PDA

View Full Version : Sick of 109 jacked up turn performance



RepublicofTexas
12-02-2004, 02:46 PM
according to what i have researched the 109G2 should outturn the early model spits in a SLOW turn, this only ends up with the 109 stalling. the 109 had forward stall slats which should help to prevent this, it does not. just got out of HL and my 109G2 was thouroughly outperformed by a p40 in a circling loop. my 109 stalled (with full flaps) repeatedly while the p40 kept on goin. enlighten me please.

crazyivan1970
12-02-2004, 02:54 PM
Never use full flaps in 109 mate... combat flaps tops. And work your throttle. Also, push the nose down, 109s like it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

k5054
12-02-2004, 02:56 PM
The 109 had a higher wing loading and stall speed than those a/c. It's probably going to stall first at any given g. It's also likely to lose speed faster in a turn and thus end up in a stall sooner than aircraft whicvh don't lose speed so fast. Using flap will make this worse by increasing both form and induced drag.
Anecdotal evidence even from german sources usually states that 109 pilots did not expect to turn fight with Spits and P-40s. Marseille is an exception, he seems to have perfected a yo-yo technique which even his own wingmates did not understand, or maybe they could not use it because the fleeting shot opportunities were no good if you couldn't shoot like Marseille.

Enofinu
12-02-2004, 03:07 PM
and snap shot was enought for marseille to get kill with 20mm cannon, try that in this game http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

What makes me wonder is that much heavier planes with less horsepower per weight/wing area etc are capable to out loop 109 which have MUCH more HP/weight than those planes, like P39 P40, how is it possible? i could understand if P40 outturns 109 vertically, but in horizontally too, that what i fid wrong .(

carguy_
12-02-2004, 03:25 PM
AFAIK the 109 is better @low speed turn than the spit and many other aircraft because it regains energy very fast.You should learn to use great stall and acceleration characteristics of the Me109.

berg417448
12-02-2004, 03:33 PM
Copy: Hal Boyles story on the ME-109. (Associated Press) 30 May 1943

"U.S. Army ME-109"

That sign- enough to make Nazi Luftwaffe pilot grit teeth in rage €" is painted on cockpit captured new model Messerschmitt which one P-40 group already using for practice flights to teach American aviators best way to capitalize on enemy weakness.

German plane painted olive drab and American star replaced swastika so overanxious anti-aircraft units won€t take it for clay pigeon.

Latest type Nazi pursuit ship sighted in wheat field twenty miles north Tunis last week by Major Robert L. Baseler of Philadelphia, Penna., and Columbia Lake, Conn., group operations officer during bombing mission.

"It appeared in good shape and we learned later that German pilot had been wounded in combat and died after landing ship in field," said Baseler. "We dropped down and looked it over and British commander of nearby field gave us permission to take it along. We removed wings and trucked it to our field where our enlisted men did a wonderful job putting it in shape. We got extra spare parts to fix it from German air corps supply we found."

Baseler who himself shot down one ME-109 and Macchi 202 in last two months, was first to test the captured fighter and said it performed well but he preferred fly own P-40.

"I am almost six feet three inches tall and I have to fold up like a pretzel to get in Messerschmitt. Besides it has poor visibility. I have lot more room in my P-40."

"But it is a very good plane. It handled fine, has world of speed and pep and climbs like a homesick angel. It really skates and is a good ship to get out of tight spot in a hurry. It is faster and climbs quicker than P-40 but doesn€t turn nearly as well €" but it flies like a top."

Baseler said the Messerschmitt had been put through other comparative tests and be used to simulate enemy attacks to give pilots on home base idea what to expect on missions.

"When this bounces down from the clouds at them, our boys learn more in two minutes than they could from hundred silhouette lectures. Besides it gives us chance to demonstrate in flight the weaknesses of this type enemy fighter craft, and it definitely has weaknesses. It doesn€t stack up with new Spitfires."

The captured Messerschmitt has to be grounded temporarily when wheels stuck during one test flight. Captain Robert W. Myere, Holden W.V., brought it down to perfect belly landing which caused no damage except bent prop.

"It will be ready to go up again tomorrow," said Baseler.

stathem
12-02-2004, 05:41 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Enofinu:
and snap shot was enought for marseille to get kill with 20mm cannon, try that in this game http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

What makes me wonder is that much heavier planes with less horsepower per weight/wing area etc are capable to out loop 109 which have MUCH more HP/weight than those planes, like P39 P40, how is it possible? i could understand if P40 outturns 109 vertically, but in horizontally too, that what i fid wrong .( <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Marseille didn't like to use his cannon...... reckoned the 7.92mm were enough, and who are we to argue?

Chuck_Older
12-02-2004, 05:46 PM
Marseille had quite a reputation. Did you know, that one aircraft he actually flew in combat, an Emil, was recovered from Russia and restored a while back? Somebody else was flying when it was lost, obviously, but a magnificent restoration, using Bayerische Flugzuegwerke's techiniques, involving manufacture of specialty tooling

stathem
12-02-2004, 05:54 PM
Is that the one from the lake that's reputed to be for sale? I didn't know it was ex-Marseille, but there are quite a few turning up in Russia now I understand.

berg417448
12-02-2004, 06:04 PM
Here is that 109E:

http://www.walruscarpenter.com/bf109e.html

Chuck_Older
12-02-2004, 06:05 PM
No, I think this aircraft was not lost in water.

The restored aircraft is known by it's werke number '3579' if I recall. It was up for sale a few years back. Charlie Brown did the post restoration flight and praised it as the high point of his flying career, he said is was truly 'hands off' right from the start. The articles ran in Warbirds Worldwide, I have the back issues here someplace but I am quite lazy at the moment

All I recall really from the recovery is that the plane was in at least 3 pieces: nose, fuselage/one wing, and wing. Slighlty corroded if I recall the pic, I'm almost positive this was recovered on land. This was 10 years ago at least when it was recovered

Chuck_Older
12-02-2004, 06:06 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by berg417448:
Here is that 109E:

http://www.walruscarpenter.com/bf109e.html <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

YES! that is 3579 exactly. Thanks for the link

SeaFireLIV
12-02-2004, 07:21 PM
wow! I never knew that.

LeadSpitter_
12-02-2004, 08:29 PM
planes that had a tighter turn radius then the 109g2

cw21b
p40b c e m f
hawk81
p36
h75
spit5
hurricane.

In game its the opposite the 109g2 will outturn anything allied british or american with exception of bi planes.

I suggest you use all 100 inputs for all settings which makes a hell of a difference and often causes these problems how did i get out turned meanwhile someone has slowed inputs 10 20 30 40 50----100 etc.

even the 109g6 low speed is able to out turn all us and british counterparts now. Its high speed turn ability has also been increased greatly and allow stick yanking which can snap the wings off. You commonly hear whines of it online with the 190ds and late 109s becuase they are not use to it happening like people who fly all aircraft.

try using all 100 inputs it takes time to get use to it but you will find yourself out turning most people.

Also are you using trim on roatary sliders. You cant really judge by being out turned once by someone online.

RedDeth
12-02-2004, 08:41 PM
Marseille didnt need the cannons. he would get his kills FIRING 3 to 5 bullets from machine guns. NOT hits just 3 to 5 bullets fired would bring down planes. he was one in a billion.

they have proof of him firing 7 bullets only and getting 2 kills. he was inhuman. too bad ...or good for the allies that he died when parachuting out of a malfunctioning 109.

Marseilles got his 158 or so kills before erich hartman got his first kill. by wars end Marseille would have easily had over 900 kills.

WUAF_Badsight
12-02-2004, 09:04 PM
if you stay at high speed you wont out-turn much in a Bf109

but as speeds slow & you use flaps , you will find that , the Bf109 , like most other fighters in FB , has overboosted turning ability as compared to Real Life

WUAF_Badsight
12-02-2004, 09:09 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by carguy_:
AFAIK the 109 is better @low speed turn than the spit and many other aircraft because it regains energy very fast.You should learn to use great stall and acceleration characteristics of the Me109. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
no Me109 ever out-turned its same year Spitfire

no Me-109 could perform turns as fast as a Spitfire

in-game we should see the Me-109 being close to the Spitfire , but not as good

WTE_Galway
12-02-2004, 09:39 PM
do bare in mind the recommended LW technique for low and medium turns in early 109's (like the Emil) was an oval shape alternately opening and closing the slats resulting in a much tighter overall turn than a simple circle

have no idea if this technique works in game

Salfordian
12-03-2004, 03:18 AM
Flaps increase the camber of the aerofoil section increasing lift, but increased camber promotes separation, leading to a much lower stalling angle of attack, so don't use to much flaps in a turn

MEGILE
12-03-2004, 03:44 AM
Interesting thread!

Also, great signature Badsight.. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Holtzauge
12-03-2004, 10:11 AM
I also always thought that it would be madness to try and turn with a spit in an Emil. However, I have found the following quote from the "experte" Erwin Leykauf:

"Indeed many fresh pilots thought they were pulling very tight turns even when the slots were still closed against the wing. For us, the more experienced pilots, real manouvering only started when the slots were out. For this reason it is possible to find pilots from the period (1940) who will tell you that the Spitfite turned better than the Bf 109. That is not true. I myself had may dogfights with Spitfires and I could always out-turn them.

One had to enter the turn correctly, then open up with the engine. It was a matter of feel. Whem one noticed the speed becoming critical- the aircraft vibrated- one had to ease up a bit, then pull back again, so that in plan the best turn would have looked like an egg or a horizontal ellipse rather tha a circle. In this way one could out-turn the Spitfire-and I shot down 6 of them doing it. This advantage to the Bf 109 soon changed when improved Spitfires wrer delivered"

Now 6 spits downed seems to prove the point although I must say that before I saw this quote I would (by comparing the wide discrepancy in wing laoding) have said that it's not possible.

Some personal reflections:

Wing loading is not the sole factor govering turn rate. The turn rate is dependant on the lift coefficient you can coax out of the plane. This in turn is dependant on the wing loading, the Clmax that the wing will yield (the slots on the Emil will improve this by allowing higher angle of attack) and on how close to the envelope the pilots dares to push it. Now the wing design on the Emil incorporates a twist (washout) to improve the induced drag characteristics. This has the added benefit that a stall will begin at the wing root while lateral stability is maintained. The slots also improve the control characteristics by keeping the flow attached over the alilerons. A spit on the other hand gets the elliptical wing loading by the wing plan form and the stall will be harsh and probably lead to a departure in the rolling plane. So it is probably easier to fly the Bf 109 close to the stall than the Spit (I'm talking about g-stall here) and therefore an Emil driver probably can coax more out of the plane which by all accounts the "experte" above is obviously doing.

So maybe there is some truth to a good turning Emil after all. However, I guess the spit turning advantage legend comes from average pilot experiences and the procedure Herr Levkauf outlines above seems like real "experte" stuff to me.


In a tight spot I would still stick to the Emils strong points, a speed advantage let's you rule the scene. Attack or disengage. A climb advantage let's you build up energy faster than your opponent. A dive advantage also let's you disengae at will.

So in my book I'd say the Bf 109 is a better mount than the spit.

So let the spits go round and round. Turning in circles never won any battles.....



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Badsight:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by carguy_:
AFAIK the 109 is better @low speed turn than the spit and many other aircraft because it regains energy very fast.You should learn to use great stall and acceleration characteristics of the Me109. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
no Me109 ever out-turned its same year Spitfire

no Me-109 could perform turns as fast as a Spitfire

in-game we should see the Me-109 being close to the Spitfire , but not as good <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

stathem
12-03-2004, 11:20 AM
Would you try to turn with a Spit 1 in an Emil?

stathem
12-03-2004, 11:28 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Now 6 spits downed seems to prove the point although I must say that before I saw this quote I would (by comparing the wide discrepancy in wing laoding) have said that it's not possible.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Very good, and understandable. But what would have happened if he'd tried it on Bob Doe, or Malan, or Bader? (who could pull higher G 'cos he had no legs[rumor has it]).

WUAF_Badsight
12-03-2004, 12:29 PM
yes its true

the Spitfire mk1 was the lightest 9didnt have the best power-loading)

the turning ability between those two planes was so close that it was too close to call

my money would have been on the spitfire tho (just)

but especially afte Mk motorkannon were added to the Bf109,s , did they get a lot heavier

its a myth too that the bf109,s got heavy elevators at the speeds they do in FB , was approaching 400 Mph , not Kmh like it is in FB

& it was mainly a Emil series trait , not so noticed on the freds & gustavs

but it was the Emil versus the mk1 Spitfire that it was at its closest between those two , after that it got more in the Spitfires favour

Holtzauge
12-03-2004, 12:57 PM
No, I would not try to turn with a spit. If we exclude any wingmen and look on a one-one scenario I would do the following:

If I had an energy advantage (speed or altitude)I would use energy tactics and go up and down (BnZ)and get deflection shots off at him while he turns.

If I have energy parity or a slight disadvantage I will use my superior speed and dive characteristics and extend away (if the spit is to high above then I'm fried). When I have gained enough separation I use the Emils superior climb to stay out of reach and build up a height advantage. I can then return and beat the spit with my superior energy status.

By doing this I will always gain an altitude advantage that I can trade for speed and just BnZ until I get some decent hits and the spit goes down.

I just do not see it coming together for a spit driver: Now if I sit in the spit, how will I turn myself into a shooting position unlees I am dealing with an exceptionaly dumb Emil driver that chooses to slow down and fight a turning battle?

So I think the legend about the spit superiority is false. The spit can only hope that the Emil disengages and leaves him alone or is conned into a turning battle. So putting two roughly equal pilots in the planes, the Emil driver should win if he just adheres to the right tactics.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by stathem:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Now 6 spits downed seems to prove the point although I must say that before I saw this quote I would (by comparing the wide discrepancy in wing laoding) have said that it's not possible.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Very good, and understandable. But what would have happened if he'd tried it on Bob Doe, or Malan, or Bader? (who could pull higher G 'cos he had no legs[rumor has it]). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wallstein
12-03-2004, 01:12 PM
To the original post:

I`m not sure if anybody above wrote about this, but here it comes: Go to low speeds, flaps max in combat position and then, the most important thing, USE THE MANUAL PROP PITCH.

In order to increase your ability to turn to the fullest, you need to learn how to run the engine at high rp/s (usually max 2900 rp/s or so) without burning your engine. You simply have to invest some time to get familiar with the manual prop pitch wether it should be 75%-95%.

Throttle 45%-75%, prop pitch 75%-95% and your airspeed something like 200-240km/h. Usually the max rp/s for the engine is about 2800rp/s. You can run it faster, 2900 rp/s for a short time and you can go as high as 3000 rp/s for some seconds, but the nyou need to cool down your engine. This may look complex, but it is not that bad.

For myself the hardest part of this have been mapping the keys on keyboard and joystick. I have tried many ways and I`m not yet satisfied.

So basic idea in using the manual prop pitch for to increase ability to turn is, if I can explain this in english, is to let your propeller run faster than what it would do with manual prop pitch. This faster running causes higher engine running and that is why pilot has to be carefull with engine overheating.

Have fun
Wallstein

k5054
12-03-2004, 01:51 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> `m not sure if anybody above wrote about this, but here it comes: Go to low speeds, flaps max in combat position and then, the most important thing, USE THE MANUAL PROP PITCH.

In order to increase your ability to turn to the fullest, you need to learn how to run the engine at high rp/s (usually max 2900 rp/s or so) without burning your engine. You simply have to invest some time to get familiar with the manual prop pitch wether it should be 75%-95%. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And what was the max rpm limit of the db601? This is just a gamey trick, it bears no relation to real life, and if tried in a real Emil would blow up your engine in a flash.

I'm still waiting to hear what source gives the Emil anywhere near as good a turn as the Spit 1. Certainly not any allied flight test. There are copious diagrams and SEP charts at fourthfightergroup, all showing the same thing, eg the spit could pull 4g at 200mph, the 109 needed 250mph.
I don't think its a given in a Emil/Spit fight that the 109 would have a speed advantage. It depends on altitude and which model of 109. It's certain that no 109 ever met a spit which didn't have 100 octane fuel and +12 boost.

WUAF_Badsight
12-03-2004, 01:59 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by k5054:

I'm still waiting to hear what source gives the Emil anywhere near as good a turn as the Spit 1. Certainly not any allied flight test. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
i havent seen a allied test where they flew the thing properly

the slats jumping out were described as "embarassing"

berg417448
12-03-2004, 02:13 PM
Here is some more fuel for the fire that I found on a web site:

MANOEUVRABILITY
€œA Spitfire pilot will tell you the Spit could turn inside the 109. Some Messerschmitt pilots are adamant the 109 could turn inside the Spitfire! Both designs were capable of turning circles that would cause the pilot to "black-out" as the blood drained from the head. The pilot who could force himself to the limits without losing consciousness would emerge the victor from a turning battle, and the Spitfire pilots had supreme faith in their machine. The British popular press (and even one broadcast by the BBC early in the war) told them that the wings came off the 109 in a dive or in tight turns, untrue but possibly based on some early wing failures in the 109's predecessor the Bf108. British designers and aeronautical pundits also found the Bf109's wing structure somewhat strange, with only two attachments between the wing and fuselage and their suspicions that this might prove fragile in combat probably influenced the popular press comments.
The Spitfire had a lower wing loading than the Bf 109 and this would normally give the better turning circle. However the 109 had help with its leading edge slats which gave a lower stalling speed, and thus was able to turn tighter than a simple comparison of wing areas might suggest. The 109 was very forgiving if stalled, with little tendency for a stall to develop into an uncontrollable spin, something that could easily happen to a Spitfire, although the Spitfire gave its pilot plenty of warning that he was approaching a stall due to the slight twist in the wing known as "wash-out". It is this "wash-out" which probably holds the key to the Spitfire's success. Because of the twist to the wings the stall (break up in airflow over the wing) would develop first near the fuselage rather than at the tip as on most conventional "straight" wings. This manifests itself as a feedback to the pilot through the controls and the airframe, in effect the Spitfire "talks" to the pilot and tells him he must ease back on the stick to avoid stalling completely. Because the airflow at the tips of the wings (where the control surfaces are) is still stable the controls are still effective. in a tight combat turn with minimum turning circle the aircraft is always on the edge of stalling, the feedback the Spitfire gave its pilot is probably the crucial factor in a turning battle.
There is more than one account by German wartime fighter pilots that seem to suggest that many Luftwaffe novices did not use the turning performance of the 109 to the full. They seem to have regarded the point at which the automatic slats popped out as being a warning to ease back. Only more experienced pilots pushed the Bf109 to its limits. The way the slats operated could itself be a problem, causing the Bf109 to "buck" and throw off the aim of the Bf109 pilot, perhaps at the critical moment.€


More at:

http://freespace.virgin.net/john.dell/spitcom.htm

k5054
12-03-2004, 02:21 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>i havent seen a allied test where they flew the thing properly <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think you had to pull it through the slat opening part into the definitely deployed part of the envelope. I think 109 pilots who turn-fought at all did this automatically. However, where are the german tests? What does the 109 manual say about stall speeds? Don't german tests of spit and hurry all say they could turn better than the 109? The Brit test mentions the spit turning comfortably while the 109 is effectively stalled, slats out. how much harder did you want them to fly it? Where is the slightest bit of evidence to say the 109 was anywhere near as good a level turner as a contemporary spit? By all means treat the allied tests with scepticism, but what other info is there, except pilot stories, of which we have plenty on both sides?

Holtzauge
12-04-2004, 03:41 AM
I think this source has the facts mixed up.

Without knowing the details of how the spit was actually built I can say the follwing in general terms:

As a wing designer, you will try to attain a high "elliptical factor" in order to keep the induced drag down. There are two ways to do this:

1) Make the wing in itself elliptical. This will give the desired lift distribution.

2) If you go for a straight or trapezoidal wing design (Me 109)then you twist the wing so that as you go out from the root the angle of attack is reduced. This also gives an roughly eliptical wing loading.

The problem with both designs is that the elliptical wing loading will only be attained for a certain angle of attack (the choosen design point Cl). At any other wing load (Cl) the elliptical factor will go down from the ideal factor 1.

However, the wing twist which is used on the Emil has the added benefit of more benevolent stall characteristics. As an added benefit you have the slats which will increase this effect leading to a retension of lateral control as the stall progresses.

Now the spit design on the other hand would by applying twist to the wing depart fron the elliptical wing load and worsen the induced drag factor. Mayby they did this, but the performance loss would have been prohibitive if you applied as much as for other wing planforms. I still belive you would lose lateral control and get a departure earlier in the spit.

So I still think you would be able to push the envelope further in the Emil.

However, from my perspective I would hesitate to say that it would be advisable to turn with the spit. Why fight in the part of the envelope where you have roughly parity. Why not use the Emils obvious advantages in all other respects, engage/disengae at will, use energy tactics.

I still say the Emil is a better mount.

To sum up: I do not know which RAF fighter jock said this but when the brass tried to cheer up the guys by pointing put the spits turn characteristics he said:

"Turning never won any battles..."

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by berg417448:
Here is some more fuel for the fire that I found on a web site:

MANOEUVRABILITY
€œA Spitfire pilot will tell you the Spit could turn inside the 109. Some Messerschmitt pilots are adamant the 109 could turn inside the Spitfire! Both designs were capable of turning circles that would cause the pilot to "black-out" as the blood drained from the head. The pilot who could force himself to the limits without losing consciousness would emerge the victor from a turning battle, and the Spitfire pilots had supreme faith in their machine. The British popular press (and even one broadcast by the BBC early in the war) told them that the wings came off the 109 in a dive or in tight turns, untrue but possibly based on some early wing failures in the 109's predecessor the Bf108. British designers and aeronautical pundits also found the Bf109's wing structure somewhat strange, with only two attachments between the wing and fuselage and their suspicions that this might prove fragile in combat probably influenced the popular press comments.
The Spitfire had a lower wing loading than the Bf 109 and this would normally give the better turning circle. However the 109 had help with its leading edge slats which gave a lower stalling speed, and thus was able to turn tighter than a simple comparison of wing areas might suggest. The 109 was very forgiving if stalled, with little tendency for a stall to develop into an uncontrollable spin, something that could easily happen to a Spitfire, although the Spitfire gave its pilot plenty of warning that he was approaching a stall due to the slight twist in the wing known as "wash-out". It is this "wash-out" which probably holds the key to the Spitfire's success. Because of the twist to the wings the stall (break up in airflow over the wing) would develop first near the fuselage rather than at the tip as on most conventional "straight" wings. This manifests itself as a feedback to the pilot through the controls and the airframe, in effect the Spitfire "talks" to the pilot and tells him he must ease back on the stick to avoid stalling completely. Because the airflow at the tips of the wings (where the control surfaces are) is still stable the controls are still effective. in a tight combat turn with minimum turning circle the aircraft is always on the edge of stalling, the feedback the Spitfire gave its pilot is probably the crucial factor in a turning battle.
There is more than one account by German wartime fighter pilots that seem to suggest that many Luftwaffe novices did not use the turning performance of the 109 to the full. They seem to have regarded the point at which the automatic slats popped out as being a warning to ease back. Only more experienced pilots pushed the Bf109 to its limits. The way the slats operated could itself be a problem, causing the Bf109 to "buck" and throw off the aim of the Bf109 pilot, perhaps at the critical moment.€


More at:

http://freespace.virgin.net/john.dell/spitcom.htm <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

k5054
12-04-2004, 06:03 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>However, the wing twist which is used on the Emil has the added benefit of more benevolent stall characteristics. As an added benefit you have the slats which will increase this effect leading to a retension of lateral control as the stall progresses. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The wing twist on the Emil cannot be right for slats in and slats out. In fact when the slats are out the lift distribution is really messed up, with parts of the wing operating at 1.8 cl and parts at 1.4, next to each other with vortices and spanwise flow all over the place.
This doesn't matter in the least in the landing pattern, which is the point of the high-lift devices, to allow a small wing and still get slow-speed handling, but it does make for a worse compromise in a high-g turn. I'd think slats-out turning in a 109 would be for short-term angles, not recommended for long periods. Like the Leykauf example. In such a turn having 18 deg of AOA might enable a sighting solution for a while even on a better-turning opponent. I think that's what Marseille did. But in general to go into the furball with a worse -turning a/c is not a good idea, it lays you open to anybody you haven't seen. Similarly our hypothetical spitfire should only turn long enough to out-turn the enemy, then find some other method to regain the initiative.

Aaron_GT
12-04-2004, 06:43 AM
It is unlikely that any wing bending was done on the 109B in 1935 given that the prototype 109B didn't fly until November 1936 and didn't enter service officially until 1937 (a prototype was sent to the Condor Legion in December 1936, followed by two more in the new year, though).

Holtzauge
12-04-2004, 09:44 AM
Good point about the slats messing up the spanwise lift distribution!

This would definitely mean a lot of drag and might be useful if you know you are alone with the target and that he has no wingman that can catch you with a low energy status if you go into a hard instantaeneous turn (where the speed bleeds quickly)in order to line up the Spit.

Also we need to look at the difference between instantaneous turn rate and sustained turn rate. Pulling the slats out will improve the instantaneous turn rate but will wreak havoc with your sustained turn rate. That's probably why Leykauf decribes the egg shaped turn to nail the Spits he shot down. You need to unload the wing now and then to accelerate again.

I agree that the Spit should not continue turning once he is out of the line of fire, but if the Emil has better acceleration, better climb and a diving advantage how should a Spitfire attain a superior position if we assume roughly same altitude same speed for both planes?

What else can he do but hope to sucker the Emil into a turning fight?

Based on your good point about the messed up lift distribution, I think the conclusion is that the Spitfire can outturn the Emil in a sustained turn rate battle if he can keep out of range if the Emil goes for a one shot instantaneous turn to get a shot of. If the Emil messes this up he is fried because of his lower energy status.

Conclusion: Spit and Emil might have parity in instantaneous turns but the Spit will handily out-turn the Emil in a sustained turn where the speed is kept roughly constant during the turning battle.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by k5054:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>However, the wing twist which is used on the Emil has the added benefit of more benevolent stall characteristics. As an added benefit you have the slats which will increase this effect leading to a retension of lateral control as the stall progresses. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The wing twist on the Emil cannot be right for slats in and slats out. In fact when the slats are out the lift distribution is really messed up, with parts of the wing operating at 1.8 cl and parts at 1.4, next to each other with vortices and spanwise flow all over the place.
This doesn't matter in the least in the landing pattern, which is the point of the high-lift devices, to allow a small wing and still get slow-speed handling, but it does make for a worse compromise in a high-g turn. I'd think slats-out turning in a 109 would be for short-term angles, not recommended for long periods. Like the Leykauf example. In such a turn having 18 deg of AOA might enable a sighting solution for a while even on a better-turning opponent. I think that's what Marseille did. But in general to go into the furball with a worse -turning a/c is not a good idea, it lays you open to anybody you haven't seen. Similarly our hypothetical spitfire should only turn long enough to out-turn the enemy, then find some other method to regain the initiative. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Jumoschwanz
12-04-2004, 04:29 PM
To Texas:

The P40 would always outurn the 109 in this sim. I have read the P40 would outurn the 109 in real life too. It certainly has better roll rate and elevator response. I never tried to turn with the p40 in this sim unless I was in another p40 or a zero or some other turning son-of-a-B.

Only time I try and turn with anything in the 109 is if it is of neccesity becuase I got my dumb a$$ in a tight spot, or I am against a known crappier turning plane.

I have flown the P40 series a lot online and I think the only thing that will outurn one is a Ki-43 or I-153 or something similiar. I have shot down every Japanese aircraft in a turn fight with the P40, they could not shake me. Add to that the pray and spray fifties and the darn thing is tough to beat.

The 109 series have handled wonderfully since AEP. All the planes Flight models are closer than ever in this sim. In some earlier patches of FB the 109 would not turn with anything, and no one flew them at all except those willing to adopt zoom and boom techniques.

The 109 is unique. You can turn with two thirds or more of the other aircraft at low speeds, but not well enough to make turning your main bag of tricks. Same with zoom and boom, the 109 elevator is so bad at high speed you can't use this technique exclusively either. This is a plane you have to fly a lot to learn it and develop fighting tactics that will work with it's quirky abilities. It has always been my #1 ride though, just becuase I like the way it looks, and I always root for the underdog. S!

Jumoschwanz

WTE_Galway
12-04-2004, 09:31 PM
with regard to the allied tests

there is ample evidence that the allied test pilots regarded the slats opening and clsoing as a FAULT often complaining about slats banging open and closed at "inopportune" times yet the quote by Holtzauge show that for the LW pilots manipulating the slats were essential to a tight turn in an Emil

Copperhead310th
12-05-2004, 01:00 AM
in this sim...

the p-40 is a much more manuverable aircraft.
it SHOULD out turn the 109G. the problem is you're not using you other strengths to your advantage..like top speed, higher exceleration, better climb rate ect. if your doing T&B with a P-40E, E-M105, or M down in the dirt you just asking to get smoked like a country ham. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Fehler
12-05-2004, 01:54 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Copperhead310th:
in this sim...

you just asking to get smoked like a country ham. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You ARE a redneck! ROFL!!

Copperhead310th
12-05-2004, 02:30 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fehler:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Copperhead310th:
in this sim...

you just asking to get smoked like a country ham. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You ARE a redneck! ROFL!! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ahh stuff it Fehler..you're from Texas you'er just about as redneck as every other southerner! lol

Now! Slowly put down the Doughnut and back away from the couter......