because it used slightly swept wings but because it used the modern and superior axial flow jet engine design over the british designed jet engines..

Ratsack
03-28-2007, 08:32 AM
That's not right. Design defects of 262 following:

1. Lack of air brakes. This was critical given the sensitivity of the jet engines. Without air brakes, and with a design not intended to go supersonic, there was no safe way to lose height at high speed and high alt. Major oversight.

2. The engines were sensitive to rapid movements of the throttle. This was not a function of material quality, it was a feature of early jets. At high speed and or high altitude, the sensitivity increased so that any but the smoothest movement of the throttle was likely to cause a fire or explosion. From Steinhoff's book .

3. Put the two above together and you have a plane that is very difficult to fly properly, much less fly well in combat, particularly at high alts.


Regarding the bit about the German high command being satisfied with the 109, that's just nonsense. The F series was supposed to be the last 109. If Udet's plans had come off, the 109 would've been largely replaced by the Fw 190 and its successors, with the high altitude duties performed by the 209, which never saw production.

The fact of the matter is that it took the Germans about three years to go from a flying prototype to delivery of combat worthy versions of a plane. This was their experience from 1935 to 1940. Evidence the 109: didn't really become world class until the installation of a DB engine in 1938. Three years. Focke Wulf 190: didn't solve the problems with the engine until early 1942. Three years again. The list goes on. The Germans were fairly typical in requiring this sort of time frame.

Now consider this: the Me 262 flew under jet power for the first time in 1942. By the normal standards of the time, they could expect delivery of a combat ready version in 1945. However, the 262 was not 'standard': it involved novel techiques in the airframe and completely new engines. Three years was optimistic.

What the Germans needed was not some bl00dy jet, but for Daimler Benz to pull their finger out in 1940-41 and get the flaming DB 603 running and fit for installation in single engine aircraft. The same goes for Junkers and their Jumo 213 series. It was these engines that the successors to the Bf 109 relied upon. The next version of the FW 190 would need them, as would the 209 and 309.

If the expertise, resources, time and effort wasted on pie in the sky projects that were never likely to see fruition in time to be useful (e.g. Me 262), or simply lacked a sensible application at all (e.g. A4 rocket), had been spent on conventional projects, the Germans may have had a ghost of a chance of not losing after December 1941. It would've required several other things, too, but certainly the German aero-engine industry needed to be whipped into line.

This constantly recurring theme that the Nazis blocked the technological breakthroughs that might have done this or that is just a load of bollox.

cheers,
Ratsack

Kurfurst__
03-28-2007, 09:09 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ratsack:
That's not right. Design defects of 262 following:

1. Lack of air brakes. This was critical given the sensitivity of the jet engines. Without air brakes, and with a design not intended to go supersonic, there was no safe way to lose height at high speed and high alt. Major oversight.

2. The engines were sensitive to rapid movements of the throttle. This was not a function of material quality, it was a feature of early jets. At high speed and or high altitude, the sensitivity increased so that any but the smoothest movement of the throttle was likely to cause a fire or explosion. From Steinhoff's book .

3. Put the two above together and you have a plane that is very difficult to fly properly, much less fly well in combat, particularly at high alts. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not true. The Me 262, like any other fighter, would descend by throttling back not to overspeed. You say the engines were too sensitive to allow that, but thats not true either, since the engines were automatically regulated for precisly that purpose above 6000/min. Nor do i recall airbrakes on early generation jets off the top of my head it was an exception rather than a rule, so appearantly it was not deemed a neccesity.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Regarding the bit about the German high command being satisfied with the 109, that's just nonsense. The F series was supposed to be the last 109. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Err.. sounds like 100% pure hogwash to me. In any case, the 109F was almost finish before WW2 even started (before 1940). It had hardly anything to do how satisfied or unsatisfied the LW was with the 109 (besides I fail to see how and when were they dissatisfied).

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">If Udet's plans had come off, the 109 would've been largely replaced by the Fw 190 and its successors, with the high altitude duties performed by the 209, which never saw production. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I wonder where these 'Udets plans' come from, I hear them of the first time. However the fact was that the 209 had little, if anything to offer in performance over the well-proven Bf 109, so they just kept producing the 109 which performed it's duties perfectly well and succesffully, so why switch production lines, or waste time of Mtt's design department on a marginal improvement project instead of the definiative Me 262.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">What the Germans needed was not some bl00dy jet, but for Daimler Benz to pull their finger out in 1940-41 and get the flaming DB 603 running and fit for installation in single engine aircraft. The same goes for Junkers and their Jumo 213 series. It was these engines that the successors to the Bf 109 relied upon. The next version of the FW 190 would need them, as would the 209 and 309. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's unfair to blame it on DB oor Junkers, they had the DB 603 up and ready, actually working in operational aircraft like the Me 410 by early 1943. All these excuses for Kurt Tank 'who wanted the DB 603' but 'it was not given to him' is hogwash, considering

a, The engine's first versions were already available and in production by start of 1943
b, He got the Jumo 213, which was for all purpose, an equivalent of the DB 603 in both performance and size/weight.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">If the expertise, resources, time and effort wasted on pie in the sky projects that were never likely to see fruition in time to be useful (e.g. Me 262), or simply lacked a sensible application at all (e.g. A4 rocket), had been spent on conventional projects, the Germans may have had a ghost of a chance of not losing after December 1941. It would've required several other things, too, but certainly the German aero-engine industry needed to be whipped into line. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hmmm. This assumes that resources are freely convertible, but they're not. Even if one spends all the steel, explosives, and alcohol fuel that the A-4 uses, it will be of no use for the aviation industry. Similiarly, just place Werner v Braun in front a drawing board, and tell him to design an aircraft. Being a rocket scientist, he may fail at that area.

Otherwise, pretty much agree with your thought on 262 development.

ploughman
03-28-2007, 09:24 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Nor do i recall airbrakes on early generation jets off the top of my head it was an exception rather than a rule, so appearantly it was not deemed a neccesity. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Kurf, both the P-80 (not the YP-80) and the Meteor were equipped with dive brakes. On the P-80 they were under the fuselage and on the Meteor they were located on the upper and lower surfaces of the wing between the nacelles and the sides of the fuselage.

XyZspineZyX
03-28-2007, 09:58 AM
The Hughes racer, the plane that captured world records, was not streamlined?

doesn't look like a brick wall to me (http://images.search.yahoo.com/search/images/view?back=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.search.yahoo.com%2Fs earch%2Fimages%3Fp%3DHughes%2BRacer%26fr%3Dyfp-t-501%26toggle%3D1%26cop%3Dmss%26ei%3DUTF-8&w=800&h=630&imgurl=www.airminded.net%2Fh1%2Fh1_hughes.jpg&rurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.airminded.net%2Fh1%2Fh1.html&size=84.9kB&name=h1_hughes.jpg&p=Hughes+Racer&type=jpeg&no=14&tt=547&oid=bbb32f2c3b8d5ac6&ei=UTF-8)

the Replica, which has since been lost (http://images.search.yahoo.com/search/images/view?back=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.search.yahoo.com%2Fs earch%2Fimages%3Fp%3DHughes%2BRacer%26fr%3Dyfp-t-501%26toggle%3D1%26cop%3Dmss%26ei%3DUTF-8&w=625&h=430&imgurl=www.fredsboringpictures.com%2Fimages%2FGNF% 2Fimages%2FGNF%2520Hughes%2520Racer.jpg&rurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.fredsboringpictures.com%2Fim ages%2FGNF%2Fpages%2FGNF%2520Hughes%2520Racer.htm&size=71.2kB&name=GNF+Hughes+Racer.jpg&p=Hughes+Racer&type=jpeg&no=4&tt=547&oid=613a718771d1fe72&ei=UTF-8)

?????

The Hughes racer was so carefully built to exacting specification, that the screws used to attach skins on the wings had the slots aligned to the direction of airflow

The landing gear doors fit so precisely that you can't slip a sheet of paper between the skins and the doors when the gear is retracted

When the plane was duplicated (unfortunately the replica was destroyed) a few years back, the team that examined the original Racer had a hard time determining how the thing was built, because tolerances and design was so exact that they couldn't see how some things were attached by looking at it.

Comparing any Bf 109 to the Hughes Racer in terms of attention to detail concerning aerodynaimcs is like comparing a parabola to a dump truck. For starters, the Bf 109 was mass produced while the Racer was hand built. The 109 eveolved well during it's life, and enjoyed a redesign that addressed many things, but it's mission was very different from that of the Racer.

Hughes was not some kind of charlatan who dabbled with planes.

He was a talented man who knew how to get the best team
together to tackle whatever issue was at hand. His teams,
from design to materials to manufacture,
did not deal in anything but Superlatives.
Hughes demanded that the criteria would be nothing short of "the best". No detail was too small, and no cost too great. He was also a serious pilot, not a playboy toying with aircraft. That's according to historian Walter J. Boyne, not me, by the way.

He was a man of great means and motivation who was deadly serious about his planes. Yeah, he went nuts and became an addict after he crashed the XF-11. That was after the Racer's design and flight.

stalkervision
03-28-2007, 10:04 AM
If you care too noticed I left out the "Hughes racer" http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


It is as streamlined as a air cooled aircraft can be except that if you notice it has an open cockpit which isn't exactly a good streamlining feature..

It is pretty silly to compare any "racing planes' to a fighter plane. They serve completely different purposes..

luftluuver
03-28-2007, 10:07 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stalkervision:
&gt; Compaired to the Gee Bee racer and the I-16 it sure is! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif &lt;

<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">Your vision is not the best, is it?</span>

&gt;&gt; No attempts to beat the piston speed record after ww 2? I highly doubt it..&lt;

<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">As mentioned, jets were the new 'dog in town' and the record attempts were done by them.</span>

It should be pointed out that it was a modified WW2 fighter that beat the record set by a specifically designed a/c.

&gt; yes indeed it was but so were Supermarine racers weren't they? They sure were't practical fight aircraft were they?&lt;

<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">You need to improve on your chronological history. The supermarine racers came before the Spit while the 209 came after the 109. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif Besides the Supermarine racers had very little, if anything, to do with the Spit.</span>

Oh yes, Heinkel would most likely would have beat the Mtt record if he had not told he he could not make another record attempt.

&gt; This may be but is unimportant. I doubt he had a ship that would do 469 mph though..&lt;

<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">Why is it UN-important? Don't know your history very well do you? </span>

"the introduction of incomplete weapons, like the 262"

the only thing "incomplete" on the 262 was not the design but that the german's were forced to use inferior metals to build the jets because of allied bombing. The 262 outperformed British jets not only because it used slightly swept wings but because it used the modern and superior axial flow jet engine design over the british designed jet engines.. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Still makes it an INCOMPLETE weapons system. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif If Nazi Germany had used centrifucal engines they would have had a complete weapons system. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Something to think about: the MiG-15 used a centrifucal engine while the F-86 used an axial engine.

Jaws2002
03-28-2007, 10:09 AM
Is not the DB-603 that should have been pushed forward.

For the 190's the DB603 was not much of an improvement over the BMW-801 except a little better supercharger for high altitude.

They should have put more resources and urgency in bigger more powerful engines like the BMW-802 or Jumo-222.
http://www.luft46.com/fw/bmw802-2.jpg


Their fighters became heavier and needed the extra power.
Supped up 1600 hp engines to deliver 2000hp for short periods didn't cut it anymore for what they had to do.
It may have done it for a small very aerodynamic interceptor with short range, like the Yak3 , but not for a late war combat aircraft that had to do a multitude of missions and jobs, for a country that was outnumbered that bad.

And some BMW-802 specs:

18-cylinder supercharged two-row radial engine
Bore: 156 mm (6.14 in)
Stroke: 156 mm (6.14 in)
Displacement: 53.7 L (3,280 inÂł)
Dry weight:
Components
Valvetrain: One intake and one sodium-cooled exhaust valve per cylinder
Supercharger: Gear-driven single-stage three-speed
Fuel system: Fuel injection
Performance
Power output:

1,912 kW (2,563 hp) for takeoff
1,176 kW (1,575 hp) at 12,000 m (39,000 ft)


But anyway, if they did so good as to stop the allied advance long enough they would have been Nuked. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
03-28-2007, 10:14 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stalkervision:
If you care too noticed I left out the "Hughes racer" http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


It is as streamlined as a air cooled aircraft can be except that if you notice it has an open cockpit which isn't exactly a good streamlining feature..

It is pretty silly to compare any "racing planes' to a fighter plane. They serve completely different purposes.. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, to be 100% honest, you didn't leave out the Hughes Racer at all. I very carefully read your post, so I noticed this:

quote:
<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">Originally posted by M_Gunz:</span>
Or the BeeGee Racer, or the Hughes racers, or the I-16 series, or many other WWII planes.
Yes, entirely modern. All face Augsburg and plant your unworthy faces on the ground.

quote:
<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">Originally posted by stalkervision:</span>

If you look at your own examples they aren't exactly the most streamlined planes in the world

Next, the Hughes Racer is not an open cocpkit aircraft, if you notice http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif The overhead canopy rolls back into the fuselage.

Since you had included this aircraft in your reply to M_Gunz, there is really nothing wrong with me mentioning why you're mistaken in the case of the Hughes Racer. Maybe you didn't realise you were also including this aircraft, but you did.

Far from being "silly", I responded to your inclusion of this aircraft, which I know a little bit about.

stalkervision
03-28-2007, 10:22 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by luftluuver:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stalkervision:
&gt; Compaired to the Gee Bee racer and the I-16 it sure is! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif &lt;

<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">Your vision is not the best, is it?</span>

So the Gee bee racer and the 1-16 are more streamlined then a 109? Talk about who's vision isn't the best..! You do see those honking aircooled engines on both of them don't you? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

&gt;&gt; No attempts to beat the piston speed record after ww 2? I highly doubt it..&lt;

<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">As mentioned, jets were the new 'dog in town' and the record attempts were done by them.</span>

I believe if you look it up there are seperate categories for different powered aircraft and diffeent classes of aircraft. No fair compairing piston planes to jets is it..? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

It should be pointed out that it was a modified WW2 fighter that beat the record set by a specifically designed a/c.

&gt; yes indeed it was but so were Supermarine racers weren't they? They sure were't practical fight aircraft were they?&lt;

<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">You need to improve on your chronological history. The supermarine racers came before the Spit while the 209 came after the 109. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif Besides the Supermarine racers had very little, if anything, to do with the Spit.</span>

&gt; Ahhh, you need to get your facts straight. The spit can trace it's lineage directly to the supermarine racers. I also believe eleptical wings were used on Supermarine racers also..&lt;

Oh yes, Heinkel would most likely would have beat the Mtt record if he had not told he he could not make another record attempt.

&gt; This may be but is unimportant. I doubt he had a ship that would do 469 mph though..&lt;

<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">Why is it UN-important? Don't know your history very well do you? </span>

&gt; You have a Henkel piston plane at the time the 209v1 appeared that could do over 470 mph. Well lets see it then? &lt;

"the introduction of incomplete weapons, like the 262"

the only thing "incomplete" on the 262 was not the design but that the german's were forced to use inferior metals to build the jets because of allied bombing. The 262 outperformed British jets not only because it used slightly swept wings but because it used the modern and superior axial flow jet engine design over the british designed jet engines.. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Still makes it an INCOMPLETE weapons system. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif If Nazi Germany had used centrifucal engines they would have had a complete weapons system. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Something to think about: the MiG-15 used a centrifucal engine while the F-86 used an axial engine. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

"INCOMPLETE weapons system.." LMAO http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif Tell that to the bomber pilots who had to face me-262's over europe. I believe they would tend to disagree with you..

centrifucal engine..Show me one MODERN FIGHTER with this type of engine... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

XyZspineZyX
03-28-2007, 10:35 AM
To be fair, we are not talking about modern fighters

Abbuzze
03-28-2007, 10:49 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ratsack:

While we're on the subject of 'modern', what about the I-16? Low-wing, cantilever monoplane, retractable undercarriage, a robust air-cooled engine driving a variable pitch propeller, and with armor protection for the pilot. The Mosca was superior to the early 109s in some respects, particularly the armor and the prop. The first B series 109s had a fixed wooden Schwarz prop, and only two guns. Similar top speeds to the early 109s, too, at about 290 mph.
s!

Ratsack </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

There is no doubt that the I16 was together with hurrican, 109 the very first generation of new modern fighters in the 30´s. There were many steps in this direction in the 20´s, but this three planes togehter with the spitfire which was a bit later, are the prototypes of fighters which was state of the are till end of WW2.
The difference is that Spitfire and 109 could be used with succsess as a fighter till 1945. I16 and Hurricane where over the peak when the Spit and 109 got better and better.

That´s the big difference between i16 and 109 in Spain, similar performance, but the Mosca was at the end of the development - the 109 just begun.

stalkervision
03-28-2007, 10:50 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
The Hughes Racer wasn't the most streamlined plane in the world compared to the Bf-109???

The Hughes is certaily streamlined being a racer of course but would be even more streamlined if it didn't have the aircooled engine agreed? This is really getting into an "apples and oranges" argument now since the 109 wasn't really designed as a racer. If you want to go that way though the Me-109v-13 went 370 mph! Not exactly a slow pace. The Hughes 352...


And I like the part about the ailerons not drooping when the FLAPS ARE DOWN being changed
to streamline the 109 which was "The whole plane was streamlined begining with the f model"

&gt;The whole posting has morphed into a differentt area hasn't it now.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif &lt;

yet the other examples I gave to show that most engine in least airframe don't count because
"If you look at your own examples they aren't exactly the most streamlined planes in the world."

&gt;Aircooled aircraft have never been considered to be as streamlined as Inline v-12's aircraft. FACT! Given two aircraft with similiar power and similiar streamlining features except the fact one is aircooled and one isn't which do you believe would go faster an aircooled one or a inline v-12? &lt;



and "Old willie always had an eye toward streamlined planes with 12 cylinder inline engines."

FYI, the BeeGee is at least as streamlined as the 109E and the Hughes Racer is far more so.

Ya sure..this is the Bee Gee we are talking about? The hughes racer certainly is but is buit as a pure racer isn't it?

Not that streamlining was part of "willies idea of "shoe horning" the biggest engine into the
smallest airframe is pretty modern too. ".


That's just a dodge for the phoney point you try
to lay out. Willie wasn't some decades ahead aircraft designer except in the light of SOME
older planes that were around at the time.

&gt;Taken as a whole his design is..&lt; this is for a piston plane though. Even his 108 was ahead of it's time for a commercial lite aircraft and willie used it's basis to make the 109. His earlier planes were none to great though.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif&lt;

He is just ONE of the crowd of designers that you
could point to and say "ahead of his time" on any basis of what was around later. There were
military biplanes used in WWII so does that make WWI biplanes "decades ahead"? I can find at
least 2 designers of every major country that qualify as "ahead by decades" using the same
HISTORY CHANNEL STANDARDS criteria you and others want to use. All it takes is forget 50% of
what was going on and concentrate on the little god buildup desired.

And I do mean HISTORY/MILITARY/DISCOVERY CHANNEL STANDARDS as I've watched enough of their
journalistic paint-ups to see how often one supplies exception to another and another. The
films are good in the bits they provide but the conclusions they come to are more often wrong
than right, the facts they base those on are always incomplete and sometimes flat out errors,
and the tone they employ is purely adjusted to slant their presentations strongly. They are
made by not the best journalists and script-read by professional mouths to convince naieve,
credulous and just plain wanting-to-believe viewers. I pity those with short attention spans
and shorter memories when they watch those shows, they will believe and pass it off as facts. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

&gt; I have no idea what your getting at here really..I get my info from various good well received in general aircrfat authors.I don't go in big for History Channel info.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif&lt;

stalkervision
03-28-2007, 11:01 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BBB462cid:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stalkervision:
If you care too noticed I left out the "Hughes racer" http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


It is as streamlined as a air cooled aircraft can be except that if you notice it has an open cockpit which isn't exactly a good streamlining feature..

It is pretty silly to compare any "racing planes' to a fighter plane. They serve completely different purposes.. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, to be 100% honest, you didn't leave out the Hughes Racer at all. I very carefully read your post, so I noticed this:

&gt; Unfortunatly we have got into an "apples and oranges' thing here. It is pretty silly to compare purposly built racers with ww2 fighters even the most streamlined of them. You were right about the canopy being able to be closed. I just never ever saw it closed is all.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif



quote:
<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">Originally posted by M_Gunz:</span>
Or the BeeGee Racer, or the Hughes racers, or the I-16 series, or many other WWII planes.
Yes, entirely modern. All face Augsburg and plant your unworthy faces on the ground.

quote:
<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">Originally posted by stalkervision:</span>

If you look at your own examples they aren't exactly the most streamlined planes in the world

Next, the Hughes Racer is not an open cocpkit aircraft, if you notice http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif The overhead canopy rolls back into the fuselage.

Yes you were right as I said about that..

Since you had included this aircraft in your reply to M_Gunz, there is really nothing wrong with me mentioning why you're mistaken in the case of the Hughes Racer. Maybe you didn't realise you were also including this aircraft, but you did.

Far from being "silly", I responded to your inclusion of this aircraft, which I know a little bit about. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I really shouldn't have accepted including a purpose built racer into a compairison of fighter streamling that is pretty obvious isn't it.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

The two just aren't the same.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

XyZspineZyX
03-28-2007, 11:08 AM
Yes, that was my whole point. The racing plane has a different design mission than the fighter

stalkervision
03-28-2007, 11:18 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BBB462cid:
Yes, that was my whole point. The racing plane has a different design mission than the fighter </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

yes indeed.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

JG14_Josf
03-28-2007, 11:21 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Obviously you have a little hate complex going on there about the german aircraft industry. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Little?

I think it is little alright; like Sigmund Freud.

As to the relative significance of compressibility effect:

Start here (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/SP-468/ch5-2.htm)

That source covers much that is on-topic and germane to WWII Fighter Aircraft in general and specifically aerodynamics associated with the present flow of this topic.

Consider the personal attacks (Nazi baiters) as turbulent obstructions to the laminar flow of information.

Example of information on that starting point (web site linked):

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/SP-468/p106.jpg

That obviously shows a few things to consider. High CLmax functions at an expense or cost and there is much improvement with higher surface quality.

Historical example:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
a hastily applied coat of RAF camouflage. In the few places that had been missed the beautifully smooth original finish could be felt. The 190 was a perfect example of precise German design and workmanship. Unlike our Spitfires, the panels were so well fitted that they looked like one piece. Ingeniously designed finger-operated locks opened the panels to reveal an engine that had been designed for easy maintenance. To reduce drag, the space between the spinner and the outer cowling was reduced and the turbine impeller on the same axis as the prop, rotating three times as fast, sucked air in to facilitate cooling. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The source of that quote can be traced back to the captured 190A-3.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Unfortunately, methods of aircraft manufacture and maintenance during World War II, and even today, were such that only very small regions of laminar flow located near the leading edge of the wing could be achieved on practical operational aircraft. As a consequence, the use of NACA laminar-flow airfoil sections has never resulted in any significant reduction in the drag as a result of the achievement of laminar flow. A practical means for achieving extensive regions of laminar flow under everyday operating conditions remains a problem today and is still one of the great unsolved challenges in aeronautical research. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That example of information further supports the impractical nature of mass produced laminar flow wing designs.

Skipping the section on leading edge slats, drag cleanup, and moving on to compressibility:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Apparent also is the large reduction in lift-curve slope at the higher Mach numbers. For example, at a Mach number of 0.4, the lift coefficient increases from 0.2 to about 0.72 as the angle of attack varies from 0 to 5 whereas, at a Mach number of 0.8, increasing the angle of attack from 0 to 5 results in an increment in lift coefficient of only about 0.2. The drag coefficient shows a large increase with Mach number as the Mach number is increased beyond the critical value. For example, at an angle of attack of -1, the drag coefficient increases from about 0.0 15 at a Mach number of 0.65 to 0. 13 at a Mach number of 0.9.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/SP-468/p114a.jpg
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/SP-468/p114b.jpg

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">...hampered by fundamental difficulties in both theoretical and experimental methods of investigation. The governing equations for flows near Mach number 1.0 proved intractable to closed-form solution. Adequate solutions to these nonlinear equations were not possible until the advent of the large-capacity, high-speed digital computer in the late 1960's and 1970's. Practical theoretical approaches to the compressibility problem during the war years usually involved the application of relatively simple correction factors to results obtained under the assumption of incompressible flow. These correction factors worked fairly well up to Mach numbers relatively close to the critical value but broke down completely at higher Mach numbers. The wind tunnel which had proved so useful in past aerodynamic investigations also became of questionable value at Mach numbers somewhat in excess of the critical value. At some Mach number, not too much higher than the critical value for the airfoil or body, the tunnel "choked," which meant that no higher free-stream Mach numbers could be obtained. A Mach number range between the subsonic choking value and some supersonic value, such as 1.2 or 1.3, was not available for wind-tunnel investigations. Supersonic tunnels operating beyond a Mach number of 1.2 or 1.3 were possible but were of little practical interest during the World War II time period. The solution to the problem of wind-tunnel choking was not found until the advent of the slotted and perforated- throat wind tunnel in the early 1950's.

In spite of these experimental and theoretical difficulties, a good deal of progress was made in devising improved configuration concepts for high-speed flight. The laminar-flow airfoil sections described previously did not achieve the desired objective of extensive laminar flow in flight; however, the pressure distributions of these airfoil shapes resulted in critical Mach numbers that were significantly higher for these sections than for other airfoil sections having the same thickness ratios. Most aircraft designed in the United States after 1940 employed the NACA laminar-flow airfoil sections or some modification of these sections, primarily because of the advantages they offered as a means for increasing the critical Mach number. The original NACA cowling, which was developed before aircraft speeds reached high enough values for compressibility effects to be important, had a critical speed of only about 300 miles per hour at 25 000 feet. New cowling shapes were developed that ultimately raised the critical speed to almost 600 miles per hour. Studies of various wing-body combinations led to configuration concepts that resulted in reduced interference effects and, hence, higher critical Mach numbers. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The use of the phrase ˜before aircraft speeds reached high enough values for compressibility effects to be important, had a critical speed of only about 300 miles per hour at 25,000 feet.' suggests that compressibility effects became important as aircraft speeds reached higher speeds above a critical speed of 300 mph at 25,000 feet. A threshold is not mentioned as to what speed is ˜important' (what is the minimum speed, altitude, or temperature, where compressibility effect must be accounted for) but the charts linked offer a measure of compressibility effect as to Cd, CLmax, and angle of attack.

The Drag coefficient, angle of attack, and Mach number chart, if I am not mistaken, does not suggest that compressibility effect is a non-factor (will not effect TOTAL DRAG FORCE and therefore will not affect the rate of acceleration) at the speeds shown on the chart. That chart measures the effect of compressibility on the calculation of Cd.

The link concerns itself mainly with the "precipitous reduction in lift coefficient" and other things:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The effect on the airplane of these various changes in aerodynamic coefficients manifested itself in the form of a limiting speed, large changes in stability and trim characteristics of the aircraft, important reductions in the control power of the control surfaces, buffeting, loss in propulsive efficiency and various types of aircraft oscillation, and unintended maneuvers. In some cases, aircraft flown deep into the compressible regime became completely uncontrollable and could not be recovered. Loss of the aircraft and pilot frequently occurred under these circumstances. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The actual onset of compressibility effect is not identified or communicated.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The ratio of the aircraft speed to the speed of sound provides a useful index for gaging the speed at which significant compressibility effects begin to manifest themselves on a particular aircraft. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

A critical effect appears to be a critical effect whereas the initial incompressibility of the actual air, being less-critical, is less of a concern according to this site – as far as I can tell.

Moving on:

Graphical illustration (http://www.flightlab.net/pdf/8_Maneuvering.pdf)

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The maximum lift line, or CLmax boundary, takes its parabolic shape from the fact that lift is a function of velocity squared (because lift is proportional to dynamic pressure, q, which is itself proportional to V2). You can draw the lift line based purely on an aircraft's 1-g stall speed at a given weight. At least you can for speeds to about Mach 0.3. Above that, compressibility effects take over, CLmax declines, and the slope of
the curve decreases. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That site pegs the number 0.3 Mach and explains the effect in a way that can be illustrated graphically on a chart. The accelerated stall line is a plotted curve that can be theoretically ideal as lift force increases square with velocity. The ideal is not achievable in reality for various reasons including compressibility effect.

Explanation (http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay/Dictionary/Compressibility/DI136.htm)

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The terms compressibility and incompressibility describe the ability of molecules in a fluid to be compacted or compressed (made more dense) and their ability to bounce back to their original density, in other words, their "springiness." An incompressible fluid cannot be compressed and has relatively constant density throughout. Liquid is an incompressible fluid. A gaseous fluid such as air, on the other hand, can be either compressible or incompressible. Generally, for theoretical and experimental purposes, gases are assumed to be incompressible when they are moving at low speeds--under approximately 220 miles per hour. The motion of the object traveling through the air at such speed does not affect the density of the air. This assumption has been useful in aerodynamics when studying the behavior of air in relation to airfoils and other objects moving through the air at slower speeds.

However, when aircraft began traveling faster than 220 miles per hour, assumptions regarding the air through which they flew that were true at slower speeds were no longer valid. At high speeds some of the energy of the quickly moving aircraft goes into compressing the fluid (the air) and changing its density. The air at higher altitudes where these aircraft fly also has lower density than air nearer to the Earth's surface. The airflow is now compressible, and aerodynamic theories have had to reflect this. Aerodynamic theories relating to compressible airflow characteristics and behavior are considerably more complex than theories relating to incompressible airflow. The noted aerodynamicist of the early 20th century, Ludwig Prandtl, contributed the Prandtl-Glaubert rule for subsonic airflow to describe the compressibility effects of air at high speeds.

At lower altitudes, air has a higher density and is considered incompressible for theoretical and experimental purposes.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The phrase "when aircraft began traveling faster than 220 miles per hour, assumptions regarding the air through which they flew that were true at slower speeds were no longer valid" suggests that assumptions regarding the air through which aircraft is traveling are not true above 220 miles per hour.

For example: Assuming that the plane will have an ideal accelerated stall line at speeds above 220 mph is an assumption that is not true due to compressibility effect.

There appears to be some ambiguity concerning the altitude and speed at which air can be compressed (made more dense) as well as a confusion of the actual effect i.e. Critical effect as a function of air velocities reaching the speed of sound (Mach 1) and the effect of energy loss due to the compressibility of air.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">At high speeds some of the energy of the quickly moving aircraft goes into compressing the fluid (the air) and changing its density. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why, for example, would a plane flying through incompressible air have an effect whereby the force required in moving the control surfaces increase? The pilot must exert more energy to ˜pull-out' from a dive, for example, or the pilot must use trim tabs or the pilot must change the angle of attack on the horizontal stabilizer.

Adjustments in trim will increase trim drag which increases total drag which increases Power Required which is a reduction in Ps which is a reduction in energy performance.

If a wing is twisted, then, the wing span is at unequal Angles of Attack which is a similar situation to trim drag where some of the wing span is lifting more and some of the wing is lifting less or from another angle of view the wing is fighting itself for equilibrium.

The energy required to move the incompressible air is not the same as the energy required to move the air and compress it (change its density).

At what speed, altitude, and temperature does air become compressible in relation to flight? I can compress air at sea level at any temperature on any day of the year with my air compressor. An airplane with an air compressor can boost air pressure above the density of air compressed by earth's gravitational field.

Those sites report .3 Mach and 220 mph. Those sites do not report a specific temperature or altitude at which air is considered incompressible for theoretical experimental purposes.

Moving on:

Springiness (http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/airsim.html)

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Aerodynamic forces also depend in a complex way on the compressibility of the gas. As an object moves through the gas, the gas molecules move around the object. If the object passes at a low speed (typically less than 200 mph) the density of the fluid remains constant. But for high speeds, some of the energy of the object goes into compressing the fluid and changing the density, which alters the amount of resulting force on the object. This effect becomes more important as speed increases. Near and beyond the speed of sound (about 330 m/s or 700 mph on earth), shock waves are produced that affect the lift and drag of the object. Again, aerodynamicists rely on wind tunnel testing and sophisticated computer analysis to predict these conditions. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The phrase: "(typically less than 200 mph)" suggests that compressibility is not a significant factor under 200 mph and compressibility is a factor above 200 mph.

The phrase: "This effect becomes more important as speed increases." suggests that more of the energy of the object will be lost compressing the fluid which alters the amount of resulting force on the object as speed increases above 200 mph – typically.

In other words the plane is forced to a slower rate of acceleration and a slower top speed due to energy loss compressing air at speeds above 200 mph.

The last link offers an applet to help quantify the effect of altitude on Renolds number.

At this point the ˜discussion' can turn in any direction including the default (personal attack) direction.

I'm going to go ahead and dive into Renolds Number (http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/reynolds.html)

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">High values of the parameter (on the order of 10 million) indicate that viscous forces are small and the flow is essentially inviscid. Low values of the parameter (on the order of 1 hundred) indicate that viscous forces must be considered. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Inviscid flow (http://www.cfd-online.com/Wiki/Inviscid_flow)

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">A flow in which viscous effects can be neglected is known as inviscid flow. At high Reynolds numbers, flow past slender bodies involve thin boundary layers. Viscous effects are important only inside the boundary layer and the flow outside it is nearly inviscid. If the boundary layer is not separated then the inviscid flow model can be used to predict the pressure distribution with reasonable accuracy. Although no practical flow is inviscid, the inviscid assumption is valid if the time scales for diffusion are much larger compared to the time scales for convection, which is measured by the Reynolds number. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The span between ˜important' and not ˜important' appears to be 10 million to 100.

I can get the Reynolds # down to 96 with the following Input values:
Altitude 10 feet
Speed 10 mph
Length .001 feet
Reynolds # 96

Temperature is not a variable for that Applet.

Altitude 1000 feet
Speed 1064 mph
Length 1 feet
Reynolds # 10,005,824

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">High values of the parameter (on the order of 10 million) indicate that viscous forces are small and the flow is essentially inviscid. Low values of the parameter (on the order of 1 hundred) indicate that viscous forces must be considered. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So much for that angle of view?

The chart illustrating the steepness of the accelerated stall line plotted according to actual flight tests may offer a less complicated and more accurate viewpoint concerning the effects of compressibility upon aircraft performance that includes all the other factors limiting aircraft performance.

No – yes?

Is the idea to quantify something or make something more complicated?

The compressibility effect has been quantified as being a factor at speeds above:
.3 Mach
200 mph
220 mph

The effect has been described as an energy transfer from the object in motion to the air being compressed.

Moving on:

http://www.tfd.chalmers.se/~ulfh/gas_dyn_h/lecture_notes/14-perturbation/img014.gif

Incompressible Critical Mach number (http://www.tfd.chalmers.se/%7Eulfh/gas_dyn_h/lecture_notes/14-perturbation/sld014.htm)

Cpinc is what?

Note: I think relative performance can be proven with a side by side flight test. My agenda is not to design a plane, nor design a game, nor petition by argumentation for a patch to fix a game already produced.

My agenda is to learn.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Obviously you have a little hate complex going on there about the german aircraft industry. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Some lessons are reinforced regularly.

Whirlin_merlin
03-28-2007, 11:26 AM
I get very confused by the 109/Spitfire arguments.

Both were 'elegant' solutions to the engineering problem of how you make a fighter with 1930's materials and know how.
Neither plane was the 'perfect' solution and both had flaws, although it maybe more accurate to say compromises. Some of these they shared e.g fuel capacity and tricky undercarrage.
Each had it's strengths and weaknesses. Why do some only see the weaknesses?
History records that 109s downed spits and spits downed 109s, the decisive factors often being pilot skill and the situation (and luck?).

I concider myself to be a 'spitfire' fan, why?
Because my grandad used to put the bullets in 'em and because of what they represent. My nations 'finest' hour when it stood in the path of a regime of great wickedness and prevailed. This is no slight on Germans as a people and I know all about Stalin, so lets not go down that path please. However I do not believe the Spitfire was perfection and I doubt anyone here really does (despite a few tongue in cheek comments).
Yet if I were to believe some on these boards it was in fact utter rubbish with no qualities at all.
Equally I can recognise the merits of the 109, it was a remarkable warplane, but I am yet to be convinced it had magic powers slats or no slats. However to me it will always represent something else for it was the tool of said wicked regime and used to attempt conquest and domination. Of course that doesn't stop it being a great engineering feat as was the Spitfire or any other of the 'great' planes of WW2.

Now some may say I have a naive (and possible jingoistic) view of history, but even so if I can see the merits of both aircraft why can't others?

P.S no I'm not sure i spelt jingoistic right or used it in entirly the right context.

M_Gunz
03-28-2007, 11:30 AM
First it's how modern the most engine for least airframe is.
THEN it's how streamlined it is.
THEN it's must be a fighter.
And this is from the guy who wants to say apples to oranges.
I can tell you learned the trollem and dodgem techniques almost as well as Jokf!

I can compare FW-190-A5 and 6 to same year 109's for radial to inline and which is faster?

No... you never stick to what you say, just change it after the fact if anyone brings up any
exceptions and if they don't then act like you've said it all. So far you score zero.

Your own words from post 1: I do believe someone goofed here! :veryhappy:

luftluuver
03-28-2007, 11:57 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stalkervision:
"INCOMPLETE weapons system.." LMAO http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif Tell that to the bomber pilots who had to face me-262's over europe. I believe they would tend to disagree with you..

centrifucal engine..Show me one MODERN FIGHTER with this type of engine... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Yes INCOMPLETE as the engines were not reliable. What could the 262 have done with reliable working engines. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

Is not Rare Bear (a modified F8F) a radial engined a/c? This is the a/c that beat the specially built 209's record speed.

DmdSeeker
03-28-2007, 12:07 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Abbuzze:


There is no doubt that the I16 was together with hurrican, 109 the very first generation of new modern fighters in the 30´s. . </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm not so sure the Hurricane should be in that list. It is, in effect; not a lot more than a Hawker Fury monoplane; and it's construction method (if not it's materials) are distinctly descended from WWI techniques.

Indeed; that was one of the genuine problems with the Spit: it was hard to make; having a complex wing construction that the workforce of the time took time to master.

Part of the brilliance of German designs, what ever their short comings; was the fact that production and servicing was "designed in"; even to the point of making jet aircraft in forest clearings with slave labour.

Brain32
03-28-2007, 12:32 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> I get very confused by the 109/Spitfire arguments.

Both were 'elegant' solutions to the engineering problem of how you make a fighter with 1930's materials and know how.
Neither plane was the 'perfect' solution and both had flaws, although it maybe more accurate to say compromises. Some of these they shared e.g fuel capacity and tricky undercarrage.
Each had it's strengths and weaknesses. Why do some only see the weaknesses?
History records that 109s downed spits and spits downed 109s, the decisive factors often being pilot skill and the situation (and luck?). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

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

M_Gunz
03-28-2007, 01:11 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
As to the relative significance of compressibility effect: </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Always fun watching what you hunt up and paste into your posts without as usual bothering to
understand what is there.

I will just clip out the non-related garbage.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Apparent also is the large reduction in lift-curve slope at the higher Mach numbers. For example, at a Mach number of 0.4, the lift coefficient increases from 0.2 to about 0.72 as the angle of attack varies from 0 to 5 whereas, at a Mach number of 0.8, increasing the angle of attack from 0 to 5 results in an increment in lift coefficient of only about 0.2. The drag coefficient shows a large increase with Mach number as the Mach number is increased beyond the critical value. For example, at an angle of attack of -1, the drag coefficient increases from about 0.0 15 at a Mach number of 0.65 to 0. 13 at a Mach number of 0.9.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/SP-468/p114a.jpg
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/SP-468/p114b.jpg </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh my, oh dear... wasn't it supposed to be .3 mach where we'ze gots da trubbles?

Just for those who can follow a graph (not you, JOKE) those alpha degree lines are from different
AOA's which is short for pitching up. Anyone want to guess how many G's a Spitfire will be
pulling at 5 deg AOA and over .5 mach? The lift curve at that AOA starts decreasing by real
amounts from there while the drag curve doesn't take off until after .6 mach. Those are TAS
but they are also at very high speeds to playing at turning hard at all. Coefficient may be
decreasing slightly to a lot as the plane is turning hard for coming towards critical mach
anyway but what does that matter since the engine doesn't have the power to keep it pushing
that fast anyway?

The graphs are complete and go beyond combat situations when you regard turning at beyond .7
mach in almost any WWII fighter (almost). Looking back to realistic speed and AOA combinations
for WWII PROP FIGHTERS we can see that there is no big or even significant NEGATIVE change in
lift or drag of those curves until after .6 mach. Indeed, until .5 mach all the CL's either
stay the same or INCREASE. For those math-challenged, CL is Lift divided by Drag.

So at .3 mach which is TAS and decreases with decrease in air temperature, those Jokf-pasted
graphs show no real negative effect in CL due to compression as he has been quoting again and
again.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">...hampered by fundamental difficulties in both theoretical and experimental methods of investigation. The governing equations for flows near Mach number 1.0 proved intractable to closed-form solution. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The usual Jokf Obfuscated-Strawman Ploy. Paste in a bunch of non-related material that looks
good to the untrained mind (he picked it out) and try to use it as if it is.

Near Mach 1.0 &lt;---------------------------------&gt; WWII prop fighters in combat situations.

It's still closer to real than the examples of *** relativistic effects *** that he tried to
post to prove that none of us "know-it-alls" (Jokf Code for knows anything at all) and most
scientists and engineers do not really understand gravity.

Hey Joke! You don't understand the things you try and use to seem like you understand the
things you try and use!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Practical theoretical approaches to the compressibility problem during the war years usually involved the application of relatively simple correction factors to results obtained under the assumption of incompressible flow. These correction factors worked fairly well up to Mach numbers relatively close to the critical value but broke down completely at higher Mach numbers. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So the correction factors worked up past most speeds that combat occured....

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The wind tunnel which had proved so useful in past aerodynamic investigations also became of questionable value at Mach numbers somewhat in excess of the critical value. At some Mach number, not too much higher than the critical value for the airfoil or body, the tunnel "choked," which meant that no higher free-stream Mach numbers could be obtained. A Mach number range between the subsonic choking value and some supersonic value, such as 1.2 or 1.3, </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

How many WWII fighters reached those speeds, Mr. Strawman? Oh, well I guess we'll have to wait
until the Wizard gives you that brain you so desperately want! Because otherwise you wouldn't
POST such things!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> was not available for wind-tunnel investigations. Supersonic tunnels operating beyond a Mach number of 1.2 or 1.3 were possible but were of little practical interest during the World War II time period. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Joke, do you bother reading these things before posting them?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">In spite of these experimental and theoretical difficulties, a good deal of progress was made in devising improved configuration concepts for high-speed flight. The laminar-flow airfoil sections described previously did not achieve the desired objective of extensive laminar flow in flight; however, the pressure distributions of these airfoil shapes resulted in critical Mach numbers that were significantly higher for these sections than for other airfoil sections having the same thickness ratios. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So there was some benefit to those redesigned P-51 wings in spite of the Whiner cry "they did not
achieve true laminar airflow!". Or at least what got dragged up onto this thread says so.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Most aircraft designed in the United States after 1940 employed the NACA laminar-flow airfoil sections or some modification of these sections, primarily because of the advantages they offered as a means for increasing the critical Mach number. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Can that be true? Wasn't Messerschmidt consulted?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
[QUOTE]The original NACA cowling, which was developed before aircraft speeds reached high enough values for compressibility effects to be important, had a critical speed of only about 300 miles per hour at 25 000 feet. New cowling shapes were developed that ultimately raised the critical speed to almost 600 miles per hour. Studies of various wing-body combinations led to configuration concepts that resulted in reduced interference effects and, hence, higher critical Mach numbers. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The use of the phrase ˜before aircraft speeds reached high enough values for compressibility effects to be important, had a critical speed of only about 300 miles per hour at 25,000 feet.' suggests that compressibility effects became important as aircraft speeds reached higher speeds above a critical speed of 300 mph at 25,000 feet. A threshold is not mentioned as to what speed is ˜important' (what is the minimum speed, altitude, or temperature, where compressibility effect must be accounted for) but the charts linked offer a measure of compressibility effect as to Cd, CLmax, and angle of attack. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Right on the beam oh clueless wonder. Looks like your eyes refocussed for a few words there but
AS USUAL you utterly FAILED (bet you heard that a lot in school!) to make sense of the material.

What is the CLmax of your average early war NACA design COWLING? Let's look at the wing data?

On a STANDARD TEMPERATURE DAY, 300 mph @ 25,000 ft is a bit over .43 mach.
And they improved the designs to go as far as twice that.
At those speeds, the COWLING would start to make shock waves... put a number on it. Not you!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The Drag coefficient, angle of attack, and Mach number chart, if I am not mistaken, does not suggest that compressibility effect is a non-factor (will not effect TOTAL DRAG FORCE and therefore will not affect the rate of acceleration) at the speeds shown on the chart. That chart measures the effect of compressibility on the calculation of Cd. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Angle of attack of the COWLING? Cd of the COWLING?

Hey, YOU POSTED IT AND YOU DREW THE IDIOT CONCLUSIONS.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The link concerns itself mainly with the "precipitous reduction in lift coefficient" and other things:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
[QUOTE]The effect on the airplane of these various changes in aerodynamic coefficients manifested itself in the form of a limiting speed, large changes in stability and trim characteristics of the aircraft, important reductions in the control power of the control surfaces, buffeting, loss in propulsive efficiency and various types of aircraft oscillation, and unintended maneuvers. In some cases, aircraft flown deep into the compressible regime became completely uncontrollable and could not be recovered. Loss of the aircraft and pilot frequently occurred under these circumstances. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The actual onset of compressibility effect is not identified or communicated. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Maybe you should just stick to relativistic effects. That way you can wrong in your applications
of cut and paste in actual cosmic proportions instead of merely those terrestrial.

Joke, you take WHINING to new levels in your attempts to look scientific. Hey, to make it even
more realistic you should wear a lab coat and glasses while you post!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The ratio of the aircraft speed to the speed of sound provides a useful index for gaging the speed at which significant compressibility effects begin to manifest themselves on a particular aircraft. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

A critical effect appears to be a critical effect whereas the initial incompressibility of the actual air, being less-critical, is less of a concern according to this site – as far as I can tell. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

LOL! ROFLMAO! Whoooo-ha! It's Jokf teaching BS double-talk 101 for morons!


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

Graphical illustration (http://www.flightlab.net/pdf/8_Maneuvering.pdf)

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The maximum lift line, or CLmax boundary, takes its parabolic shape from the fact that lift is a function of velocity squared (because lift is proportional to dynamic pressure, q, which is itself proportional to V2). You can draw the lift line based purely on an aircraft's 1-g stall speed at a given weight. At least you can for speeds to about Mach 0.3. Above that, compressibility effects take over, CLmax declines, and the slope of
the curve decreases. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That site pegs the number 0.3 Mach and explains the effect in a way that can be illustrated graphically on a chart. The accelerated stall line is a plotted curve that can be theoretically ideal as lift force increases square with velocity. The ideal is not achievable in reality for various reasons including compressibility effect.

Explanation (http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay/Dictionary/Compressibility/DI136.htm)

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The terms compressibility and incompressibility describe the ability of molecules in a fluid to be compacted or compressed (made more dense) and their ability to bounce back to their original density, in other words, their "springiness." An incompressible fluid cannot be compressed and has relatively constant density throughout. Liquid is an incompressible fluid. A gaseous fluid such as air, on the other hand, can be either compressible or incompressible. Generally, for theoretical and experimental purposes, gases are assumed to be incompressible when they are moving at low speeds--under approximately 220 miles per hour. The motion of the object traveling through the air at such speed does not affect the density of the air. This assumption has been useful in aerodynamics when studying the behavior of air in relation to airfoils and other objects moving through the air at slower speeds.

However, when aircraft began traveling faster than 220 miles per hour, assumptions regarding the air through which they flew that were true at slower speeds were no longer valid. At high speeds some of the energy of the quickly moving aircraft goes into compressing the fluid (the air) and changing its density. The air at higher altitudes where these aircraft fly also has lower density than air nearer to the Earth's surface. The airflow is now compressible, and aerodynamic theories have had to reflect this. Aerodynamic theories relating to compressible airflow characteristics and behavior are considerably more complex than theories relating to incompressible airflow. The noted aerodynamicist of the early 20th century, Ludwig Prandtl, contributed the Prandtl-Glaubert rule for subsonic airflow to describe the compressibility effects of air at high speeds.

At lower altitudes, air has a higher density and is considered incompressible for theoretical and experimental purposes.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The phrase "when aircraft began traveling faster than 220 miles per hour, assumptions regarding the air through which they flew that were true at slower speeds were no longer valid" suggests that assumptions regarding the air through which aircraft is traveling are not true above 220 miles per hour.

For example: Assuming that the plane will have an ideal accelerated stall line at speeds above 220 mph is an assumption that is not true due to compressibility effect.

There appears to be some ambiguity concerning the altitude and speed at which air can be compressed (made more dense) as well as a confusion of the actual effect i.e. Critical effect as a function of air velocities reaching the speed of sound (Mach 1) and the effect of energy loss due to the compressibility of air. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

But you have NO CLUE as to how much even though near the start of the post you show graphs with
changes in lift and drag of some unmentioned plane or wing at different mach values.

Go for it, Professer Joke!

They talk about a divergence from parabolic lift curve and yet the example gives a speed and not
a mach number. This should strike you as a CLUE just how deeply the article was written, but no,
you see a few words you think are good for the old smoke and mirrors BS so you paste them in an
make vacuous comments like you really have some point. You do but it's not what you think, it's
how far under you get trying to read from secondary school material.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">At high speeds some of the energy of the quickly moving aircraft goes into compressing the fluid (the air) and changing its density. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why, for example, would a plane flying through incompressible air have an effect whereby the force required in moving the control surfaces increase? The pilot must exert more energy to ˜pull-out' from a dive, for example, or the pilot must use trim tabs or the pilot must change the angle of attack on the horizontal stabilizer. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Duhhhhh, do da forc-es get big-er when da pwane goes faster like a choo-choo?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Adjustments in trim will increase trim drag which increases total drag which increases Power Required which is a reduction in Ps which is a reduction in energy performance. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

TRIM DRAG? Is that like your old "acceleration from drag" and "1G corner speed"?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">If a wing is twisted, then, the wing span is at unequal Angles of Attack which is a similar situation to trim drag where some of the wing span is lifting more and some of the wing is lifting less or from another angle of view the wing is fighting itself for equilibrium.

The energy required to move the incompressible air is not the same as the energy required to move the air and compress it (change its density).

At what speed, altitude, and temperature does air become compressible in relation to flight? I can compress air at sea level at any temperature on any day of the year with my air compressor. An airplane with an air compressor can boost air pressure above the density of air compressed by earth's gravitational field. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't need to comment, it'd be like shooting down deer tied to stakes.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Those sites report .3 Mach and 220 mph. Those sites do not report a specific temperature or altitude at which air is considered incompressible for theoretical experimental purposes. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's because just like with Shaw's book, you have totally missed the intent of the material.
It's for teaching GRADE SCHOOL KIDS and it's BEYOND YOUR ABILITY TO UNDERSTAND.

Do they let you out without anyone to watch and care for you?

stalkervision
03-28-2007, 01:54 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by luftluuver:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stalkervision:
"INCOMPLETE weapons system.." LMAO http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif Tell that to the bomber pilots who had to face me-262's over europe. I believe they would tend to disagree with you..

centrifucal engine..Show me one MODERN FIGHTER with this type of engine... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Yes INCOMPLETE as the engines were not reliable. What could the 262 have done with reliable working engines. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

Is not Rare Bear (a modified F8F) a radial engined a/c? This is the a/c that beat the specially built 209's record speed. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Then the p-80, f-104,f-111,f-106 and many many many american fighter programs were "incomplete weapons systems too" http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

XyZspineZyX
03-28-2007, 02:49 PM
It is a valid argument that no purpose-built aircraft is a 'complete' package. There will always be a reason to supercede an existing purpose-built aircraft with a new design, or to alter it's design to reflect desired changes. The nationality of the aircraft has nothing to do with it

Ratsack
03-28-2007, 04:22 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ratsack:
That's not right. Design defects of 262 following:

1. Lack of air brakes. This was critical given the sensitivity of the jet engines. Without air brakes, and with a design not intended to go supersonic, there was no safe way to lose height at high speed and high alt. Major oversight.

2. The engines were sensitive to rapid movements of the throttle. This was not a function of material quality, it was a feature of early jets. At high speed and or high altitude, the sensitivity increased so that any but the smoothest movement of the throttle was likely to cause a fire or explosion. From Steinhoff's book .

3. Put the two above together and you have a plane that is very difficult to fly properly, much less fly well in combat, particularly at high alts. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Kurfurst said:
Not true. The Me 262, like any other fighter, would descend by throttling back not to overspeed. You say the engines were too sensitive to allow that, but thats not true either, since the engines were automatically regulated for precisly that purpose above 6000/min. Nor do i recall airbrakes on early generation jets off the top of my head it was an exception rather than a rule, so appearantly it was not deemed a neccesity. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is just wrong, Kurfurst. Firstly, Steinhoff himself discusses the difficulty in handling the engines at high alt and speed. The problems were real.

Secondly, Steinhoff also mentions the lack of air brakes in this connection. Again, the problem was real.

The business about other early jets is irrelevant. I'm not comparing the 262 to other early jets. I'm arguing that the 262 was not ready.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Kurfurst said:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Ratsack wrote:
Regarding the bit about the German high command being satisfied with the 109, that's just nonsense. The F series was supposed to be the last 109. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Err.. sounds like 100% pure hogwash to me. In any case, the 109F was almost finish before WW2 even started (before 1940). It had hardly anything to do how satisfied or unsatisfied the LW was with the 109 (besides I fail to see how and when were they dissatisfied). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Come on, Kurfurst, have a look at the production plans that Udet had in 1941. The ratio of 190s to 109s was going to be 2:1. He was going to phase out the 109. The near-failure of 190 in early 1941, and Udet's replacement by Milch, put an end to all of that. The result of the rationalization was that the planned production ratio of 109s to 190s was reversed (imagine what that cost Milch, who hated Messerschmitt's guts!), and Messerschmitt had to develop the 109 further, and the 209 was delayed (fatally, as it turned out).

So to be clear, I am not saying they were 'dissatisfied' with the 109. I am rebutting the preposterous proposition that the Germans had no intention of replacing it.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Kurfurst said:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Ratsack wrote:
If Udet's plans had come off, the 109 would've been largely replaced by the Fw 190 and its successors, with the high altitude duties performed by the 209, which never saw production. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I wonder where these 'Udets plans' come from, I hear them of the first time. ... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

See above.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Kurfurst said:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Ratsack wrote:
What the Germans needed was not some bl00dy jet, but for Daimler Benz to pull their finger out in 1940-41 and get the flaming DB 603 running and fit for installation in single engine aircraft. The same goes for Junkers and their Jumo 213 series. It was these engines that the successors to the Bf 109 relied upon. The next version of the FW 190 would need them, as would the 209 and 309. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's unfair to blame it on DB oor Junkers, they had the DB 603 up and ready, actually working in operational aircraft like the Me 410 by early 1943. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Note the bit above in bold where I said 'fit for installation in single engine aircraft'. Neither of these engines was ready in a satisfactory form for a fighter, and certified for installation in single engined aircraft. Twins don't count in this race.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Kurf said:
All these excuses for Kurt Tank 'who wanted the DB 603' but 'it was not given to him' is hogwash, considering </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I said zip about Tank.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Kurf said:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Ratsack wrote:
If the expertise, resources, time and effort wasted on pie in the sky projects that were never likely to see fruition in time to be useful (e.g. Me 262), or simply lacked a sensible application at all (e.g. A4 rocket), had been spent on conventional projects, the Germans may have had a ghost of a chance of not losing after December 1941. It would've required several other things, too, but certainly the German aero-engine industry needed to be whipped into line. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hmmm. This assumes that resources are freely convertible, but they're not. Even if one spends all the steel, explosives, and alcohol fuel that the A-4 uses, it will be of no use for the aviation industry. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

As the Mad Hatter said, 'Let's not be silly, now.' The airframe of the A-4 was Aluminium alloy. The engine used the high grade steels needed in guns and turbines. The turbo pump used more of this steel, and then there was all the labour, a significant fraction of which had to be skilled, wasted making them. Every one of those luverly, flush-riveted and welded Alloy A-4 airframes represented an enormous loss of effort for the aero industry. Even Speer admitted this rocket was a blunder.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Kurf said:
Similiarly, just place Werner v Braun in front a drawing board, and tell him to design an aircraft. Being a rocket scientist, he may fail at that area. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I invoke the Mad Hatter again. Von Braun should've been instructed to design a useful SAM or air to air missile, instead of wasting his talent and Germany's resources on what was really just a first assay in the art of space launching. Either that, or he should've been shown the door (or an infantry uniform). The A-4 was worse than useless.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Kurf:
Otherwise, pretty much agree with your thought on 262 development. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Glad we agree on something.

cheers,
Ratsack

JG14_Josf
03-28-2007, 04:59 PM
To anyone interested in the topic:

A good internet source of information despite any misdirection propagated by someone special (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/SP-468/ch5-2.htm)

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/SP-468/p107.jpg

If the above information is coupled with the next illustration, then, it may be possible to learn something about the relationship between lift production and drag force; in other words – the relationship of how much deceleration on the forward vector is required for any acceleration on the lift vector.

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/SP-468/p106.jpg

I find it interesting to note how the smooth surface manages to notch into much greater efficiency as if such a wing would have a very high L/D ratio compared to the rough surface; like the high L/D ratio the game has modeled into the Fw190 for example.

The low drag wing that is smooth notches down further at Cl values less than .8 while the standard wing maintains an advantage in Cd above .8 until the drag coefficient crosses in favor of the laminar flow wing after 1.2 Cl.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The aft location of the maximum thickness point is associated with the need to achieve a particular type of airfoil-surface pressure distribution and is also desirable from the point of view of structural design. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

There is no free lunch?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The Fokker D-VII was the heaviest of the fighters considered here and had wing loading and power loading values greater than those of the SPAD X111. The power loading was in fact no lower than that of the Sopwith Camel, and the wing loading was higher. On the basis of these comparisons, the climb performance of the D-VII might be expected, according to the relationships given in chapter 6 of reference [35] 90, to be inferior to that of both the SPAD XIII and the Sopwith Camel. On the contrary, the data in figure 2.18 show the D-VII to have much better climb performance then either of the other two aircraft. Brief calculations of the sea-level rate of climb by the methods in reference 90 indicate that the climb data for the Fokker D-VII are reasonable but that the SPAD should have had much better climb performance than indicated in figure 2.18. The explanation can no doubt be attributed, as mentioned for the triplane, to the thicker airfoil sections employed in the wings of the D-VII. The climb analysis showed that the maximum rate of climb could be achieved at lift coefficients of about 1.1 and 1.0 for the Fokker and the SPAD, respectively. The thick-wing D-VII could probably be flown with comfort at the required lift coefficient for maximum rate of climb, whereas the SPAD most likely could not. In fact, a lift coefficient of 1.0 might have been beyond the maximum value achievable by the SPAD XIII with its thin wings. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

A high wing-loading thick wing having a better than expected climb rate compared to the lower wing loaded thin winged counter-part is not an anomaly.

Thin twisted wings have their drawbacks.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The use of a double-slotted flap and leading-edge slat increases the maximum lift coefficient from about 1.4 for the plain airfoil to a value slightly over 3.2. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

In addition to the steam-lining associated with a high aspect ratio wing that is not twisted there is the increase in maximum lift production or lift force production associated with the portion of the wing that has the slat and the portion of the wing that has the split flap.

The 109 had both no?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Further tests and analyses showed that the additional drag could be reduced by more than one-half through careful tailoring of various aspects of the design. The drag coefficient of a practical service aircraft of the XP-41 type was accordingly reduced from 0.0275 to 0.0226. The data in figure 5.5 indicate that the increments in drag coefficient corresponding to the 18 steps of the cleanup process are generally rather small and, in many cases, only a few percent of the total drag coefficient. Yet, taken all together, these increments add up to an impressive total. Important performance improvements resulted from the drag cleanup of the 23 military aircraft in the Langley full-scale tunnel. In many cases, the gains associated with care and attention to detailed design were found to be greater than the differences in drag between airplanes of different configurations. The drag cleanup work made an important contribution to the refinement of high-performance propeller-driven aircraft during World War II, and the gains resulting from the program often spelled the difference in performance between victory and defeat in the air. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Drag Clean-up (http://us.share.geocities.com/hlangebro/J22/EAAjanuary1999.pdf)

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">It is interesting that the greatest suction on the entire aircraft [Spitfire IX] appears on the bulged canopy. Other strong suctions appear at the corners of the windshield, which was made up of panels of flat armor glass and had sharp corners.
One of the first things to come to light in the VSAERO analysis of the Spitfire is a region of separated flow at the base of the windscreen. The computation indicates that the boundary layer separates approximately 6 inches in front of the windscreen, due to the increasing pressure in this region (Fig. 8). The boundary layer races that stop at separation have been restarted on the windshield at the point where the static pressure is the same as that at separation. Such a separation is not present on either of the other two aircraft reviewed here. However, this is a feature quite common on automobiles and is related to the slope of the windscreen. The spitfire's windscreen is at a 35-degree angle to the forward deck, while the Fw 190's is at a 22-degree angle and the P-51's is at 31-degree angle. Evidently, the Spitfire's windscreen is too steep. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Supermarine is often regarded as being one of the first companies to make use of the breakthroughs made by Meredith at RAE Farnborough in the design of ducts for cooling systems (Ref. 7). In fact, the Spitfire's radiator ducts were designed using these guidelines. However, the VSAERO calculation indicates the boundary layer on the lower surface of the wing is ingested by the cooling system inlet. Running into the severe adverse (increasing) pressure gradient ahead of the radiator, the boundary layer separates shortly after entering the duct, resulting in a large drag penalty (Fig.9). Experimentally, it was determined that the Spitfire cooling system drag, expressed as the ratio of equivalent cooling-drag power to total engine power, was considerably higher than that of the other aircraft tested by the RAE. This was attributed to "the presence of a boundary layer ahead of the duct tends to precipitate separation and makes the ducting problem more difficult" (Ref. 8). Similar problems are present on the early model Messerschmitt Bf109, up through the E model. A complete redesign of the cooling system, during development of the Bf 109F, resulted in the use of a boundary layer bypass duct, which significantly improved the pressure recovery at the radiator face (Ref. 9). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Leaving the steep windshield and the high drag radiators dirty (not cleaned up) may have been a less significant problem at speeds under 200 mph compared to the additional energy loss at speeds above 200 mph when those protuberances had to compress air and thereby BURN ENERGY for no additional advantage in lift force production, acceleration on the lift vector, acceleration on the velocity vector, and top speed. Deceleration performance on the other hand should be stellar.

The 109, on the other hand, was cleaned up.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The drag cleanup work made an important contribution to the refinement of high-performance propeller-driven aircraft during World War II, and the gains resulting from the program often spelled the difference in performance between victory and defeat in the air. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The odd thing about the game appears to be a lack of deceleration performance associated with high drag and low density fighters as if they had high lift coefficients, low drag coefficients, and high density.

Where the early light, dirty, low power, and low density Spitfire should be the quickest at transitioning from fast to slow speed, apparently, it cannot. The early Spitfire maintains a considerably low power required or D/W ratio much like a smaller size, lower volume, better shaped, cleaner, higher density, and higher powered plane.

ploughman
03-28-2007, 05:06 PM
Josef, you're right the game doesn't seem to model drag correctly although I haven't really tested since 3.04m. Radiators (depends on the type) tend to incurr only a 30%-50% penalty over reality, but on the other hand I've never thought to check if the Meredith effect's modelled either on ducted radiator types.

If you think the Spit's bad, try the Zero.

JG14_Josf
03-28-2007, 08:41 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Josef, you're right the game doesn't seem to model drag correctly although I haven't really tested since 3.04m. Radiators (depends on the type) tend to incurr only a 30%-50% penalty over reality, but on the other hand I've never thought to check if the Meredith effect's modelled either on ducted radiator types.

If you think the Spit's bad, try the Zero. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ploughman,

If you have a method of measuring the accuracy of the drag force modeling (accurately) in the game, then, please consider posting that method.

I have a few methods including a simple side by side flight test to see which plane decelerates the fastest and an unloaded zoom and dive test where time elapsed is calculated against distance traveled with reference to gravitational acceleration (power off).

These are my results of the more complicated method:

http://mysite.verizon.net/res0l0yx/IL2Flugbuch/Square%20Pressure.jpg

I picked the Spitfire VB (1941) versus the Fw190A-4 match-up for the test because they are the closest match-up to the intensive tests done by the British when the Fw190A-3 fell into their hands.

http://mysite.verizon.net/res0l0yx/IL2Flugbuch/Anatamy%20of%20Drag%20Test.jpg

I can also do the test with the Spitfire versus the 109 or the Zero versus the A-20.

At least with the Fw190A-4 versus the Spitfire VB there exists something to compare the game results to the historical record.

The tests I did were made for an earlier patch.

I did not calculate anything other than total drag force in Newtons based upon the rate of declaration (distance and time) going up and the rate of acceleration going down.

While doing the test I documented the progress on another forum before being asked to leave that forum. I went to that forum from this forum to avoid the personal attacks. The plan didn't work well.

If you have any legitimate questions concerning my method, then, I can answer your questions accurately since my method has been recorded while the tests were done.

I would like to learn how you have managed to quantify the game's drag force modeling accurately.

M_Gunz
03-28-2007, 10:46 PM
So on the one hand we've got a clown that doesn't understand or even try to understand the
material he drags in saying that the FM is Wrong;

And on the other hand we have a TEAM of real world aerodynamicists putting out a best effort
considering the hardware and scope of simulation saying it is right to within 5% on particulars
which does leave the generalities much closer.

Idiots that can't work physics or math &lt;===== vs =====&gt; Trained professionals in aerodynamics.

WHINERS speaking out for other WHINERS &lt;===== vs =====&gt; Men dedicated to a realistic product.

Include Revisionists with Nationalistic Agendas (who quickly label others that do not agree as
Nation-X Haters) into the WHINERS group.

Point out where they are wrong and they switch topic. Later on they come back and repost the
same garbage as fact since to them the only real fact is their opinions. The rest is just
there to convince the credulous of what they want to believe anyway. Yes Dorothy, you were
only shot down because your favorite plane/nation/whatever-you-decide is being biased against!
HOW UNFAIR! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/bigtears.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/bigtears.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/bigtears.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/bigtears.gif

FluffyDucks2
03-29-2007, 02:32 AM
Do you guys not have real lives?????
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

msalama
03-29-2007, 02:53 AM
Well, what Gunz said. Real lives or not http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

joeap
03-29-2007, 03:00 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif for Gunz and msalama

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif for Fluffyducks...heading out for lunch.

Kurfurst__
03-29-2007, 03:33 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ratsack:
This is just wrong, Kurfurst. Firstly, Steinhoff himself discusses the difficulty in handling the engines at high alt and speed. The problems were real. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I wonder what he said exactly - as noted from the technical side we know the jet engines were automatically regulated in the 6000-8700 revulution regime, ie. in all flight conditions except spooling up for take-off, or gliding for landing, when care had to be applied with throttle movements. For general flight conditions, this did not apply.During automatic regulations, throttle could be handled as you pleased, as it would be overridden by the automaics anyway.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Secondly, Steinhoff also mentions the lack of air brakes in this connection. Again, the problem was real. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

An existing problem does not mean the aircraft is not ready for operation. P-38s were operating w/o airbrakes for years, it would be odd to argue they were not ready just because a desirable feature was not present.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The business about other early jets is irrelevant. I'm not comparing the 262 to other early jets. I'm arguing that the 262 was not ready. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'd judge that from it's combat record - the type scored some 700 aerial victories during it's rather short operational service, and was in fact that only actually employed jet figther of WW2 with noticable effect on the air war. That speaks strongly against a notion that because of some theoretical considerations, the type was 'not ready'. As a matter of fact, the Me 262's operational introduction, with all the initial, normal teething troubles was remarkably smooth compared to any WW2 fighter esp. when considering the technological leap it represented.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Kurfurst said:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Ratsack wrote:
Regarding the bit about the German high command being satisfied with the 109, that's just nonsense. The F series was supposed to be the last 109. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Err.. sounds like 100% pure hogwash to me. In any case, the 109F was almost finish before WW2 even started (before 1940). It had hardly anything to do how satisfied or unsatisfied the LW was with the 109 (besides I fail to see how and when were they dissatisfied). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Come on, Kurfurst, have a look at the production plans that Udet had in 1941. The ratio of 190s to 109s was going to be 2:1. He was going to phase out the 109. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have not seen this mentioned anywhere yet, where have you read it?
In any case, Lieferplan studies were altered and change zillion times, nor that does really fit in the fact that DB bothered to develop the DB 605 and Messerschmitt was also busy with the development of the Bf 109G before the FW 190 would make it's service debout. Starting a development of new model of 109, before the type that is supposed to replace it even enters service and could prove/disprove itself hardly fits together.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The near-failure of 190 in early 1941, and Udet's replacement by Milch, .put an end to all of that. The result of the rationalization was that the planned production ratio of 109s to 190s was reversed (imagine what that cost Milch, who hated Messerschmitt's guts!), and Messerschmitt had to develop the 109 further, and the 209 was delayed (fatally, as it turned out).

So to be clear, I am not saying they were 'dissatisfied' with the 109. I am rebutting the preposterous proposition that the Germans had no intention of replacing it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Of course they would sooner or later replace it! But there's some difference between a serious intention to replace a type, only thwarted because of pressing needs of the front, and continously making for alternate scripts, which is rather normal if you're a decisionmaker, to always have a 'Plan B'. If one just looks at engine development, one can see the Germans were parallel developing the DB628/DB605AS, the 109K w. DB605L/Ta152H w. Jumo213E for high altitude work, the Me262/He280 only to have 'two irons in the fire', have a backup plan and choose the best of the multiple options, espicially if one development path fails for whatever reason.

The 109 was not replaced simply because there was no real need to replace it. The only type that Messerschmitt factories would produce for a fighter instead was the Me 262 - it was not ready yet, the engines were just being developed, and barely just flown in 1942. The Me 209 simply did not offer any real improvement, it's troubles would need to be ironed out, and that work would be better spent on the 262 then. The FW 190 had teething problems up to 1942-43, and was never a type intended to replace the 109 in the first place, it was a substitute to the 109 which depended on the DB engine producing output, while the 190 could use radial BMWs engines instead. As far as operational effiency went, the statistic showed the Bf 109 required about 2/3 of the labour hours and resources, and lasted on avarage twice as long in the frontline (42/43 figures). Nor could the FW 190 really compete the Bf 109 at altitude, which was increasingly important. That was not only a question of engines, but the very fundamental fact that the bigger, heavier FW 190 airframe was less suited for high-altitude work on equal powerplant conditions. Of course the FW 190 had it's pluses in performance, but the thing is it could never be a full-value replacement of the 109 without giving up some potential in certain operational areas.

Simply to put, it could supplement it but not replace it. This was realised in the RLM, and the corresponding decision was made - what alternate plans did co-exist at the time are rather irrevelant IMHO. Did it cross their mind, amongst zillion other scenarious to replace the 109 with the 190? Or 209? Of course! Did they choose that way ? No. We can argue the reasons, but the way they choose is all that matters, but I tend to believe that generally, these rather well trained people probably knew what's good for them based on the information available to them (which is most likely more complete than what we have, even from a 20/20 hindsight).

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Kurfurst said:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Ratsack wrote:
What the Germans needed was not some bl00dy jet, but for Daimler Benz to pull their finger out in 1940-41 and get the flaming DB 603 running and fit for installation in single engine aircraft. The same goes for Junkers and their Jumo 213 series. It was these engines that the successors to the Bf 109 relied upon. The next version of the FW 190 would need them, as would the 209 and 309. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's unfair to blame it on DB oor Junkers, they had the DB 603 up and ready, actually working in operational aircraft like the Me 410 by early 1943. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Note the bit above in bold where I said 'fit for installation in single engine aircraft'. Neither of these engines was ready in a satisfactory form for a fighter, and certified for installation in single engined aircraft. Twins don't count in this race.. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Huh? Twin engines 'dont count'? Twin engine vs. single engine installation, what the heck is this? In what way the DB 603 was not fit for single engine fighter installation..? There's simply no technical limiation on an engine, nor a seperate 'certification' for single engined use. A DB 603A, with it's 1750 PS output was always the same engine, regardless wheter it was hung on the engine bearers of a twin engine or single engine figther. It was only up to the airframe designer to connect it to the airframe, design the coolant, lubricant etc. subsystems for it. It was fitted to production aircraft already at the start of 1943, and generally it realted to the DB 605 as the Griffon would relate to the Merlin - a bit longer, heavier, but otherwise very much the same dimensions. The engine was there, and provided it was available in numbers (I don't know about production rates), it would present no difficulty to bolt it into the end of either a single engined or twin engined fighter's nacelle.

Just to illustrate the point, the well-known 'Messerspit', the Spit V that was fitted with the DB 605A actually got a complete powerplant with cowling et co. from a twin-engine Me 110 - without any design effort spent. Some DB 605s that ended up in Bf 109s were running in their coupled form as DB 610s in He 177s before.

In short, it's simply not the case that there are separate 'twin-engine fighter' engines and 'single-engine fighter' engines. The diferencies were generally slight - different reduction gear ratio, different subsystems like starters, oil bath and such, nothing that is really presenting a problem.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">As the Mad Hatter said, 'Let's not be silly, now.' The airframe of the A-4 was Aluminium alloy. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

With Germany being the World's second largest Aluminium producer at the time, it's hardly seem to be a problem. In general, base resource materials such as steel and aluminium were hardly ever a problem for the Germans with their big industrial base.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The engine used the high grade steels needed in guns and turbines. The turbo pump used more of this steel, and then there was all the labour, a significant fraction of which had to be skilled, wasted making them. Every one of those luverly, flush-riveted and welded Alloy A-4 airframes represented an enormous loss of effort for the aero industry. Even Speer admitted this rocket was a blunder. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The problem is that despite these enourmous losses etc., by the time the A-4 was in production the aero industry was producing VAST amounts of aircraft, prompting a very generous, 'use once' attitude towards aircraft; they didn't even bother to repair airframes anymore by late 1944, they just dumped it and fetched a new one from the storage - that's quite illustrative IMHO. Far more were produced than the attrition or pilot training capacity, which were the real bottleneck (as well as fuel, the A-4 ). Diverting resources and producing just more aircraft instead of A-4s would mean no practical gain. Granted the A-4 had very limited effect, but one can argue the same about firebombings. The idea behind was somewhat similiar though, as the A-4 was at least an offensive weapon, a tool for hitting back and not just defending until the end inevitably comes, and the only possible way of going on offensive in the air given the overwhelming Allied superiority in numbers in the air. Apart from that, it would lead to a new technology that was from 20/20 hindsight the only possible way of stopping the Allied strategic campaign - with SAMs.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Kurf said:
Similiarly, just place Werner v Braun in front a drawing board, and tell him to design an aircraft. Being a rocket scientist, he may fail at that area. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I invoke the Mad Hatter again. Von Braun should've been instructed to design a useful SAM or air to air missile, instead of wasting his talent and Germany's resources on what was really just a first assay in the art of space launching. Either that, or he should've been shown the door (or an infantry uniform). The A-4 was worse than useless. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Err, he just did that what you purpose. The rocket program did not yield the one A-4 only. Understandibly the rocket tech had to be developed first to form a basis of a meaningful SAM. The Wasserfall SAM rocket that was at around trials-phase towards the end o the war was just that, an offspring of the A-4 body and propulusion, just modified. It's hard to argue that SAMs could be developed without developing a working rocket first (the A-4), or that SAMs would not be useful. But the conflict ended before the fruits of the preliminary research work could have been harvested.

Ratsack
03-29-2007, 07:07 AM
Kurfurst,

I can't be bothered with the quoting business. I'm just going to deal with the salient points of your post, and you can match them up yourself. You know what you wrote.

In relation to the plans to reduce Me 109 production in favour of the Focke-Wulf 190A, I made a mistake earlier going from memory. It was not Udet, but Milch who initially intended to increase Fw 190 production at the expense of the Me 109. And the ratio was not 2:1 in favour of the Fw 190, but 2.5:1. The reference is in David Irving, The Rise and Fall of the Luftwaffe: the life of Field Marshal Erhard Milch, (Parforce, UK, 2002 (1973)), p. 147. The text is end-noted, and the source cited is the stenographic record of Milch's speech to the Industrial Council of 18 Sep 1941, (MD: 53, pp. 1162ff). He then goes on to note the details of the new, revised production plan delivered at the RLM on 21 Oct 1941 to 200 representatives of the German aircraft industry:

One feature was very new: whereas the old ratio of Me 109s to Fw 190s had been four to one in Messerschmitt's favour, it was now three to one against.

This plan (in Irving, op cit, p. 151) was prepared by Udet's staff, and its subsequent revision – and the consequent humiliation of Udet himself - was one of the reasons for Udet's suicide.

In relation to the intention to replace the Me 109 with the Me 209:

By the spring of 1943 the Messerschmitt company was tooling up for production of the piston-engined Me 209, a successor to the Me 109 G, to be powered by the new Daimler-Benz 603 engine. As recently as the end of March, Milch's view had been that the company should concentrate on this and the Me 410, desperately needed for the war against Britain, and nothing else.

That indicates a very clear intention to replace the 109 (Irving, p. 244). The source cited in this instance is the notes of a conference between Milch and Goering on 18 March 1943. The worm didn't turn until after Galland flew the Me 262 in May. After receipt of Galland's report, Milch recommended the 209 be cancelled in favour of the 262.



Regarding the twin / single engine business, there is a difference. A motor certified for installation in single engine aircraft has to be more reliable, and therefore has to pass extra additional testing. Having an engine available for twin engine aircraft is not the same as having it ready for production installation in singles.

Secondly, the same basic motor might be used for different purposes with various modifications. These mods might, for instance, include supercharger gearing, different propellers and reduction gear, different supercharger types (mechanical or turbine driven, for example). In short, the engine suitable for a twin engine heavy fighter or bomb truck is unlikely to be suitable for a lightweight single like the 209, 309 or Ta 152.


In relation to the A-4, the bombardment rocket was von Braun's priority, because it was the closest thing to a space launcher that he could sell to Speer. A liquid-fueled rocket engine with non-storable propellants like liquid oxygen is grossly unsuitable as a SAM. The effort put into the bombardment rocket was wasted, as Speer himself attested.

Apart from the waste, the weapon had no application. With a range of about 400 km, a war load of one tonne, and a CEP of about 4 km it was far too inaccurate for tactical work, and too small and short-ranged for strategic work. Consider that it would have taken 5,000 A-4s fired in half an hour to achieve the same tonnage-on-target that the RAF could achieve in a single raid. And that's without considering reliability and accuracy. That's about as many A-4s as the Germans actually managed to fire during the entire war.

Incidentally, while researching the Me 209 I found this:

Had it [the A-4] it been designed with the specific object of destroying the basis for Milch's increased aircraft production, it could not have selected scarcer commodities. By the first months of 1944 it was to employ 200,000 skilled workers, consume a thousand tons of aluminium a month and tens of thousands of tons of liquid oxygen, pure alcohol and hydrogen peroxide; it would swamp the electronics and precision mechanisms industry with contracts and use up every available machine tool.

It seems Milch shared Speer's post-war view of the A-4.

The very simple facts are that the A-4 was an extremely expensive and hopelessly ineffective weapon that made no sense at all without nuclear or chemical weapons. It bears pointing out that in the former case, the A-4 was quite incapable of lifting any first-generation nuclear weapon. The A-4 is the very apotheosis of a weapon system that had no realistic chance of bearing fruit before the war was well and truly decided.

cheers,
Ratsack

Ratsack
03-29-2007, 08:20 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Whirlin_merlin:
I get very confused by the 109/Spitfire arguments.

Both were 'elegant' solutions to the engineering problem of how you make a fighter with 1930's materials and know how.
Neither plane was the 'perfect' solution and both had flaws, although it maybe more accurate to say compromises. Some of these they shared e.g fuel capacity and tricky undercarrage.
Each had it's strengths and weaknesses. Why do some only see the weaknesses?
History records that 109s downed spits and spits downed 109s, the decisive factors often being pilot skill and the situation (and luck?).

I concider myself to be a 'spitfire' fan, why?
Because my grandad used to put the bullets in 'em and because of what they represent. My nations 'finest' hour when it stood in the path of a regime of great wickedness and prevailed. This is no slight on Germans as a people and I know all about Stalin, so lets not go down that path please...

P.S no I'm not sure i spelt jingoistic right or used it in entirly the right context. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well said.

cheers,
Ratsack

PS - Yes, you did spell 'jingoistic' correctly, and you used it properly, and no, I don't believe that word accurately describes the sentiment you expressed.

luftluuver
03-31-2007, 08:40 AM
Looks like the truth was too much for someone to take, Ratsack. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

Xiolablu3
03-31-2007, 11:36 AM
I have alwyas read from German pilots biographies and other nationalities, that the ME109 was supposed to be phased out from 1943 and on, allowing for production of new more modern types, namely the FW190, and later the Me262.


However, just like the British found it hard to switch to producing SPitfire VIII's (this was supposed to be the next large scale production version), and ended up with thousands of MkIX's instead (Major retooling takes a long time and interupts production). - The Germans could not afford to lose numbers produced per month. The Russian front was getting into a dire situation, more and more planes were being lost on the Western Front and in Africa/Malta/Italy. Therefore large scale retooling could not be done all at once. It happened much more slowly so as not to interupt production.

Therefore the BF109 remained in large scale production longer than it was meant to. Also I gather there were other problems with producing the FW190 in large numbers? Maybe someone can tell us why.


From another point of view, however, you have to think that the Bf109 was the only German fighter capable of hi-altitude fighting, and it did this extremely well, so if they had phased out the 109, then which fighter would have taken over the high cover/intercepter role in late 1943, early 1944?

JG14_Josf
03-31-2007, 11:38 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Also I gather there were other problems with producing the FW190 in large numbers? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Aluminum overcast? (http://www.b17.org/)

Xiolablu3
03-31-2007, 11:42 AM
SOrry, I edited after you replied Josf.

With points about how useful the Me109 was as a hi-alt fighter, even late war.

fordfan25
03-31-2007, 12:15 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Manu-6S:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stalkervision:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by alert_1:
If the slats were that good, they would had been on Spitfire too http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

spits can go into nasty spins because they don't have slats.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

And they autorecover from the spin in 2 seconds because they don't have slats... mhmm... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>wow i thougt only the FW190s had that bug

stalkervision
03-31-2007, 01:32 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by fordfan25:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Manu-6S:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stalkervision:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by alert_1:
If the slats were that good, they would had been on Spitfire too http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

spits can go into nasty spins because they don't have slats.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

And they autorecover from the spin in 2 seconds because they don't have slats... mhmm... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>wow i thougt only the FW190s had that bug </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Apparently not..

The book "Fighter/ The True Story of the battle of Britain" by Len Deighton

"some of the spitfire were lost in spins so pilots were told to avoid this manoeuvre. The messerschmitt suffered no such vice;there was no problem getting out of a spin and it never went into a FLAT SPIN."

M_Gunz
03-31-2007, 02:09 PM
Well, there it is in black and white. The Final Word and all that.

JG4_Helofly
03-31-2007, 02:12 PM
Wow! The FW190 vs Spit thing is in nearly every post http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Hkuusela
03-31-2007, 04:11 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
Well, there it is in black and white. The Final Word and all that. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>That's a solid argument...
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/disagree.gif

stalkervision
03-31-2007, 04:59 PM
This is actually modeled in the game by maddox. Try "cross controlling" the ailerons and rudder in a turn with the spit and see what happens. Now try it with any 109..

JG14_Josf
03-31-2007, 05:24 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">SOrry, I edited after you replied Josf.

With points about how useful the Me109 was as a hi-alt fighter, even late war. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

NP X3,

As to service ceiling (a measure of altitude performance)

40,000 ft (http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=507)

38,500 ft (http://www.aviation-history.com/messerschmitt/bf109.html)

39,370 ft (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Me_109)

43,000 ft (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-47)

41,900 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-51)

48,550 ft (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ta-152)

41,000 ft (http://home.monet.no/%7Eoddbass/me109main.html)

41,000 ft (http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/spit9.html)

35,600 ft (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B-17_Flying_Fortress)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/8/89/Bomber_stream.jpg/240px-Bomber_stream.jpg

View from the Cockpit (http://www.amazon.com/Luftwaffe-Fighter-Force-View-Cockpit/dp/1853673277)

http://ec1.images-amazon.com/images/P/1853673277.01._BO2,204,203,200_PIlitb-dp-500-arrow,TopRight,45,-64_OU01_AA240_SH20_SCLZZZZZZZ_.jpg

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Summing Up
B. Planned Organizational Developments
The fear was that the Allied high altitude heavy bombers might begin to come in at a bombing altitude of 5000 feet higher than usual, which would have made all the German fighters very ineffective. This forced the introduction of the Tank Ta-152. It was planned to covert almost the whole conventional fighter force to this aircraft or the Me.109H for high altitude work. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Chapter 34
The Most Important Mistakes of the Luftwaffe as seen from the Standpoint of the German Fighter Force
By Generalleutnant Galland and Generalleutnant Schmid
At Latimer House, England, 23 October 1945

B. Mistakes in Development and Technical Equipment

3. In the effort to raise the production figures of items in series production, new developments were not forced into series models with the necessary pressure. Even the preparation for series production was somewhat neglected in the pressure to get new designs into series production quickly. In addition, there was a certain dangerous (and partly unwarranted) self-satisfaction at every new technical advance.

4. For this reason the Me.109 was not taken out of series production for years, although this was absolutely necessary on the basis of performance figures from 1943 on. Similarly the beginning of the new series of FW 190 and the Tank 152 was so delayed as to be almost ineffective.

5. Only after the end of 1943 was the lack of fighters recognized adn a program for greater series production set up. Until then, the monthly production figures were actually comical. The highest production point was reached nevertheless after the heavy damaging of the aircraft factories and synthetic oil plants. At this time our losses were so great that the increase of strength went far too sluggishly. Moreover, as a result of the loss of air superiority, ground attack units, reconnaissance units, and night fighter units needed to equip themselves with fighter aircraft.

6. A clear concentration of productive effort on fighters did not take place until mid-1944. the reason for this lay in the demands of the High Command for bombers.

7. An especially crass case of a great mistake in technical development is that of the series production of the Me.262. This theme has so often been discussed that there is no use going into it anymore.

9. Especially the following technical improvements were lacking for the Fighter Force in the various theaters of operation:

1941
Greater altitudes of maximum performance
FW 190
Methanol/Water, GM 1
Better supply of a/c

1942
Faster conversion to FW190 and less use of Me.109

1943
Increase in performance of Me.109 (As engines, use of Methanol/Water)
Replacement a/c for the Me.109 (Me.209, Me.309)
Increased performance for FW 190 (2000 HP engine with better altitude).
Series production of the FW 190 D (with inline engine).

1944
NO more Me.109's.
Running out of the FW 190 A series and replacement with the FW 190 D.
Series production of the Tank 152
Series production of the Me.262 as a fighter.

1945
Entire Messerschmitt production to be concentrated on Me.262 production
No more Me.109.
Ending of FW 190D production.
Entire Focke-Wulf productive capacity to be concentrated on Tank 152.

E. Mistakes in Strategy and in Operational Tactics

2. After 1942 the fighter force fought on all fronts against numerically superior forces. But on no front were the operations of the GAF and especially the fighter force primarily directed toward winning back air superiority. Instead of this, the operations of bombers, dive bombers, and ground attack units in the support of the army were supposed to be escorted by fighter forces using defensive measures.

3. The draining off of fighter forces from the Western Front in 1941 for the Russian offensive was bearable at most for a few months. For a longer duration, the air superiority passed first to the English and, from 1943, still more decisively to the Americans.

4. The building up of the Defense of the Reich against attacks by American four engine bomber missions failed from the beginning because of lack of forces. A timely withdrawal of forces from the east and from the south was never decided upon; instead individual Gruppen were transferred one by one. Thus we were always behind the strengthening of American forces, without once winning a lead position.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

37,400 ft (http://war.by-airforce.com/articles/FW-190.html)

35,600 ft (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B-17_Flying_Fortress)

Top Guns (http://www.amazon.com/Jg-26-Top-Guns-Luftwaffe/dp/0517570394)

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">A Slow Buildup
The year's (1943)first heavy bomber raid on the territory defended by JG 26 took place on 13 January. Seventy-two B-17s of the Eight Bomber Command's 1st Bomb Wing attacked the Fives locomotive works in Lille. While on the bomb run at 22,000 feet, the leading 305th Bomb Group was greeted by twenty to twenty-five Focke-wulf's from the First and Second Gruppen.
The fighters flew in line astern; each flight contained five or six aircraft. All attacks were made form dead ahead and on the same level as the bombers. Most fighters attacked singly, half-rolling into a split-S upon reaching the bomber formations. Only the 305th Group was attacked. Ten of its twenty-two Fortresses were damaged, some severely, but only one bomber failed to return to its base at Chelveston. That evening Pips Priller and his Kommandeur (Wutz Galland) critiqued the day's mission. Destruction of a higher percentage of the bombers was going to require improved tactics - and the debate as to just what these should be went on into the night.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

TheycallhimJosh
03-31-2007, 05:27 PM
quote:
Also I gather there were other problems with producing the FW190 in large numbers?

Laborers forced into the the Slavery of the Nazi Aircraft industry found a particular weakness with the BMW801,a few documented instances being recorded of valiant workers stuffing a flare deep in between the cylinders of the radial engine,hopefully causing fatal fires during critical moments.The acts of these brave people certainly contributed to slowing down their vast war machine.

K_Freddie
03-31-2007, 05:33 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TheycallhimJosh:
quote:
Also I gather there were other problems with producing the FW190 in large numbers?

Laborers forced into the the Slavery of the Nazi Aircraft industry found a particular weakness with the BMW801,a few documented instances being recorded of valiant workers stuffing a flare deep in between the cylinders of the radial engine,hopefully causing fatal fires during critical moments.The acts of these brave people certainly contributed to slowing down their vast war machine. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Brave indeed, but foolhardy if not impossible. I don't think for one second that a flare would not have been spotted by the ground crew. the germans were thorough in almost every aspect (this was used by the allies to their advantage) that a simple engine inspection would have detected this ?? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Ratsack
03-31-2007, 06:35 PM
Fw 190 A-4 Wk Nr 145555 of IV/JG1 flown by Lt Burath suffered 60% damage after crashing immediately after take off from Deelen on 11 Mar 1943. The crash was the result of sabotage, thought to be of one of those flares, wedged between the rear bottom cylinders of the engine.

cheers,
Ratsack

Ratsack
03-31-2007, 06:54 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
...Also I gather there were other problems with producing the FW190 in large numbers? Maybe someone can tell us why. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm not aware of any particular problems with mass production of the Fw 190. Please note, this is not to say that there weren't any, but just to say I've not ever heard of such. Happy to be corrected.

By 'particular problems' I mean things like the size of the single curved panel that formed the leading edge of the Spit's wing. This caused Supermarine some initial problems because their factory at Southhampton didn't have a machine press with a platten sufficiently large to press this panel, so they had to subcontract that job. The Mitsubishi had problems with mass production of the A6M because the fuselage centre section and main wing spar were fabricated as a single unit. This didn't lend itself to conventional production line methods.

I'm not aware of anything along these lines with the Fw 190.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
From another point of view, however, you have to think that the Bf109 was the only German fighter capable of hi-altitude fighting, and it did this extremely well, so if they had phased out the 109, then which fighter would have taken over the high cover/intercepter role in late 1943, early 1944? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This was the point I was making in my earlier post - to which Kurfurst responded - about the need for the RLM to have whipped the entire aircraft industry into line by late 1940. If they had, they could have had the Me 209 or the Fw 190 D in early to mid 1943. Their failure to pull the designers and aero engine manufacturers into line with a sensible production plan meant the entire sector was in chaos by the end of 1941.

Dispersion of effort and resources was chronic. To take a single example, in mid 1941 there were 20 projects underway for new combat types. Messerschmitt was involved in ELEVEN of them. Bear in mind that Messerschmitt was the firm that was meant to be:

1. upgrading the Me 109;
2. replacing the Me 110 with the 210; and
3. getting the Me 209 into production.

All three of these tasks above were of the highest possible importance for the Luftwaffe. And yet Messerschmitt was engaged in a whole raft of other activities that dispersed and dissipated the company's design and production resources.

The RLM needed to get Messerschmitt and Heinkel and Junkers and the others committed to a sensible development and production plan and then stick to it themselves AND MAKE THE INDUSTRY STICK TO IT. But they didn't. This dilatory management of the planning for the air arm would not have been tolerated in Britain or the United States.


cheers,
Ratsack

K_Freddie
03-31-2007, 07:12 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ratsack:
...., thought to be ....
cheers,
Ratsack </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You know the rule of courts... 'maybe' doesn't count.
cheers
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Ratsack
03-31-2007, 07:13 PM
Pfffttt!!

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Ratsack

Nimits
03-31-2007, 08:08 PM
It always amazes me that people who seem to have a decent comprehension of aerodynamics and math have so much free time to spend posting on gaming forums . . .