PDA

View Full Version : Oleg - 109 concrete elevator = myth !



XyZspineZyX
11-20-2003, 04:46 PM
there is not a single reliable test or pilot account to support this - just some allied pilots with no knowledge of how to fly a 109 - post ONE account from a german 109 pilot complaining about a concrete 109 elevator. no - you can't.

what utter BS this is - i can live with it though cuz i seldom turn hard - but this is just so much BS it hurts.

"the one and only MIG1 whiner"



Message Edited on 11/20/03 03:49PM by johann_thor

Message Edited on 11/20/0306:05PM by johann_thor

XyZspineZyX
11-20-2003, 04:46 PM
there is not a single reliable test or pilot account to support this - just some allied pilots with no knowledge of how to fly a 109 - post ONE account from a german 109 pilot complaining about a concrete 109 elevator. no - you can't.

what utter BS this is - i can live with it though cuz i seldom turn hard - but this is just so much BS it hurts.

"the one and only MIG1 whiner"



Message Edited on 11/20/03 03:49PM by johann_thor

Message Edited on 11/20/0306:05PM by johann_thor

XyZspineZyX
11-20-2003, 05:07 PM
fly the g2, the 109s small elevator tabs made elevator manuverabilty extremely poor at slow speeds however at high speed they face very little stick pressure.

the problem is some planes seem to have stick pressures and some dont, I hope oleg is putting stick pressure on all planes as of now it seems half have it half dont before only a quarter have stick pressure

<center>http://www.geocities.com/leadspittersig/LS1.txt
Good dogfighters bring ammo home, Great ones don't. (c) Leadspitter
<a HREF="http://www.il2skins.com/?action=list&authoridfilter=:Leadspitter:&comefrom=top5&ts=1068087655"> LeadSpitters Skins
</center>

XyZspineZyX
11-20-2003, 05:55 PM
i have no problems with fighting in 109 with the current elevator - i feel the K4 is a little heavy though .... but i never fly the K4 anyway .....


i just find it silly that this is modelled after some idiotic reports made by allied pilots after the war

XyZspineZyX
11-20-2003, 06:21 PM
the K4 is a pain in the butt to pull out at high speeds, it ruins alot of my shots too as they(target) can pull away at last second, mainly due to the outside view... i wish it actually pulled out better at speed... oh well,

Message Edited on 11/20/0305:46PM by JG26_Red

XyZspineZyX
11-20-2003, 06:49 PM
yes the pullout at high speeds is silly in the K4 .... and the elevator is just far too heavy. i fly the G6AS cuz i like the 1x20mm/2x13mm much better ..... and the G6AS is still very heavy at high speeds. utterly silly i think.

i challenge you to find any proof for this elevator stiffness - other then biased/ignorant reports by allied pilots who dont know how to operate the elevator with its trim and are not even qualified to fly this plane.

the last living pilot/owner of a spanish 109 (Mark Hanna R.I.P) talked about how this plane was highly manouverable and commented on the "huge" misunderstanding going around about this plane.

or would you rather believe the clown Kit Carson ? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif lol

XyZspineZyX
11-20-2003, 06:50 PM
Finnish pilots did only manage to pull out from very high speed dives with elevator trim. They couldn't apply enough force to the stick.


-jippo

XyZspineZyX
11-20-2003, 06:54 PM
using the trim (moves the whole stabilizer) was standard practice for any 109 pilot. this system was later adopted on other designs ... all the way to the sabre...blablabla you all know that story .... if you know anything at all http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

XyZspineZyX
11-20-2003, 06:57 PM
how have they done this ?

there was no way to trim the Bf109 in flight ?

Jippo01 wrote:
- Finnish pilots did only manage to pull out from very
- high speed dives with elevator trim. They couldn't
- apply enough force to the stick.
-
-
--jippo


<div style="text-align: center;">
<hr style="width: 100%; height: 2px;">
<a href="http://ifh.firstones.com" target=_blank><img src=http://ifh.firstones.com/img/banners/banner01.jpg border=0<>

Mess with the best, die like the rest...

"Never argue with an idiot! They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." (S.U.X Infinity)

XyZspineZyX
11-20-2003, 07:01 PM
lol





Message Edited on 11/20/0306:02PM by johann_thor

XyZspineZyX
11-20-2003, 07:03 PM
ToP_BlackSheep wrote:
- how have they done this ?
-
- there was no way to trim the Bf109 in flight ?


All 109's had elevator trim.....



-jippo

XyZspineZyX
11-20-2003, 07:06 PM
johann_thor wrote:

- using the trim (moves the whole stabilizer) was
- standard practice for any 109 pilot. this system was
- later adopted on other designs ... all the way to
- the sabre...blablabla you all know that story ....
- if you know anything at all /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif


So?

But the stick was too heavy to move with two hands at somewhere around 850-1000km/h TAS. I would call that a heavy elevator.

Only way they could get out of dive at such speed was to trim the plane tail-heavy and it would pull itself out.


-jippo

XyZspineZyX
11-20-2003, 07:14 PM
ok i will explain my point better http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

normally a trim just moves the elevator - in a 109 (and some others) it move the whole STABILIZER - therefore you need less elevator movement to get the same effect - it relieves stick pressure.

additionally the trim wheel is very easy to operate - its large and you can quickly get it into position in a dive - and then you need a lot less stick pressure to pull out of a dive

i am sorry - i should have explained my point better

XyZspineZyX
11-20-2003, 07:16 PM
how would we set this up in FB? trim?

XyZspineZyX
11-20-2003, 07:24 PM
Map trim to a slider.

Or write a profile for your HOTAS that will apply trim at certain ranges of stick travel. But, if you have a stick capable of something like that, then you have a knob or 2 to map the trim to in the first place. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

XyZspineZyX
11-20-2003, 08:05 PM
Indeed it`s quite a myth well developed by endless repeating until they achieved that it`s being considered a near-fact... The "concrete elevator" is kinda BS, just like many others. Not that the 109s elevator would be lightweight, it was rather heavy (altough that`s quite relative..), but that`s not the point. The point it that

a, It wasn`t exceptional, pilots state that the Mustang had similiarly heavy elevators, still one can never perceive the same amount of zealotry in parrotting that...

b, Despite their heaviness at high speed, the elevators remained effective, and even at considerable speeds (400 mph+) the pilots could pull rather high Gs in the order of 5-6 G, and perform fairly tight turns. It`s all documented in tests, but they never qoute those, only the 1940 test of a battered Emil, and even that is qouted out of context for most of the time. Naturally, the same guys never speak about that the controls are usually described as one the nicest the pilots experienced at all normal speeds..The bias is obvious.



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

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

ZG77_Nagual
11-20-2003, 08:15 PM
Here's what I have for the D



P-51D, at corner speed, measures 48 lbs in a 3g pull. Up to 86 Lbs at
5g's. The P-47D, OTOH, requires just 16 lbs at 3g and 27 lbs at 5g's.
The testers state that the Mustang was a true "two hander".

from here


http://www.yarchive.net/mil/p51.html


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

XyZspineZyX
11-20-2003, 08:31 PM
ZG77_Nagual wrote:
- Here's what I have for the D
-
-
-
-
- P-51D, at corner speed, measures 48 lbs in a 3g
- pull. Up to 86 Lbs at
- 5g's. The P-47D, OTOH, requires just 16 lbs at 3g
- and 27 lbs at 5g's.
- The testers state that the Mustang was a true "two
- hander".


Nag, we are talking about the stick forces at high speeds. Those values are for sustained turning speed (aprox 200mph), the stick forces are considerably heavier at high speeds.

Also North American considered Bf-109 elevator control system superior to it's own, since they used on F-86A Sabre the movable stabilizer + elevator system first employed on Bf-109 (later used in many other high speed planes, like Fw-190, Me-262, all praised for their high speed handling).


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

XyZspineZyX
11-20-2003, 08:34 PM
LeadSpitter_ wrote:
- fly the g2, the 109s small elevator tabs made
- elevator manuverabilty extremely poor at slow speeds
- however at high speed they face very little stick
- pressure.
-
- the problem is some planes seem to have stick
- pressures and some dont, I hope oleg is putting
- stick pressure on all planes as of now it seems half
- have it half dont before only a quarter have stick
- pressure


Leadspitter, why don't you first read about the plane, before spreading such errors. Bf-109 did not have any elevator trim tabs, it used a movable stabilizer, like all real high speed fighters, Fw-190 or early jet fighters, Me-262, F-86A Sabre.


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

XyZspineZyX
11-20-2003, 08:36 PM
Huckebein_FW wrote:

- Nag, we are talking about the stick forces at high
- speeds. Those values are for sustained turning speed
- (aprox 200mph), the stick forces are considerably
- heavier at high speeds.
-
- Also North American considered Bf-109 elevator
- control system superior to it's own, since they used
- on F-86A Sabre the movable stabilizer + elevator
- system first employed on Bf-109 (later used in many
- other high speed planes, like Fw-190, Me-262, all
- praised for their high speed handling).

No trim tabs at all?

Please elaborate and cite your sources.

Regards,

SkyChimp

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



Message Edited on 11/20/0310:49PM by SkyChimp

XyZspineZyX
11-20-2003, 08:37 PM
"there is not a single reliable test or pilot account to support this - just some allied pilots with no knowledge of how to fly a 109 - post ONE account from a german 109 pilot complaining about a concrete 109 elevator. no - you can't."


Look here:

http://www.virtualpilots.fi/en/hist/WW2History-KyostiKarhilaInterview.html


"I started pulling the stick, nothing happened, I checked the speed, it was about 850kmh. I tried to recover the plane but the stick was as if locked and nothing happened. I broke into a sweat of agony: now I am going into the sea and cannot help it. I pulled with both hands, groaning and by and by she started recovering, she recovered more, I pulled and pulled, but the surface of the sea approached, I thought I was going to crash. I kept pulling until I saw that I had survived. The distance between me and the sea may have been five meters. I pulled up and found myself on the coast of Estonia.

If I in that situation had used the vertical trim the wings would have been broken off. A minimal trim movement has a strong effect on wings when the speed limit has been exceded. I had 100kmh overspeed! It was out of all limits. "

Cheers,

XyZspineZyX
11-20-2003, 08:41 PM
"How difficult was it to control the 109 in high velocities, 600 kmh and above?

The control column was as stiff as it had been fastened with tape, you could not use the ailerons. Yet you could control the plane. "



Btw, yes, you can use the elevator trim to recover from a high speed dive, but ONLY WITH THE GREATEST CARE, or you will lose your wings!

Also on the same subject in the Typhoon pilot manual:

""The elevator trimming tabs are very sensitive and should therefore not be used when diving. If however they are used, the control should be moved slowly and gently."

Read carefully, "SLOWLY AND GENTLY"

With the G modeling in the next sim, all this will be another story /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Cheers,

XyZspineZyX
11-20-2003, 08:45 PM
so far - this thread is rather flameless

lets keep it like that http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

all points well taken !

XyZspineZyX
11-20-2003, 08:49 PM
Actually the Bf-109 manual warnes the pilot not to use "full stick deflection" for dive pull-outs, in order to avoid overstressing of the airframe.

"Full stick deflection" in a dive pull-out - does not seem like the control forces were excessive. Rather the opposite was true.




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

XyZspineZyX
11-20-2003, 08:53 PM
CHDT wrote:
-
- Also on the same subject in the Typhoon pilot
- manual:
-
- ""The elevator trimming tabs are very sensitive and
- should therefore not be used when diving. If however
- they are used, the control should be moved slowly
- and gently."
-
- Read carefully, "SLOWLY AND GENTLY"

What we really need is aircrafts that actually falls apart when overstressed, all you risk now is a violent stall if you pull too hard.

rgds

XyZspineZyX
11-20-2003, 08:56 PM
At higher speeds of 350 or 400 mph I think they are modelled well.

Someone brought up Hanna. Here is what he says:

Pitch is also delighful at 250 mph and below. It feels very positve and the amount of effort on the control column needed to produce the relevant nose movement seems exactly right to me. As CL max is reached the leading edge slats deploy - together if the ball is in the middle, slightly asymmetrically if you have any slip on. The aircraft delights in being pulled into hard manuevering turns at these slower speeds. As the slats pop out you feel a slight "notching" on the stick and you can pull more until the whole airframe is buffeting quite hard. A little more and you will drop a wing, but you have to be crass to do it unintentionally. Pitch tends to heavy up above 250 mph but it is still easily manageable up to 300 mph and the aircraft is perfectly happy carrying out low-level looping maneuvers from 300 mph and below. Above 300 mph one peculiarity is a slight nose down trim change as you accelerate. This means that running in for an airshow above 300 mph the aeroplane has a slight tucking in sensation - a sort of desire to get down to ground level ! This is easily held on the stick or can be trimmed out but is slightly surprising initially. Maneuvering above 300, two hands can be required for more aggressive performance. EIther that or get on the trimmer to help you. Despite this heavying up it is still quite easy to get at 5G's at these speeds.




Regards,

SkyChimp

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


Message Edited on 11/20/0310:58PM by SkyChimp

XyZspineZyX
11-20-2003, 09:02 PM
SC you have to consider that Hanna piloted a Buchon in that test, which has a different CG configuration compared with Bf-109G, because it uses a completely different engine. Also there were quite a lot of other differences between Buchon and Bf-109, like wing guns, some of them did not have wing slats and so on. Buchon handling is probably close to 109G but definitely not the same.


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

XyZspineZyX
11-20-2003, 09:09 PM
SkyChimp wrote:
- Huckebein_FW wrote:
-
-- Nag, we are talking about the stick forces at high
-- speeds. Those values are for sustained turning speed
-- (aprox 200mph), the stick forces are considerably
-- heavier at high speeds.
--
-- Also North American considered Bf-109 elevator
-- control system superior to it's own, since they used
-- on F-86A Sabre the movable stabilizer + elevator
-- system first employed on Bf-109 (later used in many
-- other high speed planes, like Fw-190, Me-262, all
-- praised for their high speed handling).
-
- No trim tabs at all?
-
- Please elaborate and cite your sources.


Oh Skychimp, you did not knew that? Read any technical manual on Bf-109 and see that the trim wheel in the cockpit is moving the whole horizontal stabilizer. This solution was copied later in many other high speed fighters. It was the best up to Mach 1, it was considered better even than the full hydraulic systems, because it had much better "feel" on controls.


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

XyZspineZyX
11-20-2003, 09:10 PM
This is a little OT,but how did the Buchon 109's performance compare to the DB-engined German 109s? I know Huck said handling was similar,but what else?

<center>47|FC <img src="http://rangerring.com/wwii/p-47.jpg"<

XyZspineZyX
11-20-2003, 09:14 PM
skychimp wrote :
"Maneuvering above 300, two hands can be required for more aggressive performance. EIther that or get on the trimmer to help you. Despite this heavying up it is still quite easy to get at 5G's at these speeds"

great point skychimp - i brought it up and i think this description is right on point. it sure is heavy ... but not ineffective


also CHDT .... you did excatly what i asked for - came up with an account of an axis pilot regarding the subject S! I really dont have a problem with the elevator being stiff in such extreme speed dives - but you dont need any extreme dive speed in 109 (FB) to get your elevator stuck like in the K4 ... it happens at high combat speed - not only in some insane 800km+ dive.


i am not trying to prove that 109 had some "uber" elevator response - and you propably needed some seconds to really pull the stick backwards - and this was perhaps heavy compared to what some test pilots were used to on other planes - but that does not mean the elevator did not work properly ... not at all - just that

when you pull back on the stick in a 109 (in FB) at high speed it seems the elevator gets stuck at a very low deflection and you slowly and gradually pull out of the dive - constantly allowing your enemy to manouver and get out of your way. maby this is realistic ...... and its rather that some planes have insane elevator response at high speed ....... the issue is still the same



Message Edited on 11/20/0308:20PM by johann_thor

XyZspineZyX
11-20-2003, 09:25 PM
Huckebein_FW wrote:

- Oh Skychimp, you did not knew that? Read any
- technical manual on Bf-109 and see that the trim
- wheel in the cockpit is moving the whole horizontal
- stabilizer. This solution was copied later in many
- other high speed fighters. It was the best up to
- Mach 1, it was considered better even than the full
- hydraulic systems, because it had much better "feel"
- on controls.



That's not what I'm talking about. I know the stablizer had about 12 degrees of movement.

But you also said the elevators had NO TRIM TABS. Are you sure of that?

Regards,

SkyChimp

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

XyZspineZyX
11-20-2003, 09:27 PM
trying to dig something up on the difference between buchon and gustav - but in the meantime thought this might be interresting ... totally off topic though

http://www.nzfpm.co.nz/articles/ratacwd3.htm


http://www.nzfpm.co.nz/images/other/mark.jpg




Message Edited on 11/20/0308:34PM by johann_thor

XyZspineZyX
11-20-2003, 09:44 PM
SkyChimp wrote:
-
- Huckebein_FW wrote:
-
-- Oh Skychimp, you did not knew that? Read any
-- technical manual on Bf-109 and see that the trim
-- wheel in the cockpit is moving the whole horizontal
-- stabilizer. This solution was copied later in many
-- other high speed fighters. It was the best up to
-- Mach 1, it was considered better even than the full
-- hydraulic systems, because it had much better "feel"
-- on controls.
-
-
-
- That's not what I'm talking about. I know the
- stablizer had about 12 degrees of movement.
-
- But you also said the elevators had NO TRIM TABS.
- Are you sure of that?


There are no trim tabs movable by the pilot, LeadSpitter said that the pilot used the elevator trim tabs to trim the plane, which is not true.

There were indeed small trim tabs on elevators, to correct imperfections in balancing or for missions carrying heavy payloads, but those trim tabs were the responsability of the ground crew, not pilot's.


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

XyZspineZyX
11-20-2003, 09:58 PM
Huckebein_FW wrote:
- SkyChimp wrote:

- There are no trim tabs movable by the pilot,
- LeadSpitter said that the pilot used the elevator
- trim tabs to trim the plane, which is not true.
-
- There were indeed small trim tabs on elevators, to
- correct imperfections in balancing or for missions
- carrying heavy payloads, but those trim tabs were
- the responsability of the ground crew, not pilot's.


Ok. There were externally adjustable trim tabs.



Regards,

SkyChimp

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

XyZspineZyX
11-20-2003, 10:24 PM
wonderful to see huck and skychimp debate a topic without flaming one another http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

anyways i could not dig up any comments from any pilot about the diffrence between buchon and gustav ... so i e-mail the old flying machine company about the subject - why not indeed http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif ... gonna start 1.2b now and do some flying S!

XyZspineZyX
11-20-2003, 10:57 PM
Thanks, Johann./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif I didn't intend to hi-jack your thread. I just got curious./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

<center>47|FC <img src="http://rangerring.com/wwii/p-47.jpg"<

XyZspineZyX
11-20-2003, 11:17 PM
CHDT wrote:
- "there is not a single reliable test or pilot
- account to support this - just some allied pilots
- with no knowledge of how to fly a 109 - post ONE
- account from a german 109 pilot complaining about a
- concrete 109 elevator. no - you can't."
-
-
- Look here:
-
- <a
- href="http://www.virtualpilots.fi/en/hist/WW2Histo
- ry-KyostiKarhilaInterview.html"
- target=_blank>http://www.virtualpilots.fi/en/hist/
- WW2History-KyostiKarhilaInterview.html</a>
-
-
-
- "I started pulling the stick, nothing happened, I
- checked the speed, it was about 850kmh. I tried to
- recover the plane but the stick was as if locked and
- nothing happened. I broke into a sweat of agony: now
- I am going into the sea and cannot help it. I pulled
- with both hands, groaning and by and by she started
- recovering, she recovered more, I pulled and pulled,
- but the surface of the sea approached, I thought I
- was going to crash. I kept pulling until I saw that
- I had survived. The distance between me and the sea
- may have been five meters. I pulled up and found
- myself on the coast of Estonia.
-
- If I in that situation had used the vertical trim
- the wings would have been broken off. A minimal trim
- movement has a strong effect on wings when the speed
- limit has been exceded. I had 100kmh overspeed! It
- was out of all limits. "



CHDT this is a quote proving the exceptional qualities of Bf-109. Though it was dived with over 100km/h over the dive speed nothing happened to the plane. Also the controls were not damaged though he pulled the stick with both hands and the stabilizer was in a improper trim. He says:

"If I in that situation had used the vertical trim the wings would have been broken off. A minimal trim movement has a strong effect on wings when the speed limit has been exceded. I had 100kmh overspeed! It was out of all limits.

The Messerschmitt's wings were fastened with two bolts. When I saw the construction I had thought that they are strong enough but in this case I was thinking, when are they going to break."

Now this was his personal fear, it is very understandable, he excedeed the flight envelope. We have to consider though that other pilots reported confidence on wings stiffness, they say that they pulled 12G and nothing happened. Obviously having the wing fixed in 2 bolts was done to help transporting the plane on the ground, and as long as those links were strong enough there is nothing to complain about. I'm not aware of any accidents in which the wings were lost because those bolts proved not being strong enough.

One more inresting thing in the same interview. The pilot says that there was no buffeting at 850km/h IAS. Incredible!!




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

XyZspineZyX
11-20-2003, 11:18 PM
they had some kind of trim "flaps" but they could only adjust it on the ground.

There was simply no way to do in in Flight like in the 190's cause none of the pilots climbed out of his plane going to the elevato using a few tools to change trim, then climb back into the pit, close it....u see the point ?


Jippo01 wrote:
-
- ToP_BlackSheep wrote:
-- how have they done this ?
--
-- there was no way to trim the Bf109 in flight ?
-
-
- All 109's had elevator trim.....


<div style="text-align: center;">
<hr style="width: 100%; height: 2px;">
<a href="http://ifh.firstones.com" target=_blank><img src=http://ifh.firstones.com/img/banners/banner01.jpg border=0<>

Mess with the best, die like the rest...

"Never argue with an idiot! They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." (S.U.X Infinity)

XyZspineZyX
11-20-2003, 11:21 PM
ToP_BlackSheep wrote:
- they had some kind of trim "flaps" but they could
- only adjust it on the ground.
-
- There was simply no way to do in in Flight like in
- the 190's cause none of the pilots climbed out of
- his plane going to the elevato using a few tools to
- change trim, then climb back into the pit, close
- it....u see the point ?
-


Bf-109 could trim the plane very well in flight using the trim wheel on the left panel. This wheel moves the horizontal stabilizer not trim tabs.


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

XyZspineZyX
11-20-2003, 11:22 PM
Huckebein_FW why dont you read about the planes. Your seriously bias towards luft planes, the g2 is one of the most manueverable planes at all speeds in FB.

In reality all planes even your beloved 190 had stick pressures, you need to speak with some 190 109 pilots about almost getting stuck in dives they almost didnt recover from and i seen the total BS you write about the 190 it had no limits in dives blah blah blah

It takes an idiot to make remarks like you do fw huck i suggest you do better research.

if you think the 109 having poor elevator effectiveness at slow speeds is a rumor talk to pilots that flew the planes at airshows, rather then the propaganda nazi books your reading or wwii aviation soc news groups.



<center>http://www.geocities.com/leadspittersig/LS1.txt
Good dogfighters bring ammo home, Great ones don't. (c) Leadspitter
<a HREF="http://www.il2skins.com/?action=list&authoridfilter=:Leadspitter:&comefrom=top5&ts=1068087655"> LeadSpitters Skins
</center>

XyZspineZyX
11-20-2003, 11:25 PM
and the F - Word goes to the Board, again...sry for dubble post

Message Edited on 11/20/0310:27PM by ToP_BlackSheep

XyZspineZyX
11-20-2003, 11:27 PM
you're right.

sorry i couldn't correct my mistake, but the bord is some kind of (add the F-Word here) slow today...

Huckebein_FW wrote:
- ToP_BlackSheep wrote:
-- they had some kind of trim "flaps" but they could
-- only adjust it on the ground.
--
-- There was simply no way to do in in Flight like in
-- the 190's cause none of the pilots climbed out of
-- his plane going to the elevato using a few tools to
-- change trim, then climb back into the pit, close
-- it....u see the point ?
--
-
-
- Bf-109 could trim the plane very well in flight
- using the trim wheel on the left panel. This wheel
- moves the horizontal stabilizer not trim tabs.
-
-
- <center> <img
- src="http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-m
- ain.jpg"> </center>

<div style="text-align: center;">
<hr style="width: 100%; height: 2px;">
<a href="http://ifh.firstones.com" target=_blank><img src=http://ifh.firstones.com/img/banners/banner01.jpg border=0<>

Mess with the best, die like the rest...

"Never argue with an idiot! They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." (S.U.X Infinity)

XyZspineZyX
11-20-2003, 11:31 PM
Huckebein_FW READ THIS why dont you read about the planes. Your seriously bias towards luft planes, the g2 is one of the most manueverable planes at all speeds in FB.

In reality all planes even your beloved 190 had stick pressures, you need to speak with some 190 109 pilots about almost getting stuck in dives they almost didnt recover from and i seen the total BS you write about the 190 it had no limits in dives blah blah blah

It takes an idiot to make remarks like you do fw huck i suggest you do better research.

if you think the 109 having poor elevator effectiveness at slow speeds is a rumor talk to pilots that flew the planes at airshows, rather then the propaganda nazi books your reading check out wwii aviation soc news groups. And it just proves to show you dont comprehend what you read huck I never said the elevator tabs had trim tabs.

Take-off

This is best done with the flaps at 20 degrees. The throttle can be opened very quickly without fear of choking the engine. Acceleration is good, and there is little tendency to swing or bucket. The stick must be held hard forward to get the tail up. It is advisable to let the airplane fly itself off since, if pulled off too soon, the left wing will not lift, and on applying aileron the wing lifts and falls again, with the ailerons snatching a little. If no attempt is made to pull the airplane off quickly, the take-off run is short, and initial climb good.
Approach

Stalling speeds on the glide are 75 mph flaps up, and 61 mph flaps down. Lowering the flaps makes the ailerons feel heavier and slightly less effective, and causes a marked nose-down pitching moment, readily corrected owing to the juxtaposition of trim and flap operating wheels. If the engine is opened up to simulate a baulked landing with flaps and undercarriage down, the airplane becomes tail-heavy but can easily be held with one hand while trim is adjusted. Normal approach speed is 90 mph. At speeds above 100 mph, the pilot has the impression of diving, and below 80 mph one of sinking. At 90 mph the glide path is reasonably steep and the view fairly good. Longitudinally the airplane is markedly stable, and the elevator heavier and more responsive than is usual in single-seater fighters. These features add considerably to the ease of approach. Aileron effectiveness is adequate; the rudder is sluggish for small movements.
Landing

This is more difficult than on the Hurricane I or Spitfire I. Owing to the high ground attitude, the airplane must be rotated through a large angle before touchdown, and this requires a fair amount of skill. If a wheel landing is done the left wing tends to drop just before touchdown, and if the ailerons are used to lift it, they snatch, causing over-correction. The brakes can be applied immediately after touchdown without fear of lifting the tail. The ground run is short, with no tendency to swing. View during hold-off and ground run is very poor, and landing at night would not be easy.
Taxing

The aircraft can be taxied fast without danger of bucketing, but is is difficult to turn quickly; an unusually large amount of throttle is needed, in conjunction with harsh braking, when manuevering in a confined space. The brakes are foot-operated, and pilots expressed a strong preference for the hand operation system to which they are more accustomed.
Lateral Trim

There is no procounced change of lateral trim with speed of throttle setting provided that care is taken to fly with no sideslip.
Directional Trim

Absence of rudder trimmer is a bad feature, although at low speeds the practical consequences are not so alarming as the curves might suggest, since the rudder is fairly light on the climb. At high speeds, however, the pilot is seriously inconvenienced, as above 300 mph about 2 1/2 degrees of port (left) rudder are needed for flight with no sideslip and a very heavy foot load is needed to keep this on. In consequence the pilot's left foot becomes tired, and this affects his ability to put on left rudder in order to assist a turn to port (left). Hence at high speeds the Bf.109E turns far more readily to the right than to the left.
Longitudinal Trim

Five three-quarter turns of a 11.7 in diameter wheel on the pilot's left are needed to move the adjustable tailplane through its full 12-degrees range. The wheel rotation is in the natural sense. Tailplane and elevator angles to trim were measured at various speeds in various condition; the elevator angles were corrected to constant tail setting. The airplane is statically stable both stick fixed and stick free.
'One Control' tests, flat turns, sideslips

The airplane was trimmed to fly straight and level at 230 mph at 10,000 feet. In this condition the airplane is not in trim directionally and a slight pressure is needed on the left rudder pedal to prevent sideslip. This influences the results of the following tests:

Ailerons fixed central On suddenly applying half-rudder the nose swings through about eight degrees and the airplane banks about five degrees with the nose pitching down a little. On releasing the rudder it returns to central, and the airplane does a slowly damped oscillation in yaw and roll. The right wing then slowly falls. Good baned turns can be done in either direction on rudder alone, with little sideslip if the rudder is used gently. Release of the rudder in a steady 30-degree banked turn in either direction results in the left wing slowly rising.

Rudder fixed central Abrupt displacement of the ailerons gives bank with no appreciable opposite yaw. On releasing the stick it returns smartly to central with no oscillation. If the ailerons are released in a 30-degree banked turn, it is impossible to assess the spiral stability, since whether the wing slowly comes up or goes down depends critically on the precise position of the rudder. Excellent banked turns can be done in either direction on ailerons alone. There is very little sideslip on entry or recovery, even if the ailerons are used very harshly. In the turn there is no appreciable sideslip.

Steady flat turns Only half-rudder was used during this test. Full rudder can be applied with a very heavy foot load, but the nose-down pitching movement due to sideslip requires a quite excessive pull on the stick to keep the nose up. When flat turning steadily with half-rudder, wings level, about half opposite aileron is needed. The speed falls from 230 mph to 175 mph, rate of flat turn is about 110.

Steady sideslip when gliding Gliding at 100 mph with flaps and undercarriage up the maximum angle of bank in a straight sideslip is about five degrees. About 1/4 opposite aileron is needed in conjuction with full rudder. The airplane is faily nose-heavy, vibrates and is a little unsteady. On release of all three controls the wing comes up quickly and the airplane glides steadily at the trimmed speed. With flaps and undercarriage down, gliding at 90 mph, the maximum angle of bank is again five degrees 1/5 opposite aileron being needed with full rudder. The nose-down pitching movement is not so pronounced as before, and vibration is still present. Behaviour on releasing the control is similar to that with flaps up.
Stalling Test

The airplane was equipped with a 60 foot trailing static head and a swiveling pitot head. Although, as may be imagined, operation of a trailing static from a single-seater with a rather cramped cockpit is a difficult job, the pilot brought back the following results:

Lowering the ailerons and flaps thus increases CL max of 0.5. This is roughly the value which would be expected from the installation. Behaviour at the stall. The airplane was put through the full official tests. The results may be summarized by saying that the stalling behaviour, flaps up and down, is excellent. Both ruddera nd ailerons are effective right down to the stall, which is very gentle, the wing only falling about 10 degrees and the nose falling with it. There is no tendency to spin. With flaps up the ailerons snatch while the slots are opening, and there is a buffeting on the ailerons as the stall is approached.. Withs flaps down there is no aileron snatch as the slots open, and no pre-stall aileron buffeting. There is no warning of the stall, flaps down. From the safety viewpoint this is the sold adverse stalling feature; it is largely off-set by the innocuous behaviour at the stall and by the very high degree of fore and aft stability on the approach glide.
Safety in the Dive

During a dive at 400 mph all three controls were in turn displaced slightly and released. No vibration, flutter or snaking developed. If the elevator is trimmed for level flight at full throttle, a large push is needed to hold in the dive, and there is a temptation to trim in. If, in fact, the airplane is trimmed into the dive, recovery is difficult unless the trimmer is would back owing to the excessive heaviness of the elevator.
Ailerons

At low speeds the aileron control is very good, there being a definete resistance to stick movement, while response is brisk. As speed is increased, the ailerons bevome heavier, but response remains excellent. They are at their best between 150 mph and 200 mph, one pilot describing them as an 'ideal control' over this range. Above 200 mph they start becoming unpleasantly heavy, and between 300 mph and 400 mph are termed 'solid' by the test pilots. A pilot exerting all his strength cannot apply more than one-fifth aileron at 400 mph. Measurements of stick-top force when the pilot applied about one-fifth aileron in half a second and then held the ailerons steady, together with the corresponding time to 45 degrees banbk, were made at various speeds. The results at 400 mph are given below:
Max sideways force a pilot can apply conveniently to the Bf.109 stick 40 lbs.
Corresponding stick displacement 1/5th.
Time to 45-degree bank 4 seconds.
Deduced balance factyor Kb2 - 0.145

Several points of interest emerge from these tests:
a. Owing to the cramped Bf.109 cockpit, a pilot can only apply about 40 lb sideway force on the stick, as against 60 lb or more possible if he had more room.
b. The designer has also penalized himself by the unusually small stick-top travel of four inches, giving a poor mechanical advantage between pilot and aileron.
c. The time to 45-degree bank of four seconds at 400 mph, which is quite escessive for a fighter, classes the airplane immediately as very unmaneuvrable in roll at high speeds.
Elevator

This is an exceptionally good control at low air speeds, being fairly heavy and not over-sensitive. Above 250 mph, however, it becomes too heavy, so that maneuvrability is seriously restricted. When diving at 400 mph a pilot, pulling very hard, cannot put on enough 'g' to black himself out; stick force -'g' probably esceeds 20 lb/g in the dive.
Rudder

The rudder is light, but rather sluggish at low speeds. At 200 mph the sluggishness has disappeared. Between 200 mph and 300 mph the rudder is the lightest of the three controls for movement, but at 300 mph and above, absence of a rudder trimmer is severely felt, the force to prevent sideslip at 400 mph being excessive.
Harmony

The controls are well harmonised between 150 mph and 250 mph. At lower speeds harmony is spoiled by the sluggishness of the rudder. At higher speeds elevator and ailerons are so heavy that the worn 'harmony' is inappropriate.
Aerobatics

These are not easy. Loops must be started from about 280 mph when the elevator is unduly heavy; there is a tendency for the slots to open at the top of the loop, resulting in aileron snatching and loss of direction. At speeds below 250 mph the airplane can be rolled quite quickly, but in the final stages of the roll there is a strong tendency for the nose to fall, and the stick must be moved well back to keep the nose up. Upward rolls are difficult. Owing to elevator heaviness only a gentle pull-out from the dive is possible, and considerable speed is lost before the upward roll can be started.
Fighting Qualities

A series of mock dogfights with our own fighters briought out forcibly the good and bad points of the airplane. These may be summarised as follows:
Good Points;
High top speed and excellent rate of climb
Engine does not cut immediately under negative 'g'
Good control at low speeds
Gentle stall, even under 'g'
Bad Points;
Ailerons and elevator far too heavy at high speeds
Owing to high wing loading the airplane stalls readily under 'g' and has a relatively poor turning circle
Absence of a rudder trimmer, curtailing ability to bank left in the dive
Cockpit too cramped for comfort




<center>http://www.geocities.com/leadspittersig/LS1.txt
Good dogfighters bring ammo home, Great ones don't. (c) Leadspitter
<a HREF="http://www.il2skins.com/?action=list&authoridfilter=:Leadspitter:&comefrom=top5&ts=1068087655"> LeadSpitters Skins
</center>

XyZspineZyX
11-20-2003, 11:34 PM
LeadSpitter_ wrote:
- Huckebein_FW why dont you read about the planes.
- Your seriously bias towards luft planes, the g2 is
- one of the most manueverable planes at all speeds in
- FB.
-
- In reality all planes even your beloved 190 had
- stick pressures, you need to speak with some 190 109
- pilots about almost getting stuck in dives they
- almost didnt recover from and i seen the total BS
- you write about the 190 it had no limits in dives
- blah blah blah
-
- It takes an idiot to make remarks like you do fw
- huck i suggest you do better research.
-
- if you think the 109 having poor elevator
- effectiveness at slow speeds is a rumor talk to
- pilots that flew the planes at airshows, rather then
- the propaganda nazi books your reading or wwii
- aviation soc news groups.


No LeadSpitter. You came here to show your complete ignorance and bias. You didn't even knew that the pilot did not trimmed the plane with the tabs on the elevator. You saw that those tabs were small and thought that the pilot could not trim the plane correctly (at slow speeds?? sic).

Bf-109 had very small elevators in order to make the elevator forces manageable at high speeds. It also had movable stabilizer because the elevator was heavier at slower speeds without it. This was the best solution among all ww2 planes and was later adopted by North American for their Sabre. I guess that you can evaluate this system better than North American engineers, they probably suffered from nazi bias, isn't it?

Though Fw-190 might have had better elevator control at high speeds because it had really small elevators, then Bf-109 is in second place when it comes to high speed authority (and probably similar with Mustang). No other planes were even close to those.


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

XyZspineZyX
11-20-2003, 11:44 PM
Leadspitter:
This is a stupid test done by RAE on EMIL (Emil Leadspitter, do you know that handling Gustav was completely different, because flight surfaces were completely redesigned?) and was later infirmed by RAE itself. They admited later that Emil had better high speed handling than Spitfire I, and by doing that they invalidate the results in the first test. Posting this garbage again and again, only makes you look like an idiot.

Post data about Bf-109F and later, this was this discussion about.


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

XyZspineZyX
11-20-2003, 11:56 PM
there you go with your bias, now 109e's are more manueverable then spitfires at top speeds

And btw when did i say the elevator had trim tabs? becuase i never said it go back and look again.

<center>http://www.geocities.com/leadspittersig/LS1.txt
Good dogfighters bring ammo home, Great ones don't. (c) Leadspitter
<a HREF="http://www.il2skins.com/?action=list&authoridfilter=:Leadspitter:&comefrom=top5&ts=1068087655"> LeadSpitters Skins
</center>

Message Edited on 11/20/0311:00PM by LeadSpitter_

XyZspineZyX
11-21-2003, 12:00 AM
Leadspitter was really close to saying,


"there you go with your bias, now 109e's are more manueverable THAN spitfires at top speeds"

EF

XyZspineZyX
11-21-2003, 12:00 AM
when you pull back on the stick in a 109 (in FB) at
- high speed it seems the elevator gets stuck at a
- very low deflection and you slowly and gradually
- pull out of the dive - constantly allowing your
- enemy to manouver and get out of your way. maby this
- is realistic ...... and its rather that some planes
- have insane elevator response at high speed .......
- the issue is still the same
-
-----------------------------------

Well, IMO its just that. The 109 is very well modelled. But some of the other planes haddent had this advanced FM moddelling. Flying the 109 now feels quite alive.


Dietger

XyZspineZyX
11-21-2003, 12:19 AM
LeadSpitter_ wrote:
- there you go with your bias, now 109e's are more
- manueverable then spitfires at top speeds

Of course Gustavs were more maneuvrable than Spitfires at high speeds. Peak roll for Gustav was at over 300mph, making 90 deg/sec, whereas Spitfire's peak roll was at 200mph for only 60 deg/sec.



- And btw when did i say the elevator had trim tabs?
- becuase i never said it go back and look again.

You said:

"fly the g2, the 109s small elevator tabs made elevator manuverabilty extremely poor at slow speeds however at high speed they face very little stick pressure."

What do you mean by that?? Those tabs were not movable by the pilot. Bf-109 was trimmed using the movable stabilizer.

Next time do your homework.


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

XyZspineZyX
11-21-2003, 12:28 AM
SkyChimp wrote:
- At higher speeds of 350 or 400 mph I think they are
- modelled well.
-
- Someone brought up Hanna. Here is what he says:

[..]

Doesn't say anything about them being concrete
above 300 - just a tendency to nose down tendency
(counter by trimming?)

XyZspineZyX
11-21-2003, 12:37 AM
http://mitglied.lycos.de/luftwaffe1/Carson/Ruderkraefte.gif

<div align='center'>
<a href='http://greatergreen.com/il2/'>
http://members.shaw.ca/corn/il2sig2.jpg
</a>
</div>

XyZspineZyX
11-21-2003, 01:12 AM
now you say the elevator wasnt movable except with the mobile stablizer?

You are not understanding huck, to me elevator tab does not mean trim tab,

<center>http://www.geocities.com/leadspittersig/LS1.txt
Good dogfighters bring ammo home, Great ones don't. (c) Leadspitter
<a HREF="http://www.il2skins.com/?action=list&authoridfilter=:Leadspitter:&comefrom=top5&ts=1068087655"> LeadSpitters Skins
</center>

XyZspineZyX
11-21-2003, 02:16 AM
Ok people this is an account from the OC of German aircraft reception at Farnbourough. Who flight tested all German aircraft that arrived there and wrote handling notes for all for RAE test pilots. This relates to the 109G6.

"The Bf109G-6 climbed well at a steep angle..... Stability proved excellent.....Control Harmony was poor for a fighter, the rudder being light, the ailerons moderately light and the elevators extremely heavy."

"The Gustav was certainly delightful to fly, but the situation changed as speed increased; in a dive at 400mph (644km/h) the controls felt as though they had seized! The highest speed I dived below 10000ft was 440mph (708km/h) and the solidity of the controls was such that this was the limit in my book. However things were very different at high altitude, and providing that the Gustav was kept where it was meant to be (i.e. above 25000ft/7 620m) it performed efficiently both in dogfighting and as an attacker of bomber formations."

So it would seem to me that the 109 is fairly well modelled or don't you think Capt Eric Brown knew how to fly the 109 /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

XyZspineZyX
11-21-2003, 03:57 AM
Huckebein_FW wrote:


- Bf-109 had very small elevators in order to make the
- elevator forces manageable at high speeds. It also
- had movable stabilizer because the elevator was
- heavier at slower speeds without it. This was the
- best solution among all ww2 planes and was later
- adopted by North American for their Sabre. I guess
- that you can evaluate this system better than North
- American engineers, they probably suffered from nazi
- bias, isn't it?


I wouldn't use the North American F-86 Sabre as an example of how good the stabilizer adjustment was on the Bf-109.

North American discontinued its use after the F-86A and went to the all flying tail.

Additionally, the leading edge slats on the F-86A and E, as they were on the Me-262, were unreliable and the plane's biggest shortcoming. The most numerously produced F-86 to see combat was the F-86F. And the F-86F did away with both the F-86A stabilizer and its leading edge wing slats.

Regards,

SkyChimp

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

XyZspineZyX
11-21-2003, 04:04 AM
Huckebein_FW wrote:

- One more inresting thing in the same interview. The
- pilot says that there was no buffeting at 850km/h
- IAS. Incredible!!


Buffeting is just one thing that can happen at high speed.

Lucas Schmid stated in his report on Bf-109F high speed dive tests that an aileron overbalance was present at 850km/h that was so strong it almost ripped the stick from his hands. And the only thing that kept the plane from crashing was that his test plane had been modified so that aileron deflection was limited by half.

Production planes did not have that aileron deflection limitation. Had he been flying an unmodified plane, like the ones that went into service, he would have crashed.

So, no buffeting, but other major problems.

Regards,

SkyChimp

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

XyZspineZyX
11-21-2003, 08:06 AM
DGC767 wrote:
- Ok people this is an account from the OC of German
- aircraft reception at Farnbourough. Who flight
- tested all German aircraft that arrived there and
- wrote handling notes for all for RAE test pilots.
- This relates to the 109G6.
-
- "The Bf109G-6 climbed well at a steep angle.....
- Stability proved excellent.....Control Harmony was
- poor for a fighter, the rudder being light, the
- ailerons moderately light and the elevators
- extremely heavy."
-
- "The Gustav was certainly delightful to fly, but the
- situation changed as speed increased; in a dive at
- 400mph (644km/h) the controls felt as though they
- had seized! The highest speed I dived below 10000ft
- was 440mph (708km/h) and the solidity of the
- controls was such that this was the limit in my
- book. However things were very different at high
- altitude, and providing that the Gustav was kept
- where it was meant to be (i.e. above 25000ft/7 620m)
- it performed efficiently both in dogfighting and as
- an attacker of bomber formations."
-
- So it would seem to me that the 109 is fairly well
- modelled or don't you think Capt Eric Brown knew how
- to fly the 109

Eric Brown logged less than 1 hour in Bf-109. I don't think I can value his oppinions more than of another rookie Bf-109 pilot. German fighters had different handling compared with Allied planes. You can often read about german planes test flown with improper trim. Trim was fundamental for having adequate stick forces at any speed. But a new pilot had to adapt to this different style of flying.

Also he does not specify the stick forces. Without this values we cannot say if he really felt the controls excessively heavy, or he had to write an usual biased british report. I have yet to see a british report stating that at some point a foreign made plane was judged as being better than Spitfire.


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

XyZspineZyX
11-21-2003, 08:34 AM
Thats right Huck. A man who has flown more aircraft types than any other (2400+) who held the top job in experimental flying in the UK for six years has no right to comment on the handling characteristics of an aircraft and must be biased. Whereas almighty Huck knows all. How much time do you have in 109's Huck? How can you say with a straight face that he only spent an hour in 109's. You must be kidding. I suppose you have a copy of his log book and all his notes.

I suppose a guy who extensively interviewed designers such as Heinkel, Tank and Willy Messerschmitt (I think he had something to do with the 109) would have recieved no insite into German aircraft and there handling characteristics. Of course not, what am I thinking.

On the subject of praising things German "the Ta152h was every bit as good as any of its Allied piston-engined counterparts and, from some aspects, better than most." He is obviously biased and you of course are NOT!!!!!!!!!!

You are obiviously a well researched and smart guy. But for crying out loud take a look with a little perspective.



Message Edited on 11/21/03 07:43AM by DGC767

Message Edited on 11/21/0307:43AM by DGC767

XyZspineZyX
11-21-2003, 08:38 AM
SkyChimp wrote:
-
- Huckebein_FW wrote:
-
-
-- Bf-109 had very small elevators in order to make the
-- elevator forces manageable at high speeds. It also
-- had movable stabilizer because the elevator was
-- heavier at slower speeds without it. This was the
-- best solution among all ww2 planes and was later
-- adopted by North American for their Sabre. I guess
-- that you can evaluate this system better than North
-- American engineers, they probably suffered from nazi
-- bias, isn't it?
-
-
- I wouldn't use the North American F-86 Sabre as an
- example of how good the stabilizer adjustment was on
- the Bf-109.
-
- North American discontinued its use after the F-86A
- and went to the all flying tail.

They discontinued it because at speeds near Mach 1 control reversal was encountered. But I don't expect propeller fighters to dive near Mach 1. For the speed range of Bf-109 the movable stabilizer was the best solution to make the stick forces acceptable.

Also you have to remember that this change to all flying tail was not well received by the pilots. It had much poorer "feel" than the earlier system. In fact the CAC Sabres did not switch to this type of elevator even after they adopted the "6-3" wing, without wing slats.



- Additionally, the leading edge slats on the F-86A
- and E, as they were on the Me-262, were unreliable
- and the plane's biggest shortcoming. The most
- numerously produced F-86 to see combat was the
- F-86F. And the F-86F did away with both the F-86A
- stabilizer and its leading edge wing slats.

First of all the leading edge slats made the swept wings practical. Without them the flight characteristics of swept wings deteriorates significatly, even with the redesigned leading edges of "6-3" wing. In fact it deteriorated so much that RCAF retrofitted the "6-3" wings with slats!! RCAF Sabres with "6-3" wing served long enough to see the disadvantages of the deletion of slats. In fact all later jet fighter designs had a form of movable leading edge to improve wing behaviour at high AoA. I'm not saying that Me-262 slats were the perfect solution but certainly early swept wing fighters felt better with them than without them.




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

XyZspineZyX
11-21-2003, 08:47 AM
SkyChimp wrote:
-
- Huckebein_FW wrote:
-
-- One more inresting thing in the same interview. The
-- pilot says that there was no buffeting at 850km/h
-- IAS. Incredible!!
-
-
- Buffeting is just one thing that can happen at high
- speed.
-
- Lucas Schmid stated in his report on Bf-109F high
- speed dive tests that an aileron overbalance was
- present at 850km/h that was so strong it almost
- ripped the stick from his hands. And the only thing
- that kept the plane from crashing was that his test
- plane had been modified so that aileron deflection
- was limited by half.

Skychimp it wasn't only 850km/h IAS, in that flight he also was at 0.8Mach, so he was deep into compressibility, this is why he experienced aileron overbalance.

Since the finnish pilot was at low altitude when he reached 850km/h IAS, he was at "only" 0.75Mach. More adverse effects were probably encountered at higher Mach number, he did not report any aileron overbalance.


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

Message Edited on 11/21/0302:49AM by Huckebein_FW

XyZspineZyX
11-21-2003, 09:32 AM
DGC767 wrote:
- Thats right Huck. A man who has flown more aircraft
- types than any other (2400+) who held the top job in
- experimental flying in the UK for six years has no
- right to comment on the handling characteristics of
- an aircraft and must be biased. Whereas almighty
- Huck knows all. How much time do you have in 109's
- Huck? How can you say with a straight face that he
- only spent an hour in 109's. You must be kidding. I
- suppose you have a copy of his log book and all his
- notes.
-
- I suppose a guy who extensively interviewed
- designers such as Heinkel, Tank and Willy
- Messerschmitt (I think he had something to do with
- the 109) would have recieved no insite into German
- aircraft and there handling characteristics. Of
- course not, what am I thinking.
-
- On the subject of praising things German "the Ta152h
- was every bit as good as any of its Allied
- piston-engined counterparts and, from some aspects,
- better than most." He is obviously biased and you of
- course are NOT!!!!!!!!!!
-
- You are obiviously a well researched and smart guy.
- But for crying out loud take a look with a little
- perspective.



You are obviously not aware of the role that propaganda has during a war (and after it). Beside their technical relevance, all those tests had also the role of a moral booster. You'll see that if the situation on front was catastrophic at some point those tests will reveal unexpected but crippling defects for enemy planes - this was the case of the RAE report on Emil - report corrected later when situation on the front had improved.

You cannot say all the time that the enemy has better war material than you do. That's demoralizing. You have to make enemy's advantages look insignificant; if they perform similar to your material, say that yours is better for some very important but never heard about reason; and if the enemy still looks good then simply lie. How else would call this: british testers found that Emil makes a 360 degrees sustained turn in 25 seconds. How can that be? russian testers found that G2 turned in only 20 seconds, and Emil turned much better, 18 seconds. Are the british pilots incompetent or the authors of those reports liars? Pick your choice.

See, this is the importance of test figures, they can be compared with results obtained in similar tests. Tests that give only marks without the hard data have zero value.

As for E. Brown, yes he was quite biased towards Focke-Wulfs, he liked them very much, he wanted that the next generation of british fighters to be similar to FW-190. Probably he enjoyed the fact that Tempest II and Fury had some characteristics inherited from Fw-190.


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

Message Edited on 11/21/0303:34AM by Huckebein_FW

XyZspineZyX
11-21-2003, 09:35 AM
DING DING DING DING.....

End of round one. Stay with us folks, there's surely more to come.

http://www.80snostalgia.com/classictv/airwolf/pic1.jpg

XyZspineZyX
11-21-2003, 12:41 PM
jmmoric wrote:

- What we really need is aircrafts that actually falls
- apart when overstressed, all you risk now is a
- violent stall if you pull too hard.
-
- rgds

This would be excellent. It would make the dogfights so much more interesting. You'd have to calculate risks in order to escape your opponent and he'd have to decide if he takes the risk of following or not. Sure would be great!

Nic

XyZspineZyX
11-21-2003, 01:31 PM
SkyChimp wrote:
-
- Lucas Schmid stated in his report on Bf-109F high
- speed dive tests that an aileron overbalance was
- present at 850km/h that was so strong it almost
- ripped the stick from his hands. And the only thing
- that kept the plane from crashing was that his test
- plane had been modified so that aileron deflection
- was limited by half.
-
- Production planes did not have that aileron
- deflection limitation. Had he been flying an
- unmodified plane, like the ones that went into
- service, he would have crashed.
-

Incorrect, sorry.

"As speed increased - I was in the area between 850 and 890 kph - an aileron overbalance become appearant. Aileron deflection was <u> subsequently </u> limited by half, which certainly prevented a <u>later</u> crash... etc.

Thwe overbalance that was so strong that "almost ripped the stick from his hands" came in later trials, when he dived to Mach .805. Only THEN was the aileron deflection limited to half. But at the time you mention, he was flying a standard, unmodified aircraft.


So, at 850-890 kph speed range, even without the aileron deflection limited, the plane was proven to be safe. This was in any case, well beyond the official dive limits of the 109Fs.

In an 1944 test at similiar Mach numbers, they found no aileron overbalance, so I guess the issue was solved in some way (the Lukas test report also mentions something was to be done to investigate the phenomenon).




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

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

Message Edited on 11/21/0301:32PM by Vo101_Isegrim

XyZspineZyX
11-21-2003, 01:38 PM
i must strongly agree that eric brown's account of the 109 is highly unreliable - he is not a 109 pilot.

just in the same way some german pilots who had the chance to fly allied planes made strange comments on them.

to a 109 pilot ... some other planes stick might feel flimsy and the cockpit to big http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

this thread was going very fine ... there is no need to resort to the whole "bias,ignorant,stupid" thing http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

anyway .... i have the day off .... see you on hyperlobby http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

XyZspineZyX
11-21-2003, 03:16 PM
too when 109 has bad elevator compare p51 by high ias speed,

mean that not she has worst elevator from all plane

believe in fb has not one plane so worst elevator at 500km/h ias or more how 109


Message Edited on 11/21/0305:38PM by Skalgrim

ZG77_Nagual
11-21-2003, 04:10 PM
P39 elevator is pretty bad - as is the p40s. I think the 109 elevator is better than both of these.

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

XyZspineZyX
11-21-2003, 04:22 PM
I have the curve that show all the forces on a stick at different speeds recovering of dive.. These curves are from Messerscmitt original tests. So really such tests were done at speeds close to 1000 TAS km/h in dive recover (however the aircraft after that was retried due to micro cracks of longerons and other structural details/i/smilies/16x16_robot-happy.gif
Trust me, 109 is harder to recover than most other aircraft in a dive. But it doesn't means that it was impossible. Harder for sure and sometime in comparison very harder. Thats true and here I agree with you, that this thing is really great 109th myth about impossiblity to recover.



johann_thor wrote:
- there is not a single reliable test or pilot account
- to support this - just some allied pilots with no
- knowledge of how to fly a 109 - post ONE account
- from a german 109 pilot complaining about a concrete
- 109 elevator. no - you can't.
-
- what utter BS this is - i can live with it though
- cuz i seldom turn hard - but this is just so much BS
- it hurts.
-
- "the one and only MIG1 whiner"
-
-
-
- Message Edited on 11/20/03 03:49PM by johann_thor
-
- Message Edited on 11/20/03 06:05PM by
- johann_thor



Oleg Maddox
1C:Maddox Games

XyZspineZyX
11-21-2003, 04:47 PM
Oleg_Maddox wrote:
- I have the curve that show all the forces on a stick
- at different speeds recovering of dive.. These
- curves are from Messerscmitt original tests. So
- really such tests were done at speeds close to 1000
- TAS km/h in dive recover (however the aircraft after
- that was retried due to micro cracks of longerons
- and other structural details
- Trust me, 109 is harder to recover than most other
- aircraft in a dive. But it doesn't means that it was
- impossible. Harder for sure and sometime in
- comparison very harder. Thats true and here I agree
- with you, that this thing is really great 109th myth
- about impossiblity to recover.


Hi Oleg,

With all due respect, I think you are wrong in this respect. When you say 109 is harder to recover from dive than most other, please name one fighter with better dive recovery than 109 (except maybe Mustang and Fw-190).

Just because we have the stick forces for Bf-109 (though it will be very nice to see that chart you are talking about), and similar data is missing for the rest of the fighters, you cannot infer from this that Bf-109 had poorer dive recovery than other planes.

In fact the dive speed limits are very much telling about elevator forces at high speeds. Emil was limited to 750km/h IAS (low alts), later this dive speed limit was kept for all german fighters, only because this was the requirement. We don't have individual dive speed limits for german planes like we have for american planes for example. Even Fw-190 dive speed limit was noted to be the same as for Emil: 750km/h. Though both Fw-190 and late Bf-109 were dived often at higher speeds.

Oleg, you know that the same elevator system (movable stabilizer + elevator) as the one first used on Bf-109 was later used in other high speed planes, like Fw-190, and even first generation of jets, Me-262 or F-86A. If North American engineers used this system for F-86A, replacing the control system they had on Mustang, they certainly replaced it because they considered Messerschmitt solution as being superior.



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

XyZspineZyX
11-21-2003, 04:56 PM
This stick forces in dive chart you are telling us about Oleg, reminds me of another similar problem. We know how much time it takes to the propeller to change the pitch in a Bf-109. We also know that Allied pilots were afraid to use the linked throttle + pitch system, because they thought that propeller changed the pitch too slowly compared to the german planes.

And what happens with this info in FB? We have now realistic times for pitch changes for Bf-109 only. All other planes now change the pitch faster than Bf-109 though they should be at most as good as Bf-109.


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

XyZspineZyX
11-21-2003, 06:45 PM
Huckebein wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Just because we have the stick forces for Bf-109 (though it will be very nice to see that chart you are talking about), and similar data is missing for the rest of the fighters... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is my feeling as well (unsupported, I admit). It seems like 109s are *correctly* difficult to recover from dives in...but almost every other plane can pick the nose up almost at will: P39s, Yaks, Lavochkins especially. It seems as if the other planes get pretty much a free ride when it comes to high speed elevator use, while the Messerschmitt's apparent faults are modelled to the nines.

XyZspineZyX
11-21-2003, 07:09 PM
Huckebein_FW wrote:

- Skychimp it wasn't only 850km/h IAS, in that flight
- he also was at 0.8Mach, so he was deep into
- compressibility, this is why he experienced aileron
- overbalance.
-
- Since the finnish pilot was at low altitude when he
- reached 850km/h IAS, he was at "only" 0.75Mach. More
- adverse effects were probably encountered at higher
- Mach number, he did not report any aileron
- overbalance.


No, you're wrong. You need to read his report instead of just trying to guess at it.

Schmid states in his report that he was at mach .80 when he hit 906 km/h, **NOT 850km/h**. 906km/h equals mach .80 at around 18,000-20,000 feet. At 20,000 feet 850 km/h equals mach .75.

So to use your terminology, there was severe aileron overbalance, that would have caused a crash in a service plane, at "only" mach .75.

Regards,

SkyChimp

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

XyZspineZyX
11-21-2003, 07:16 PM
Learn to fly it! Thats what we was told about the P-47 in 1.0 and that is what I did. Huck is the biggest hypocrite and biased person in the forum.

http://www.fritzliess.com/movabletype/archives/images/warbirds.jpg

XyZspineZyX
11-21-2003, 07:21 PM
Vo101_Isegrim wrote:

- Incorrect, sorry.
-
- "As speed increased - I was in the area between 850
- and 890 kph - an aileron overbalance become
- appearant. Aileron deflection was <u> subsequently
- </u> limited by half, which certainly prevented a
- <u>later</u> crash... etc.
-
- Thwe overbalance that was so strong that "almost
- ripped the stick from his hands" came in later
- trials, when he dived to Mach .805. Only THEN was
- the aileron deflection limited to half. But at the
- time you mention, he was flying a standard,
- unmodified aircraft.


You are taking quotes of context, as usual.

Here is what Lukas said after his dive to 906 km/h: "Now no fighter pilot could claim, as had often happened, that he had exceeded 1,000 kph. The high mach number came as a surprise - it had not been thought the Bf-109 could reach such a figure. It should also be mentioned that there was an enormously strong aileron overbalance during this last dive, almost ripping the stick from my hand. <u>Had it not been for the limit on the aileron this would have led to disaster.</u>"

So the enormousely strong aileron overbalance would have led to disaster on any other BF-109 not modified to have limited aileron travel.

Clearly, Schmid was flying a modified plane that no Luftwaffe pilot had access to. Had any Luftwaffe pilot tried this in a typical service plane, he would have been killed.



- So, at 850-890 kph speed range, even without the
- aileron deflection limited, the plane was proven to
- be safe. This was in any case, well beyond the
- official dive limits of the 109Fs.

The German dive limitation on the Bf-109 is meaningless.
At the Bf-109s ceiling, 750km/h is more than mach 1 - impossible. And at sea level its just 466mph - very slow.



- In an 1944 test at similiar Mach numbers, they found
- no aileron overbalance, so I guess the issue was
- solved in some way (the Lukas test report also
- mentions something was to be done to investigate the
- phenomenon).

There's no evidence that anything was ever done about it.



Message Edited on 11/21/0301:32PM by SkyChimp

XyZspineZyX
11-21-2003, 07:23 PM
Oleg_Maddox wrote:
- I have the curve that show all the forces on a stick
- at different speeds recovering of dive.. These
- curves are from Messerscmitt original tests. So
- really such tests were done at speeds close to 1000
- TAS km/h in dive recover (however the aircraft after
- that was retried due to micro cracks of longerons
- and other structural details/i/smilies/16x16_robot-happy.gif
- Trust me, 109 is harder to recover than most other
- aircraft in a dive. But it doesn't means that it was
- impossible. Harder for sure and sometime in
- comparison very harder. Thats true and here I agree
- with you, that this thing is really great 109th myth
- about impossiblity to recover.


Oleg, you know you just made Huckebein's $hit-list don't you?

I agree with you, the Bf-109 was not impossible to pull out of a dive, but very hard.

Regards,

SkyChimp

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

XyZspineZyX
11-21-2003, 07:27 PM
hey would you calm down the lot of you ! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif


yes oleg makes good points - and agrees with me up to a point - but like i said later in the thread my main concern is not recovering from 800+ dives .... but the fact that the elevator is far too heavy at 600km in manouvers and is very ineffective in high-speed combat situations

ZG77_Nagual
11-21-2003, 07:28 PM
<drool> I see bearcat picture <slurp> not ... able....to...think...

Oh yeah - once again Oleg cuts throught the cloud of unknowing!


<bearcat...me...want...>

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

XyZspineZyX
11-21-2003, 07:38 PM
Huckebein_FW wrote:
- This stick forces in dive chart you are telling us
- about Oleg, reminds me of another similar problem.
- We know how much time it takes to the propeller to
- change the pitch in a Bf-109. We also know that
- Allied pilots were afraid to use the linked throttle
- + pitch system, because they thought that propeller
- changed the pitch too slowly compared to the german
- planes.
-
- And what happens with this info in FB? We have now
- realistic times for pitch changes for Bf-109 only.
- All other planes now change the pitch faster than
- Bf-109 though they should be at most as good as
- Bf-109.


This is absurd, how the hell do you know this? And why would an Allied pilot be "afraid" to change pitch, and why do you think Allied propellors pitched more slowing that German props.

Please tell us how long it takes to change pitch on all the props in FB, and what they should be. Then (here's the hard part) list your sources.



Regards,

SkyChimp

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

XyZspineZyX
11-21-2003, 07:40 PM
Huckebein_FW wrote:
If North American engineers
- used this system for F-86A, replacing the control
- system they had on Mustang, they certainly replaced
- it because they considered Messerschmitt solution as
- being superior.


They stopped using it, and replaced it with the all flying tail.





Regards,

SkyChimp

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

XyZspineZyX
11-21-2003, 07:52 PM
SkyChimp wrote:
-
- Huckebein_FW wrote:
-
-- Skychimp it wasn't only 850km/h IAS, in that flight
-- he also was at 0.8Mach, so he was deep into
-- compressibility, this is why he experienced aileron
-- overbalance.
--
-- Since the finnish pilot was at low altitude when he
-- reached 850km/h IAS, he was at "only" 0.75Mach. More
-- adverse effects were probably encountered at higher
-- Mach number, he did not report any aileron
-- overbalance.
-
-
- No, you're wrong. You need to read his report
- instead of just trying to guess at it.
-
- Schmid states in his report that he was at mach .80
- when he hit 906 km/h, **NOT 850km/h**. 906km/h
- equals mach .80 at around 18,000-20,000 feet. At
- 20,000 feet 850 km/h equals mach .75.
-
- So to use your terminology, there was severe aileron
- overbalance, that would have caused a crash in a
- service plane, at "only" mach .75.


Typical Skychimp bullsh*t.

The plane was dived up to Mach 0.8, of course at some point it reached Mach 0.75. Lukas does not specify which was the speed at which he had troubles with the controls, but he says that it happened at high Mach. We can infer that he had this trouble at 0.8 Mach, otherways he wouldn't have had pushed the dive further.

Other pilots which dived the plane to similar speed did not encounter the problems Lukas reported. Anyway there was no other piston fighter that could be dived with better safety to such extreme speeds.


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

XyZspineZyX
11-21-2003, 08:01 PM
VMF-214_HaVoK wrote:
- Learn to fly it! Thats what we was told about the
- P-47 in 1.0 and that is what I did. Huck is the
- biggest hypocrite and biased person in the forum.


No you did not learnt anything, except to moan about P47. There is no other flight model with performance and handling more ridiculously overmodelled than P47. Other than P51 that is. 120 deg/sec roll up to any speed and more than 4000fpm initial climb rate is performance not even dreamed by its designers.

Keep yourself in good moaning shape buddy, because soon I'll open a thread to show how ridiculous P47 FM is.


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

Message Edited on 11/21/0302:07PM by Huckebein_FW

XyZspineZyX
11-21-2003, 08:03 PM
SkyChimp wrote:
-
-
- Vo101_Isegrim wrote:
-
-- Incorrect, sorry.
--
-- "As speed increased - I was in the area between 850
-- and 890 kph - an aileron overbalance become
-- appearant. Aileron deflection was <u> subsequently
-- </u> limited by half, which certainly prevented a
-- <u>later</u> crash... etc.
--
-- Thwe overbalance that was so strong that "almost
-- ripped the stick from his hands" came in later
-- trials, when he dived to Mach .805. Only THEN was
-- the aileron deflection limited to half. But at the
-- time you mention, he was flying a standard,
-- unmodified aircraft.
-
-
- You are taking quotes of context, as usual.
-
- Here is what Lukas said after his dive to 906 km/h:
- "Now no fighter pilot could claim, as had often
- happened, that he had exceeded 1,000 kph. The high
- mach number came as a surprise - it had not been
- thought the Bf-109 could reach such a figure. It
- should also be mentioned that there was an
- enormously strong aileron overbalance during this
- last dive, almost ripping the stick from my hand.
- <u>Had it not been for the limit on the aileron this
- would have led to disaster.</u>"
-
- So the enormousely strong aileron overbalance would
- have led to disaster on any other BF-109 not
- modified to have limited aileron travel.
-
- Clearly, Schmid was flying a modified plane that no
- Luftwaffe pilot had access to. Had any Luftwaffe
- pilot tried this in a typical service plane, he
- would have been killed.
-
-
-
-
-
-- So, at 850-890 kph speed range, even without the
-- aileron deflection limited, the plane was proven to
-- be safe. This was in any case, well beyond the
-- official dive limits of the 109Fs.
-
- The German dive limitation on the Bf-109 is
- meaningless.
- At the Bf-109s ceiling, 750km/h is more than mach 1
- - impossible. And at sea level its just 466mph -
- very slow.


The same reply as above:

The plane was dived up to Mach 0.8, of course at some point it reached Mach 0.75. Lukas does not specify which was the speed at which he had troubles with the controls, but he says that it happened at high Mach. We can infer that he had this trouble at 0.8 Mach, otherways he wouldn't have had pushed the dive further.

Other pilots which dived the plane to similar speed did not encounter the problems Lukas reported. There was no other piston fighter that could be dived in better safety conditions to such extreme speeds.



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

XyZspineZyX
11-21-2003, 08:06 PM
SkyChimp wrote:
-
- Oleg_Maddox wrote:
-- I have the curve that show all the forces on a stick
-- at different speeds recovering of dive.. These
-- curves are from Messerscmitt original tests. So
-- really such tests were done at speeds close to 1000
-- TAS km/h in dive recover (however the aircraft after
-- that was retried due to micro cracks of longerons
-- and other structural details/i/smilies/16x16_robot-happy.gif
-- Trust me, 109 is harder to recover than most other
-- aircraft in a dive. But it doesn't means that it was
-- impossible. Harder for sure and sometime in
-- comparison very harder. Thats true and here I agree
-- with you, that this thing is really great 109th myth
-- about impossiblity to recover.
-
-
- Oleg, you know you just made Huckebein's $hit-list
- don't you?

You mean like Oleg made it to Skychimp's $hit list on P47 matter? No, not in my case.



- I agree with you, the Bf-109 was not impossible to
- pull out of a dive, but very hard.

All ww2 fighters had very hard elevators in high speed dives. Bf-109 had one of the lightest elevator forces among them.


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

XyZspineZyX
11-21-2003, 08:07 PM
Huckebein_FW wrote:

- Typical Skychimp bullsh*t.
-
- The plane was dived up to Mach 0.8, of course at
- some point it reached Mach 0.75. Lukas does not
- specify which was the speed at which he had troubles
- with the controls, but he says that it happened at
- high Mach. We can infer that he had this trouble at
- 0.8 Mach, otherways he wouldn't have had pushed the
- dive further.

He does say it!!!! Read is friggin' report and quit relying on everyone else to eductate you.

The plane was dived to mach .80 - which Schmid stated he reached when his speed hit 906km/h.

And yes, he had the trouble at 906 km/h (mach .80), but it started earlier - 850 km/h.

Again, cut out the guessing and read his report. If you rely on Isegrim's version of the report, you'll never know what it actually says.



- Other pilots which dived the plane to similar speed
- did not encounter the problems Lukas reported.
- Anyway there was no other piston fighter that could
- be dived with better safety to such extreme speeds.

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif Typical Huckebein BS.





Regards,

SkyChimp

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

XyZspineZyX
11-21-2003, 08:09 PM
Huckebein_FW wrote:

- Keep yourself in good moaning shape buddy, because
- soon I'll open a thread to show how ridiculous P47
- FM is.


Do it. It's just killing you that Oleg says you are wrong.

Regards,

SkyChimp

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

XyZspineZyX
11-21-2003, 08:13 PM
Huckebein_FW wrote:
- The same reply as above:
-
- The plane was dived up to Mach 0.8, of course at
- some point it reached Mach 0.75. Lukas does not
- specify which was the speed at which he had troubles
- with the controls, but he says that it happened at
- high Mach. We can infer that he had this trouble at
- 0.8 Mach, otherways he wouldn't have had pushed the
- dive further.
-
- Other pilots which dived the plane to similar speed
- did not encounter the problems Lukas reported. There
- was no other piston fighter that could be dived in
- better safety conditions to such extreme speeds.


All this proves is that you are commenting on the content of a report you've never read. Had you read it, you'd know Schmid said the problem occurred at 850 km/h. NOT HIGH MACH! And that the TERMINAL dive speed of the plane was mach .80 - or in his case 906 km/h.

Regards,

SkyChimp

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

XyZspineZyX
11-21-2003, 08:15 PM
Huckebein_FW wrote:

- You mean like Oleg made it to Skychimp's $hit list
- on P47 matter? No, not in my case.

The difference is we presented documentation to prove our point, and Oleg changed it.

All you are presenting is your highly biased opinion. And that's not worth anything.



- All ww2 fighters had very hard elevators in high
- speed dives. Bf-109 had one of the lightest elevator
- forces among them.

Lightest elevator forces? Where's your proof?

That's all we want, Huck. There's too much anecdotal evidence that says they were heavy. Yet you can't produce ANYTHING that says otherwise. Prove your case to Johanns standard! Post SOMETHING that supports your point!

Regards,

SkyChimp

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



Message Edited on 11/21/0302:18PM by SkyChimp

XyZspineZyX
11-21-2003, 08:26 PM
You always know when Huck is on the ropes./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif He starts with the insults and does the twist./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif



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



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

XyZspineZyX
11-21-2003, 08:26 PM
SkyChimp wrote:
-
- Huckebein_FW wrote:
-- This stick forces in dive chart you are telling us
-- about Oleg, reminds me of another similar problem.
-- We know how much time it takes to the propeller to
-- change the pitch in a Bf-109. We also know that
-- Allied pilots were afraid to use the linked throttle
-- + pitch system, because they thought that propeller
-- changed the pitch too slowly compared to the german
-- planes.
--
-- And what happens with this info in FB? We have now
-- realistic times for pitch changes for Bf-109 only.
-- All other planes now change the pitch faster than
-- Bf-109 though they should be at most as good as
-- Bf-109.
-
-
- This is absurd, how the hell do you know this? And
- why would an Allied pilot be "afraid" to change
- pitch, and why do you think Allied propellors
- pitched more slowing that German props.
-
- Please tell us how long it takes to change pitch on
- all the props in FB, and what they should be. Then
- (here's the hard part) list your sources.

N. G. Golodnikov testifies for this, he was an experienced soviet pilot, he flew in combat and as a flight instructor almost all allied planes in soviet service. He certainly had an educated oppinion about allied planes. He flew american fighters with linked throttle and pitch and he disliked them because the automatic system changed the pitch to slowly - he prefered the manual one, to keep the max RPM even with decrease in MP.


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

XyZspineZyX
11-21-2003, 08:36 PM
SkyChimp wrote:
-
- Huckebein_FW wrote:
-
-- Typical Skychimp bullsh*t.
--
-- The plane was dived up to Mach 0.8, of course at
-- some point it reached Mach 0.75. Lukas does not
-- specify which was the speed at which he had troubles
-- with the controls, but he says that it happened at
-- high Mach. We can infer that he had this trouble at
-- 0.8 Mach, otherways he wouldn't have had pushed the
-- dive further.
-
- He does say it!!!! Read is friggin' report and quit
- relying on everyone else to eductate you.
-
- The plane was dived to mach .80 - which Schmid
- stated he reached when his speed hit 906km/h.
-
- And yes, he had the trouble at 906 km/h (mach .80),
- but it started earlier - 850 km/h.
-
- Again, cut out the guessing and read his report. If
- you rely on Isegrim's version of the report, you'll
- never know what it actually says.

No, he doesn't specify the speed where the aileron control had strong vibrations. "Having troubles" is a very general affirmation, he was outside the flight envelope with a lot, I don't think he expected a pleasant flight.



-- Other pilots which dived the plane to similar speed
-- did not encounter the problems Lukas reported.
-- Anyway there was no other piston fighter that could
-- be dived with better safety to such extreme speeds.
-
- http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif Typical Huckebein BS.


Oh, seriously?? Then post the allied experiences at the same speeds. Being in a P47 at those speeds equated with a death sentence. Over a hundred planes were lost in dive accidents in P-47. Unless you were a Olympic champion weightlifter there were next to zero chances to recover once P47 encoutered compressibility. This is why it was fitted with dive flaps. Just like P-38, another american disaster when it comes to dives. I hope you'll be the first to mention the dive troubles with P-38, when it will first appear in FB.


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

XyZspineZyX
11-21-2003, 08:37 PM
SkyChimp wrote:
-
- Huckebein_FW wrote:
-
-- Keep yourself in good moaning shape buddy, because
-- soon I'll open a thread to show how ridiculous P47
-- FM is.
-
-
- Do it. It's just killing you that Oleg says you are
- wrong.


No, Oleg says that Bf-109 difficult dive recovery was just a myth.


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

XyZspineZyX
11-21-2003, 08:41 PM
SkyChimp wrote:
-
- Huckebein_FW wrote:
-- The same reply as above:
--
-- The plane was dived up to Mach 0.8, of course at
-- some point it reached Mach 0.75. Lukas does not
-- specify which was the speed at which he had troubles
-- with the controls, but he says that it happened at
-- high Mach. We can infer that he had this trouble at
-- 0.8 Mach, otherways he wouldn't have had pushed the
-- dive further.
--
-- Other pilots which dived the plane to similar speed
-- did not encounter the problems Lukas reported. There
-- was no other piston fighter that could be dived in
-- better safety conditions to such extreme speeds.
-
-
- All this proves is that you are commenting on the
- content of a report you've never read. Had you read
- it, you'd know Schmid said the problem occurred at
- 850 km/h. NOT HIGH MACH! And that the TERMINAL
- dive speed of the plane was mach .80 - or in his
- case 906 km/h.


It was terminal at that altitude. If dived from higher altitude with a more powerful engine, that speed won't be terminal. But this test was done with a light and significantly less powerful F model. Learn physics Skychimp, it was terminal dive speed for the F model only.


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

XyZspineZyX
11-21-2003, 08:47 PM
Huckebein_FW wrote:

- N. G. Golodnikov testifies for this, he was an
- experienced soviet pilot, he flew in combat and as a
- flight instructor almost all allied planes in soviet
- service. He certainly had an educated oppinion about
- allied planes. He flew american fighters with linked
- throttle and pitch and he disliked them because the
- automatic system changed the pitch to slowly - he
- prefered the manual one, to keep the max RPM even
- with decrease in MP.


Yeah, but that's not what you said. Lets take a look:

"We also know that Allied pilots were afraid to use the linked throttle + pitch system, because they thought that propeller changed the pitch too slowly compared to the german planes."

You said <u>"allied pilots were afraid."</u> Now you say Golodnikov didn't really like it. There's a big difference there. I know you knew that when you wrote it. But you twisted it so that it sounded like Allied planes were in some way inferior. --TYPICAL--

And BTW, if he flew the P-39 with "boost control" the throttle and prop pitch controls were linked together. But Bell made sure the pilot could unlink them if he so desired.

And I guess he must have hated the Fw-190 where eveything was linked together.


Regards,

SkyChimp

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

XyZspineZyX
11-21-2003, 08:51 PM
Huckebein_FW wrote:

- No, he doesn't specify the speed where the aileron
- control had strong vibrations. "Having troubles" is
- a very general affirmation, he was outside the
- flight envelope with a lot, I don't think he
- expected a pleasant flight.

HE DID! He said the problem occurred at 850 km/h. I have his report, do you?



- Oh, seriously?? Then post the allied experiences at
- the same speeds. Being in a P47 at those speeds
- equated with a death sentence. Over a hundred planes
- were lost in dive accidents in P-47. Unless you were
- a Olympic champion weightlifter there were next to
- zero chances to recover once P47 encoutered
- compressibility. This is why it was fitted with dive
- flaps. Just like P-38, another american disaster
- when it comes to dives. I hope you'll be the first
- to mention the dive troubles with P-38, when it will
- first appear in FB.

The P-38 was the ONE plane that the German could dive with. The BF-109F had a TERMINAL DIVE speed of just mach .805. That's a <u>terminal dive speed</u>.

Your assertions that the Bf-109 could outdive either the Mustang or Thunderbolt is just another example of how irrational you've become. NOBODY would agree with that, except maybe Isegrim.






Regards,

SkyChimp

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

ZG77_Nagual
11-21-2003, 08:53 PM
Goldnikov's comment pertains to the P-39 Huck - Not all American planes - as far as I know he flew only the p40, p39 and p-63(after war) and the Hurricane.
(to be clear - no later p40s, no p38s, no p47s no p51s no spit) Your remark that he flew most allied planes in Sov service is accurate - and he did prefer the de-linked system - hoever this does not support your generalization.

The hurricanes he flew did not have auto pitch.

P39:

"Again, beginning with the -10, the propellers came with a unified system of throttle/pitch, and this also did not increase survivability in combat. I've already addressed that."

"On later Cobras they installed combined throttle/pitch control. This was the case on some Q-10s, on all of the Q-25s and Q-30s. We preferred the de-linked control, where the throttle and the pitch were separate. This was on the Q-5 up to the Q-10."

and on the P40

"The P-40 had two types of propeller. With the electric propeller, the pitch was regulated by an electric motor, and with the mechanical propeller, conventionally with levers and rods. The electric propeller was automatic, with combined control by the throttle and pitch. The throttle quadrant had a rheostat and the movement of the lever automatically regulated the pitch. The Tomahawk had the electric propeller, while the latest Kittyhawks had mechanical propellers. Both types of propeller were reliable.

I did not fly with the mechanical propeller because by this time I had transitioned to the Cobra. Regarding the linked control I can say the following: sometimes this linked control was a hindrance"

"Normally, pitch and throttle are coordinated in the following manner: more RPMs-reduce pitch. This is how the linked system worked. However, when we were trying to overtake the enemy in a dive or conversely to break away, for maximum acceleration we needed to increase RPMs sharply. Initially the propeller was loaded up and only later was pitch reduced. If in a dive, with the increase of RPMs the propeller pitch was reduced immediately, the propeller would begin to function as a brake. German aircraft were good in the dive. In a fighter with a linked throttle-pitch system in a dive we either fell back or he caught up to us. Therefore we always preferred a separated or de-linked system"


I trust you have other sources.





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



Message Edited on 11/21/0303:13PM by ZG77_Nagual

XyZspineZyX
11-21-2003, 08:55 PM
Huckebein_FW wrote:

- No, Oleg says that Bf-109 difficult dive recovery
- was just a myth.


No he didn't!

He said:
"that this thing is really great 109th myth about impossiblity to recover."

It was myth that it was impossible to recover!



He also said:
"Trust me, 109 is harder to recover than most other aircraft in a dive."

Harder than MOST.





Regards,

SkyChimp

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

XyZspineZyX
11-21-2003, 08:57 PM
Huckebein_FW wrote:

- It was terminal at that altitude. If dived from
- higher altitude with a more powerful engine, that
- speed won't be terminal. But this test was done with
- a light and significantly less powerful F model.
- Learn physics Skychimp, it was terminal dive speed
- for the F model only.


Well, gee whiz, huck. The P-47C had a terminal dive speed of mach .86. That do you think it would have been for the P-47D or P-47M? Or does that way of thinking only apply to German planes?



Regards,

SkyChimp

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

XyZspineZyX
11-21-2003, 09:26 PM
Observation. I've read this thread up to this point. Kudos to Huckebein. I've seen threads in the past where Huckebein would really flame hard, with name calling and such. He has shown great restraint here in the face of disagreeing with SkyChimp and a few others. I have to give him that.

But, I believe Oleg summed it up in a nut shell when he stated that the 190 was difficult to pull out of a hard dive, but not impossible. Oleg also has Me's original testing curves, but he was told he was wrong. The planes manufactors test were wrong? That's crazy. At least he is modeling from ME's own testing results, and that says it all. Thanks Oleg for posting this info, and SkyChimp and the rest for a good debate. Information is power, but first you must believe it. I do. S!

XyZspineZyX
11-21-2003, 09:51 PM
SkyChimp wrote:

- Your assertions that the Bf-109 could outdive either
- the Mustang or Thunderbolt is just another example
- of how irrational you've become. NOBODY would agree
- with that, except maybe Isegrim.


American pilot Robert C.Curtis remembers :

"My flight chased 12 109s south of Vienna. They climbed and we followed, unable to close on them. At 38,000 feet I fired a long burst at one of them from at least a 1000 yards, and saw some strikes. It rolled over and dived and I followed but soon reached compressibility with severe buffeting of the tail and loss of elevator control. I slowed my plane and regained control, but the 109 got away.
On two other occasions ME 109s got away from me because the P 51d could not stay with them in a high-speed dive. At 525-550 mph the plane would start to porpoise uncontrollably and had to be slowed to regain control. The P 51 was redlined at 505 mph, meaning that this speed should not be exceeded. But when chasing 109s or 190s in a dive from 25-26,000 it often was exceeded, if you wanted to keep up with those enemy planes. The P 51b, and c, could stay with those planes in a dive. The P 51d had a thicker wing and a bubble canopy which changed the airflow and brought on compressibility at lower speeds"


It seems this 109 outdived the P-51.

Horrible.




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

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

XyZspineZyX
11-21-2003, 10:18 PM
Vo101_Isegrim wrote:

- American pilot Robert C.Curtis remembers :


You look hard enough, you can find single stories to support any absurd assertion. I can find stories of Bf-109 pilots that couldn't outturn P-47s.

=====

Here's one from a German (P-47):

Hptm. Meitusch: Commanding Officer of III./JG 26
Flying: Bf 109G-6, WNr: 162032, code Black 21
Cause of loss: P-47s from the 352 FG
Location: North of Meppen.

Also lost was Uffz. Emil Kampen who was KIA in Bf 109G-6 WNr: 410743, code White 5, cause of loss listed as 352 FG. The location was Steinhunder Lake".

"Hptm Mietusch did reach the heavy bomber stream but with only a handful of his Messerchmits. His first attempt to close with the bombers was fended off by the escort, which shot down Uffz Kampen, who crashed with his plane.

Meitusch and two other pilots made a beam attack on the rear of the bombers of a combat wing and then rolled away. A flight of P-47s from the 352nd FG went after the three Messerchmits. Two got on the tail of Meitusch's wingman. When Meitusch went to his aid , the leader of the P-47 flight was able to damage the German plane with a burst of fire at high deflection. Meitusch broke for the deck and the Thunderbolt pilot was able to close on him easily, firing down to a range of 100 yds. Large pieces flew off the 109, which was a mass of flames. Meitusch jettisoned his canopy and jumped out. His chute opened immediately, and he landed safely but with injuries severe enough to keep him in the hospital for the next few weeks. Hptm. Staiger took comand of the Gruppe until Meitusch's return.."

=====

Here's another from an American (P-47):

"I was leading Blue Flight. We made rendezvous with the bombers on time and conducted our escort without incident. No attacks were made until after the Group leader ordered everybody out, at which time out squadron was at the rear of the bombers and on the same level - about 20,000 feet. The Me-109s came out of the sun with a lot of speed and made a 90 degree attack on the rear bombers, breaking away in rolls. I called them in and went after the lead two as they stayed together, the third having broken in a different direction. Our speed was not great as we had been escorting at reduced throttle, so it took me some time to close on the E/A's. When I was still about a 1000 yards away, two other P-47s came in very fast from my left, but the leader of the E/A's chandelled and I followed him as the other two P-47s continued chasing his wingman. I made an attack, firing a short burst at 400 yards and 90 degrees, trying to make him break, as he was trying to get in position on the two P-47's chasing his wingman. I was successful, for he broke for the deck and I was able to close to 300 yards. I fired several bursts at him at tree top level. When I got some hits he pulled straight up, and by cutting my throttle I stayed with him and fired another burst at 100 yards, getting many hits. Big pieces fell off of the E/A, and it was covered in flames. I overtook him and as I pulled up on his right wing he jettisoned his canopy. I was sitting right on his wing and got a good look at him."

=====

American Pilot (P-51B)

Ed Heller's most memorable air-to-air combat came May 8, 1944, on an escort mission over Germany. Early on, his wingman had to abort, and Heller became tail-end Charlie in a three-ship flight. In an engagement with some 30 German fighters, he shot a Bf-109 off his flight leader's tail, then damaged another that dove for the ground 20,000 feet below. Heller gradually closed on him. The German pulled out on the deck and led Heller a wild chase around steeples, buildings, trees, and haystacks, preventing his pursuer from drawing enough lead to fire. Running out of obstacles, the -109 pilot made a tight left turn, and the two fighters ended up in a Lufbery circle with Heller slowly gaining on the German.

In desperation, the German pilot broke out of the circle. As he pulled up over a bridge, Heller hit him again, and the Luftwaffe pilot crash-landed in a river. At that point, Heller's coolant blew up, covering his windscreen, but enough was trapped to form steam that kept the engine turning for the two-hour flight to Bodney, where he landed in marginal weather. A day to remember.

Regards,

SkyChimp

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

ZG77_Nagual
11-21-2003, 10:22 PM
Outdived the P51d Isegrim - be precise. I'm sure you can see from the tone of this thread how important it is to be precise /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

D has never been my fav P51.


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

XyZspineZyX
11-21-2003, 10:29 PM
All your high speed elevator controls belong to us.

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


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

XyZspineZyX
11-21-2003, 10:33 PM
No, the 109 did not out-dive this P-51, the pilot simply allowed his plane to reach too high a dive speed when trying to close a 1,000+ yd gap. The 109 'got away' because the pilot was busy recovering his airplane from the 885 kph dive. How well would a 109 handle at 885 kph? Not well. Or are you claiming that the 109 'out-dove' this Mustang by achieving a 885+ kph dive speed?


Vo101_Isegrim wrote:
-
- SkyChimp wrote:
-
-- Your assertions that the Bf-109 could outdive either
-- the Mustang or Thunderbolt is just another example
-- of how irrational you've become. NOBODY would agree
-- with that, except maybe Isegrim.
-
-
- American pilot Robert C.Curtis remembers :
-
- "My flight chased 12 109s south of Vienna. They
- climbed and we followed, unable to close on them. At
- 38,000 feet I fired a long burst at one of them from
- at least a 1000 yards, and saw some strikes. It
- rolled over and dived and I followed but soon
- reached compressibility with severe buffeting of the
- tail and loss of elevator control. I slowed my plane
- and regained control, but the 109 got away.
- On two other occasions ME 109s got away from me
- because the P 51d could not stay with them in a
- high-speed dive. At 525-550 mph the plane would
- start to porpoise uncontrollably and had to be
- slowed to regain control. The P 51 was redlined at
- 505 mph, meaning that this speed should not be
- exceeded. But when chasing 109s or 190s in a dive
- from 25-26,000 it often was exceeded, if you wanted
- to keep up with those enemy planes. The P 51b, and
- c, could stay with those planes in a dive. The P 51d
- had a thicker wing and a bubble canopy which changed
- the airflow and brought on compressibility at lower
- speeds" -
-
- It seems this 109 outdived the P-51.
-
- Horrible.
-
-
-
-
-
- Vezérünk a Bátorság, K*sérµnk a Szerencse!
- (Courage leads, Luck escorts us! - Historical motto
- of the 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)
-
- Flight tests and other aviation performance data:
- http://www.pbase.com/isegrim

http://www.cebudanderson.com/images/a0001.jpg

XyZspineZyX
11-21-2003, 10:58 PM
some plane how 109 seem very accurate simulate,but most not,

that is proplem

Message Edited on 11/22/0302:54PM by Skalgrim

XyZspineZyX
11-21-2003, 11:07 PM
Korolov wrote:
- All your high speed elevator controls belong to us.


hahahahahahhehehehhihiihihihhohohohoholol

great stuff !

my point is basically that the 109 elevator clogs up to early - like when i am trying to loop at 550-600 km. you even start to black out even though you are not pulling many G at all - does not bother me with my strictly Boom and zoom tactics (when in 109) but sometime i like to turnfight LAs in the 109 just to be a showoff (being a showoff is usually what gets me killed) and then i notice that i have to slow down to like 400 (which is OK if you gain alt in the manouver) to be able to get some elevator effectiveness - i have learned to do this and can give LAs a hard time in any situation. just dont be an idiot and try to do sustained turns ... always extend and accelerate after every 180 turn ... then the LAs will never get a firing solution even though they are on your 6.

i can live with that your stick moves slowly ... you cant just yank it around in a 109 - and when you pull back you need some time to get deflection - cuz this is all realistic for a 109 - but once its there ... it should work like an elevator should.

then again i think apart from this there are no further issues with the 109 - beautifully modelled plane in this game. there are certainly planes with far greater issues then the 109.

XyZspineZyX
11-21-2003, 11:18 PM
skychump... u fly on HL? whats your callsign there?

XyZspineZyX
11-21-2003, 11:18 PM
SkyChimp wrote:
-
- Huckebein_FW wrote:
-
-- N. G. Golodnikov testifies for this, he was an
-- experienced soviet pilot, he flew in combat and as a
-- flight instructor almost all allied planes in soviet
-- service. He certainly had an educated oppinion about
-- allied planes. He flew american fighters with linked
-- throttle and pitch and he disliked them because the
-- automatic system changed the pitch to slowly - he
-- prefered the manual one, to keep the max RPM even
-- with decrease in MP.
-
-
- Yeah, but that's not what you said. Lets take a
- look:
-
- "We also know that Allied pilots were afraid to use
- the linked throttle + pitch system, because they
- thought that propeller changed the pitch too slowly
- compared to the german planes."
-
- You said <u>"allied pilots were afraid."</u> Now
- you say Golodnikov didn't really like it. There's a
- big difference there. I know you knew that when you
- wrote it. But you twisted it so that it sounded
- like Allied planes were in some way inferior.
- --TYPICAL--

He disliked the linked system because he felt that it was inferior to what germans had. Read the paragraph.


- And BTW, if he flew the P-39 with "boost control"
- the throttle and prop pitch controls were linked
- together. But Bell made sure the pilot could unlink
- them if he so desired.
-
- And I guess he must have hated the Fw-190 where
- eveything was linked together.


Both 109 and 190 had hydraulic prop pitch mechanism, which generally was faster than the electric one anyway. Though I don't think there were major differences among the speed of pitch change among various hydraulic systems, 109 and 190 should be at least among the fastest, not the slowest as they are now.


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

XyZspineZyX
11-21-2003, 11:18 PM
Salute

Any number of tests indicated the 109's had excellent elevator response at speeds between 250 kph and 480 kph. Over those speeds, response deteriorated quickly due to the design of the aerofoil causing early onset of compressibility.

The tests were done by German, British and Americans.

XyZspineZyX
11-21-2003, 11:24 PM
lrrp22 wrote:
- No, the 109 did not out-dive this P-51, the pilot
- simply allowed his plane to reach too high a dive
- speed when trying to close a 1,000+ yd gap. The 109
- 'got away' because the pilot was busy recovering his
- airplane from the 885 kph dive. How well would a
- 109 handle at 885 kph? Not well. Or are you
- claiming that the 109 'out-dove' this Mustang by
- achieving a 885+ kph dive speed?


What a crap, read that quote lrrp:

-- On two other occasions ME 109s got away from me
-- because the P 51d could not stay with them in a
-- high-speed dive. At 525-550 mph the plane would
-- start to porpoise uncontrollably and had to be
-- slowed to regain control. The P 51 was redlined at
-- 505 mph, meaning that this speed should not be
-- exceeded.

He makes it clear that Bf-109 was a better diver than P-51.


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

XyZspineZyX
11-21-2003, 11:26 PM
RAF74BuzzsawXO wrote:
- Salute
-
- Any number of tests indicated the 109's had
- excellent elevator response at speeds between 250
- kph and 480 kph. Over those speeds, response
- deteriorated quickly due to the design of the
- aerofoil causing early onset of compressibility.
-
- The tests were done by German, British and
- Americans.


And what are the stick forces in those tests? Post them to compare with other planes.

And you mention German tests? what tests revealed that 109 had worse controls than other fighters at speeds over 480km/h. You're inventing again Buzzsaw. Post the docs.


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

XyZspineZyX
11-21-2003, 11:33 PM
RAF74BuzzsawXO wrote:
- Salute
-
- Any number of tests indicated the 109's had
- excellent elevator response at speeds between 250
- kph and 480 kph. Over those speeds, response
- deteriorated quickly due to the design of the
- aerofoil causing early onset of compressibility.
-
- The tests were done by German, British and
- Americans.
-
you misunderstand - see ... the stick got very heavy .... gradually after exceeding around 500 km/h you needed either 'both hands on the stick or your left hand on the big trim wheel to pull hard manouvers at high speed' - this does not state that the elevator response was lousy at speeds like 500-700 km/h.

damn....i have a huge hangover

XyZspineZyX
11-21-2003, 11:34 PM
SkyChimp wrote:
- Vo101_Isegrim wrote:
-
-- American pilot Robert C.Curtis remembers :
-
-
- You look hard enough, you can find single stories to
- support any absurd assertion. I can find stories of
- Bf-109 pilots that couldn't outturn P-47s.


Yes, this shows precisely how absurd your "anecdotal evidences" are. All those are completely circumstantial, no accurate conclusion can be drawn from such stories.


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

Message Edited on 11/21/0305:35PM by Huckebein_FW

XyZspineZyX
11-21-2003, 11:47 PM
No, he makes it clear that his P-51D-5-NA, without the fin fillet, experienced severe buffeting at between 845 and 885 kph (which BTW, the B/C apparently did not). He was able to recover simply by reducing speed. Compare that to the account posted earlier:

"I started pulling the stick, nothing happened, I checked the speed, it was about 850kmh. I tried to recover the plane but the stick was as if locked and nothing happened. I broke into a sweat of agony: now I am going into the sea and cannot help it. I pulled with both hands, groaning and by and by she started recovering, she recovered more, I pulled and pulled, but the surface of the sea approached, I thought I was going to crash. I kept pulling until I saw that I had survived. The distance between me and the sea may have been five meters."

Now which one do you think was easier to recover at 850+ kph?

Huckebein_FW wrote:
- lrrp22 wrote:
-- No, the 109 did not out-dive this P-51, the pilot
-- simply allowed his plane to reach too high a dive
-- speed when trying to close a 1,000+ yd gap. The 109
-- 'got away' because the pilot was busy recovering his
-- airplane from the 885 kph dive. How well would a
-- 109 handle at 885 kph? Not well. Or are you
-- claiming that the 109 'out-dove' this Mustang by
-- achieving a 885+ kph dive speed?
-
-
- What a crap, read that quote lrrp:
-
--- On two other occasions ME 109s got away from me
--- because the P 51d could not stay with them in a
--- high-speed dive. At 525-550 mph the plane would
--- start to porpoise uncontrollably and had to be
--- slowed to regain control. The P 51 was redlined at
--- 505 mph, meaning that this speed should not be
--- exceeded.
-
- He makes it clear that Bf-109 was a better diver
- than P-51.
-
-
- <center> <img
- src="http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-m
- ain.jpg"> </center>



http://www.cebudanderson.com/images/a0001.jpg

XyZspineZyX
11-22-2003, 12:01 AM
lrrp22 wrote:
- No, he makes it clear that his P-51D-5-NA, without
- the fin fillet, experienced severe buffeting at
- between 845 and 885 kph (which BTW, the B/C
- apparently did not). He was able to recover simply
- by reducing speed. Compare that to the account
- posted earlier:

The pilot describes a porpoising motion that does not have anything to do with the dorsal fillet. Also Oleg said that most P-51D-5 left in service were retrofitted with the dorsal fillet. How do you know that this particular D-5 did not have the dorsal fillet? OR how do you know that he was flying a D-5 in the first place? just because it handled horribly in a dive? That's the mark of the series lrrp.


- "I started pulling the stick, nothing happened, I
- checked the speed, it was about 850kmh. I tried to
- recover the plane but the stick was as if locked and
- nothing happened. I broke into a sweat of agony: now
- I am going into the sea and cannot help it. I pulled
- with both hands, groaning and by and by she started
- recovering, she recovered more, I pulled and pulled,
- but the surface of the sea approached, I thought I
- was going to crash. I kept pulling until I saw that
- I had survived. The distance between me and the sea
- may have been five meters."
-
- Now which one do you think was easier to recover at
- 850+ kph?


Reading that account, with a Bf-109 recovering from a dive at 850km/h at very low altitude, makes me think that Bf-109 was better than anything. P-51 would have not recovered in the same situation.


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

Message Edited on 11/21/0306:02PM by Huckebein_FW

XyZspineZyX
11-22-2003, 12:16 AM
Big deal I read about p47s do tailovers 500 feet off the ground and recovering dont mean everyone would have recovered and you cant base fms on 1 persons experience HUCK!

<center>http://www.geocities.com/leadspittersig/LS1.txt
Good dogfighters bring ammo home, Great ones don't. (c) Leadspitter
<a HREF="http://www.il2skins.com/?action=list&authoridfilter=:Leadspitter:&comefrom=top5&ts=1068087655"> LeadSpitters Skins
</center>

XyZspineZyX
11-22-2003, 12:18 AM
Because this incident occurred in July '44, a time when there were ONLY filletless D-5-NA's in service. You have no way of knowing if the fillet addressed porpoising or not.

- Reading that account, with a Bf-109 recovering from
- a dive at 850km/h at very low altitude, makes me
- think that Bf-109 was better than anything. P-51
- would have not recovered in the same situation.

Of course that's what it makes you think, Huck. That's why discussing the the Bf 109 with you is a supreme waste of time. BTW, he BARELY recovered at low altitude, you don't know what his altitude was when he reached 850 kph.

Huckebein_FW wrote:
- lrrp22 wrote:
-- No, he makes it clear that his P-51D-5-NA, without
-- the fin fillet, experienced severe buffeting at
-- between 845 and 885 kph (which BTW, the B/C
-- apparently did not). He was able to recover simply
-- by reducing speed. Compare that to the account
-- posted earlier:
-
- The pilot describes a porpoising motion that does
- not have anything to do with the dorsal fillet. Also
- Oleg said that most P-51D-5 left in service were
- retrofitted with the dorsal fillet. How do you know
- that this particular D-5 did not have the dorsal
- fillet? OR how do you know that he was flying a D-5
- in the first place? just because it handled horribly
- in a dive? That's the mark of the series lrrp.
-
-
-- "I started pulling the stick, nothing happened, I
-- checked the speed, it was about 850kmh. I tried to
-- recover the plane but the stick was as if locked and
-- nothing happened. I broke into a sweat of agony: now
-- I am going into the sea and cannot help it. I pulled
-- with both hands, groaning and by and by she started
-- recovering, she recovered more, I pulled and pulled,
-- but the surface of the sea approached, I thought I
-- was going to crash. I kept pulling until I saw that
-- I had survived. The distance between me and the sea
-- may have been five meters."
--
-- Now which one do you think was easier to recover at
-- 850+ kph?
-
-
- Reading that account, with a Bf-109 recovering from
- a dive at 850km/h at very low altitude, makes me
- think that Bf-109 was better than anything. P-51
- would have not recovered in the same situation.
-
-
- <center> <img
- src="http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-m
- ain.jpg"> </center>
-
- Message Edited on 11/21/0306:02PM by
- Huckebein_FW



http://www.cebudanderson.com/images/a0001.jpg

XyZspineZyX
11-22-2003, 12:20 AM
Huckebein_FW why don't you post the stick forces? I love how you quote a Russian guy when it "supports" (I use the term loosely) your arguement but on the other hand totally discount the head test pilot at the RAE and Oleg's information because is doesn't fit in. I have yet to see any quotes saying that at high speed the 109 was a delight to fly. It's elevator responsiveness being light. Its controls perfectly harmonized. I am backing that if Willy Messerscmitt said it himself Huck would say he was wrong.

Also to your statements about propaganda. I almost fell of my chair laughing. Of course there is some element of bias in most wartime reports. But of course Huck this never happened on the German side, a regime well known for its truthful reporting by herr Goebels. All German test reports were gospel, because the German people were under no pressure to say that their equippment was not inferior to allied. Thats right.

XyZspineZyX
11-22-2003, 12:28 AM
huck has to be the most bias person when it comes to luftplanes, I never forget one of his bs posts

"the 190 had no stick pressure in extreme dives the airframe was built so well it didnt have a max dive speed"

you cant argue reason with or even talk to these type of people in the forums that are so bias toward thier favorite plane.

<center>http://www.geocities.com/leadspittersig/LS1.txt
Good dogfighters bring ammo home, Great ones don't. (c) Leadspitter
<a HREF="http://www.il2skins.com/?action=list&authoridfilter=:Leadspitter:&comefrom=top5&ts=1068087655"> LeadSpitters Skins
</center>

XyZspineZyX
11-22-2003, 12:37 AM
LeadSpitter_ wrote:
- huck has to be the most bias person when it comes to
- luftplanes, I never forget one of his bs posts
-
- "the 190 had no stick pressure in extreme dives the
- airframe was built so well it didnt have a max dive
- speed"


You are a LIAR Leadspitter. I never ever said such absurdities. This is totally your invention.

What I said and I will repeat it again is that the movable stabilizer solution allowed the use of much smaller elevators than on most planes. This solution made the stick forces at high speeds lighter than on most planes (but the elevator is still heavy at high speeds, there's no way around this), and also solved the heavier stick at slow speeds of the planes fitted with small elevators. All it required was to fly the plane in proper trim.


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

XyZspineZyX
11-22-2003, 12:37 AM
Huckebein_FW wrote:
- lrrp22 wrote:
-- No, he makes it clear that his P-51D-5-NA, without
-- the fin fillet, experienced severe buffeting at
-- between 845 and 885 kph (which BTW, the B/C
-- apparently did not). He was able to recover simply
-- by reducing speed. Compare that to the account
-- posted earlier:
-
- The pilot describes a porpoising motion that does
- not have anything to do with the dorsal fillet. Also
- Oleg said that most P-51D-5 left in service were
- retrofitted with the dorsal fillet. How do you know
- that this particular D-5 did not have the dorsal
- fillet? OR how do you know that he was flying a D-5
- in the first place? just because it handled horribly
- in a dive? That's the mark of the series lrrp.

I thought the dorsal fillet was added to help with directional stability problems (side to side yawing), not longitudinal stability problems (porpoiseing).

--AKD

http://www.flyingpug.com/pugline2.jpg

XyZspineZyX
11-22-2003, 12:39 AM
.K.Davis wrote:
-
- Huckebein_FW wrote:
-- lrrp22 wrote:
--- No, he makes it clear that his P-51D-5-NA, without
--- the fin fillet, experienced severe buffeting at
--- between 845 and 885 kph (which BTW, the B/C
--- apparently did not). He was able to recover simply
--- by reducing speed. Compare that to the account
--- posted earlier:
--
-- The pilot describes a porpoising motion that does
-- not have anything to do with the dorsal fillet. Also
-- Oleg said that most P-51D-5 left in service were
-- retrofitted with the dorsal fillet. How do you know
-- that this particular D-5 did not have the dorsal
-- fillet? OR how do you know that he was flying a D-5
-- in the first place? just because it handled horribly
-- in a dive? That's the mark of the series lrrp.
-
- I thought the dorsal fillet was added to help with
- directional stability problems (side to side
- yawing), not longitudinal stability problems
- (porpoiseing).


Yes, AKD this is very much correct. But don't expect from lrrp to understand such basic facts.


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

XyZspineZyX
11-22-2003, 12:41 AM
LeadSpitter_ wrote:
- Big deal I read about p47s do tailovers 500 feet off
- the ground and recovering dont mean everyone would
- have recovered and you cant base fms on 1 persons
- experience HUCK!

This is one of the funniest things I read today (and I read a lot). Tailovers in P47 at 500ft/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif . Maybe you'll show us captured on photo such an impressive representation.


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

Message Edited on 11/21/0306:51PM by Huckebein_FW

XyZspineZyX
11-22-2003, 01:05 AM
It was, but there has been much discussion concerning additional factors that led to its introduction. Curtiss' account apparently implies that the P-51D he was flying exhibited a tail buffeting and porpoisoing motion that his B did not. Since the only real structural difference between the two was the D's reduced side area it would tend to indicate that restoring some of that side area might reduce these affects. Other accounts have described an obvious but controllable porpoising effect at high dive speeds.

Having said that, in his account of the action near Vienna Curtiss cites severe buffeting as the reason he had to reduce speed in this case, not porpoising:

"It rolled over and dived and I followed but soon reached compressibility with severe buffeting of the tail and loss of elevator control. I slowed my plane and regained control, but the 109 got away."

It seems likely that the fillet would be more effective at addressing buffeting than porpoising. Regardless, his account of recovering a Mustang from a very high-speed dive sounds far less traumatic than the one described by the Finnish pilot.

A.K.Davis wrote:
-
- Huckebein_FW wrote:
-- lrrp22 wrote:
--- No, he makes it clear that his P-51D-5-NA, without
--- the fin fillet, experienced severe buffeting at
--- between 845 and 885 kph (which BTW, the B/C
--- apparently did not). He was able to recover simply
--- by reducing speed. Compare that to the account
--- posted earlier: "
--
-- The pilot describes a porpoising motion that does
-- not have anything to do with the dorsal fillet. Also
-- Oleg said that most P-51D-5 left in service were
-- retrofitted with the dorsal fillet. How do you know
-- that this particular D-5 did not have the dorsal
-- fillet? OR how do you know that he was flying a D-5
-- in the first place? just because it handled horribly
-- in a dive? That's the mark of the series lrrp.
-
- I thought the dorsal fillet was added to help with
- directional stability problems (side to side
- yawing), not longitudinal stability problems
- (porpoiseing).
-
---AKD
-
http://www.flyingpug.com/pugline2.jpg -



http://www.cebudanderson.com/images/a0001.jpg

ZG77_Nagual
11-22-2003, 01:06 AM
This very short track file shows an interesting maneuver by a 109k - I am not saying it's not possible - but it is unusual and extremely cool. Best viewed under manual view - and switch to the pov of the 109 in relation to the p39.

really pretty amazing.

http://pws.chartermi.net/~cmorey/flip.zip

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


Message Edited on 11/21/0307:06PM by ZG77_Nagual

XyZspineZyX
11-22-2003, 01:24 AM
Basic facts, Huck? Tell us again how the K-4's Erla Haube offered superior rear visibility because the P-51D pilot didn't have enough room to look around the head armor...

<center> http://www.cebudanderson.com/images/europe02.jpg </center>


Willaim O'Brien, 357th FG Mustang ace:

"The bubble canopy on the D improved vision to the rear. However, the old B with a Malcolm canopy wasn't too bad. You could read your plane's serial number painted on the rudder."

You do nothing but further reduce your credibility when hurl invective.

Huckebein_FW wrote:

- Yes, AKD this is very much correct. But don't expect
- from lrrp to understand such basic facts.

http://www.cebudanderson.com/images/a0001.jpg

XyZspineZyX
11-22-2003, 01:50 AM
RAF74BuzzsawXO wrote:
- Salute
-
- Any number of tests indicated the 109's had
- excellent elevator response at speeds between 250
- kph and 480 kph. Over those speeds, response
- deteriorated quickly due to the design of the
- aerofoil causing early onset of compressibility.
-
- The tests were done by German, British and
- Americans.

"The Bf109G is heavy to manoeuvre in pitch, being similar to a Mustang. At 520kph it is possible to pull 4g with one hand, but I find it more comfortable to use both hands on the stick for looping manoeuvres, normally entered at 420kph and 3g." Dave Southwood on flying a restore G2.

Seems the response was still good even above 480.

But on a related point, since people seem to be debating the dive ability of planes, Curtiss said:
"At 525-550 mph the plane would start to porpoise uncontrollably and had to be slowed to regain control."

Why does the D model in FB only experience light buffeting at 880kph(546mph) which only becomes severe around 950kph (590mph)?


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

XyZspineZyX
11-22-2003, 02:21 AM
I've read several (maybe 3 or 4) accounts from finnish pilots describing heavy elevator forces of 109g at high speed.

IIRC One such accout was written by Ilmari Juutilainen who managed to pull up plane with trim wheel from 950kmh dive. At that speed he could not move stick at all. He was afraid of wings ripping off, but the only way he could control the plane was adjusting hstab angle with trim wheel. So he used it... succesfully.

Trim didn't lighten stick forces as is, but could be used to pull out plane from dive when stick was simply too stiff to operate. This is because moving hstab assy as whole didn't need high force input like moving elevator only.


From what I've read I think that 109 dive handling is one of the best modeled things in FB. Problem might be that other planes don't have their stick forces modeled correctly. In RL 190 was an exception with it's light stick forces in highspeed dives. Every test pilot seems to have noticed this. In FB most of planes seem to have this quality. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

Message Edited on 11/22/0301:24AM by ladoga

XyZspineZyX
11-22-2003, 02:23 AM
Huckebein_FW wrote:

- He disliked the linked system because he felt that
- it was inferior to what germans had. Read the
- paragraph.

I read the paragraph, Huck, and NOWHERE does he say the Germans had a superior system. All he says was that German planes dived well, too.

You know, its bad enough to lie about something no one can see, but lying about that article, and lying about what Oleg said, when i'ts there for everyone to see, is pretty bad. Why do you do it?



- Both 109 and 190 had hydraulic prop pitch mechanism,
- which generally was faster than the electric one
- anyway.

Proof?

Anyway, pitching a prop blade quickly is no benefit. it has to be done in a control manner. Flatten out a blade too fast and it becomes and airbrake.



- Though I don't think there were major
- differences among the speed of pitch change among
- various hydraulic systems, 109 and 190 should be at
- least among the fastest, not the slowest as they are
- now.

Again, proof? How fast are they, and what should they be, and what is the source for your infoirmation?

Regards,

SkyChimp

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

XyZspineZyX
11-22-2003, 02:26 AM
Huckebein_FW wrote:

- He makes it clear that Bf-109 was a better diver
- than P-51.



Oh yeah, it was so good the VIIIth Fighter Command had to issue instructiosn to its pilots on how NOT TO OVERSHOOT a diving German while flying the P-47 and P-51.

The ONLY time any Bf-109 was better was as lower speeds and low altitude.

Regards,

SkyChimp

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

XyZspineZyX
11-22-2003, 02:26 AM
Huckebein_FW wrote:

- Yes, this shows precisely how absurd your "anecdotal
- evidences" are. All those are completely
- circumstantial, no accurate conclusion can be drawn
- from such stories.


But Isegrim's is gospel to you? Pure double standard.

Regards,

SkyChimp

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

ZG77_Nagual
11-22-2003, 02:28 AM
http://pws.chartermi.net/~cmorey/k4flip.avi

This is easier

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

XyZspineZyX
11-22-2003, 02:28 AM
Huckebein_FW wrote:

- Reading that account, with a Bf-109 recovering from
- a dive at 850km/h at very low altitude, makes me
- think that Bf-109 was better than anything. P-51
- would have not recovered in the same situation.
-

Rather moronic reply. It's been posted here many times that the P-51D was dived to mach .84 and that pullout could be performed "at will."

There was no comparison. The P-51 was the superior plane in a dive. Nothing you can dream up will change that.

Regards,

SkyChimp

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

XyZspineZyX
11-22-2003, 02:33 AM
ZG77_Nagual wrote:
- <a
- href="http://pws.chartermi.net/~cmorey/k4flip.avi"
- target=_blank>http://pws.chartermi.net/~cmorey/k4f
- lip.avi</a>
-
- This is easier


AI FM?





Regards,

SkyChimp

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

XyZspineZyX
11-22-2003, 02:39 AM
Chadburn wrote:

- Why does the D model in FB only experience light
- buffeting at 880kph(546mph) which only becomes
- severe around 950kph (590mph)?


It doesn't. I've conducted this test many times myself and this aspect is modelled extremely well.

Fly in virtual cockpit mode, start at 10,000 meters, nose over and go into about an 80 degree full-throttle dive. Precisely at 505mph IAS the plane will begin to buffet severly - just like its supposed to.

Great job by Oleg in this regard.



Regards,

SkyChimp

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

XyZspineZyX
11-22-2003, 03:19 AM
SkyChimp wrote:

- It doesn't. I've conducted this test many times
- myself and this aspect is modelled extremely well.
-
- Fly in virtual cockpit mode, start at 10,000 meters,
- nose over and go into about an 80 degree
- full-throttle dive. Precisely at 505mph IAS the
- plane will begin to buffet severly - just like its
- supposed to.
-
- Great job by Oleg in this regard.

Thanks for the response SkyChimp.

I have tested this too, but at 812kph IAS (according to the speedbar) which should be 505 mph, the dial on the P51 reads just below 450 mph. When the P51's dial hits 505, the IAS according to the speedbar is arround 910 - 915 kph. I agree that the buffeting is severe at 910 IAS, but it should start ealier.

That means the speed bar for the P51 is out by 55mph or 88kph in the Mustang's favour. However, do a dive in any LW plane and you'll see that the speedbar's IAS corresponds exactly to the plane's instrument panel. At 700kph, both readouts match meaning the speedbar is meant to duplicate the plane's speedometer.

Can anyone please verify or correct me if I'm wrong.

Thanks.

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

Message Edited on 11/21/0309:21PM by Chadburn

XyZspineZyX
11-22-2003, 04:01 AM
Chadburn wrote:
- SkyChimp wrote:
-
-- It doesn't. I've conducted this test many times
-- myself and this aspect is modelled extremely well.
--
-- Fly in virtual cockpit mode, start at 10,000 meters,
-- nose over and go into about an 80 degree
-- full-throttle dive. Precisely at 505mph IAS the
-- plane will begin to buffet severly - just like its
-- supposed to.
--
-- Great job by Oleg in this regard.
-
- Thanks for the response SkyChimp.
-
- I have tested this too, but at 812kph IAS (according
- to the speedbar) which should be 505 mph, the dial
- on the P51 reads just below 450 mph. When the P51's
- dial hits 505, the IAS according to the speedbar is
- arround 910 - 915 kph. I agree that the buffeting
- is severe at 910 IAS, but it should start ealier.
-
- That means the speed bar for the P51 is out by 55mph
- or 88kph in the Mustang's favour. However, do a
- dive in any LW plane and you'll see that the
- speedbar's IAS corresponds exactly to the plane's
- instrument panel. At 700kph, both readouts match
- meaning the speedbar is meant to duplicate the
- plane's speedometer.
-
- Can anyone please verify or correct me if I'm wrong.
-
- Thanks.

Can confirm this . at higher speeds difference gets even higher .

950 Ias = 950 / 1.60934 = 590,30 mph

Indicated in Cockpit = 525 mph

Cant be a TAS readout on mph gauge cause value is lower
1191 km /h TAS with 525 * 1.60934 = 844,90 km /h

Maybe gauge needs some time show correct data but
590,30 mph - 525 mph = 65,3 mph = 65,3 * 1.60934 = 105,09 Km/h is surely a slow gauge .

Someone may have the documents to proof that the gauge needs that much time to spool up in dive . So that Pilots did actually know that the indicated real dive speed was way higher than the indicated airspeed on mpg gauge .)

Regards,
Hyperion

ZG77_Nagual
11-22-2003, 04:02 AM
Rgr that Skychimp- ace with half-a tank.

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

XyZspineZyX
11-22-2003, 04:04 AM
lrrp22 wrote:
- It was, but there has been much discussion
- concerning additional factors that led to its
- introduction. Curtiss' account apparently implies
- that the P-51D he was flying exhibited a tail
- buffeting and porpoisoing motion that his B did not.
- Since the only real structural difference between
- the two was the D's reduced side area it would tend
- to indicate that restoring some of that side area
- might reduce these affects. Other accounts have
- described an obvious but controllable porpoising
- effect at high dive speeds.

The D model important modifications were the cutted fuselage and the enlarged wing root, both having the potential to induce pitch instability, and none could be corrected with the dorsal fin. Dorsal fin was added to cure the yaw instability encoutered by both P47 and P51 after they were fitted with bubble canopies. This instability lead to fatal accidents.


- Having said that, in his account of the action near
- Vienna Curtiss cites severe buffeting as the reason
- he had to reduce speed in this case, not porpoising:
-
- "It rolled over and dived and I followed but soon
- reached compressibility with severe buffeting of the
- tail and loss of elevator control. I slowed my plane
- and regained control, but the 109 got away."

Very good description of the superiority Bf-109 had in high speed dives over Mustang.


- It seems likely that the fillet would be more
- effective at addressing buffeting than porpoising.
- Regardless, his account of recovering a Mustang from
- a very high-speed dive sounds far less traumatic
- than the one described by the Finnish pilot.

The finnish pilot was near the ground in that dive, he let's that to be understood from the text, it also can deducted from Bf-109 behaviour in that speed. If that dive have been at medium altitudes, he would have experienced the compressibility effects, at 850km/h IAS. But he makes it clear that there were no such effects, there was no buffeting at that high speed (compared with the Mustang).


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

XyZspineZyX
11-22-2003, 04:08 AM
lrrp22 wrote:
- Basic facts, Huck? Tell us again how the K-4's Erla
- Haube offered superior rear visibility because the
- P-51D pilot didn't have enough room to look around
- the head armor...

Again this bullsh*t with the Mustang pilot looking though the armored seat? Slickun's dad made it clear that if he wanted to check six he had to use the rudder (in a Mustang). Read this account of a real pilot and spare us of your guesses.




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

XyZspineZyX
11-22-2003, 04:12 AM
ladoga wrote:
- I've read several (maybe 3 or 4) accounts from
- finnish pilots describing heavy elevator forces of
- 109g at high speed.
-
- IIRC One such accout was written by Ilmari
- Juutilainen who managed to pull up plane with trim
- wheel from 950kmh dive. At that speed he could not
- move stick at all. He was afraid of wings ripping
- off, but the only way he could control the plane was
- adjusting hstab angle with trim wheel. So he used
- it... succesfully.
-
- Trim didn't lighten stick forces as is, but could be
- used to pull out plane from dive when stick was
- simply too stiff to operate. This is because moving
- hstab assy as whole didn't need high force input
- like moving elevator only.
-
-
- From what I've read I think that 109 dive handling
- is one of the best modeled things in FB. Problem
- might be that other planes don't have their stick
- forces modeled correctly. In RL 190 was an exception
- with it's light stick forces in highspeed dives.
- Every test pilot seems to have noticed this. In FB
- most of planes seem to have this quality. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

ladoga, Fw-190 copied the elevator system from Bf-109, their stick forces were similar. There are no such 109 pilot accounts for excessive stick forces for speeds below dive speed limit. Above this limit any plane encouters excessive stick forces, this is what this speed limit is mainly about.


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

XyZspineZyX
11-22-2003, 04:22 AM
SkyChimp wrote:
-
- Huckebein_FW wrote:
-
-- He disliked the linked system because he felt that
-- it was inferior to what germans had. Read the
-- paragraph.
-
- I read the paragraph, Huck, and NOWHERE does he say
- the Germans had a superior system. All he says was
- that German planes dived well, too.
-
- You know, its bad enough to lie about something no
- one can see, but lying about that article

Golodnikov says:

"In a fighter with a linked throttle-pitch system in a dive we either fell back or he caught up to us."

That means that german system was clearly better. Can you read English?



, and lying
- about what Oleg said, when i'ts there for everyone
- to see, is pretty bad.

This is your latest lie in a long series of lies. Nobody is more experienced in lies and distorsions on this board than you, except maybe your little kibitz, Milo.



-
-
-- Both 109 and 190 had hydraulic prop pitch mechanism,
-- which generally was faster than the electric one
-- anyway.
-
- Proof?

This is from pilot's accouts too, don't you like pilot account all of a sudden? Curtiss electric prop was considered slower in pitch change that Hamilton hydraulic prop.



-- Though I don't think there were major
-- differences among the speed of pitch change among
-- various hydraulic systems, 109 and 190 should be at
-- least among the fastest, not the slowest as they are
-- now.
-
- Again, proof? How fast are they, and what should
- they be, and what is the source for your
- infoirmation?

Golodnikov says it clearly:

"In a fighter with a linked throttle-pitch system in a dive we either fell back or he caught up to us."


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

XyZspineZyX
11-22-2003, 04:27 AM
Chadburn wrote:

- I have tested this too, but at 812kph IAS (according
- to the speedbar) which should be 505 mph, the dial
- on the P51 reads just below 450 mph. When the P51's
- dial hits 505, the IAS according to the speedbar is
- arround 910 - 915 kph. I agree that the buffeting
- is severe at 910 IAS, but it should start ealier.
-
- That means the speed bar for the P51 is out by 55mph
- or 88kph in the Mustang's favour. However, do a
- dive in any LW plane and you'll see that the
- speedbar's IAS corresponds exactly to the plane's
- instrument panel. At 700kph, both readouts match
- meaning the speedbar is meant to duplicate the
- plane's speedometer.
-
- Can anyone please verify or correct me if I'm wrong.
-
- Thanks.



The buffeting starts before the needle hits 505 mph on the Mustang's air-speed-indicator. It's rather severe at 505 mph. That's exactly the way it should be. There is nothing wrong with it at all.

Try it the way I said. Oleg has it correct, very correct.

Regards,

SkyChimp

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

XyZspineZyX
11-22-2003, 04:49 AM
SkyChimp wrote:
-
- Huckebein_FW wrote:
-
-- He makes it clear that Bf-109 was a better diver
-- than P-51.
-
-
-
- Oh yeah, it was so good the VIIIth Fighter Command
- had to issue instructiosn to its pilots on how NOT
- TO OVERSHOOT a diving German while flying the P-47
- and P-51.

Fw-190A was a better diver at low and medium altitudes and worse at high altitudes.


- The ONLY time any Bf-109 was better was as lower
- speeds and low altitude.


Bf-109 was better diver than both at ALL altitudes. Bf-109 had better powerloading at all altitudes, so it had better dive up to max speed in level flight. Above that pilot accounts says that Bf-109 had better handling than Mustang. P47 was not a competitor, it suffered severely from compressibility effects, it's speed had to be limited with dive flaps at 800km/h to make the recovery possible. P-47 pilots said that they had to wait to get to lower altitudes and compressibility effects to dissapear before trying a dive pull-out. Many pilots did not enjoyed that luxury, they reached dive speeds at which recovery was impossible before getting out of compressibility.



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

XyZspineZyX
11-22-2003, 09:16 AM
Huckebein_FW wrote:
- ladoga, Fw-190 copied the elevator system from
- Bf-109, their stick forces were similar. There are
- no such 109 pilot accounts for excessive stick
- forces for speeds below dive speed limit. Above this
- limit any plane encouters excessive stick forces,
- this is what this speed limit is mainly about.

So aren't we talking about high-speed stick forces?
At low speeds stick forces aren't really an issue anyway.

190 elevator system wasn't copied from 109. Desings are quite different as is the shape of control surfaces. Trimmable h-stab wont much affect stick forces but makes trimming more aerodynamically efficient and so effective even at speeds where you cant deflect elevator at all. With stick you still moved normally elevator in both planes.

Sorry, but 109 and 190 stick forces could not be similar. You can read ie. 190 test pilot do gentle pull up of 7g at 955kmh and read 109 pilots reaching trim wheel since stick could be barely moved at 800kmh. This implies different stick forces.

109 (as any other plane) had perfectlly acceptable stick forces at low speeds. IIRC i read somewhere that controls started to get noticeably heavier around 650kmh and were uncomfortably heavy over 750kmh. Near 850kmh even strong pilot could barely deflect elevator even slightly. Over that and you'd be lawndarting unless you pulled up using trim wheel.

XyZspineZyX
11-22-2003, 09:28 AM
Have you read this article?
http://members.aol.com/dheitm8612/breed.htm

Article is quite interesting even if Col. Carson simply doesn't seem to understand reasons behind 109 design. It isn't very scientific either but repeats some often mentioned points of main handling differences between 109 and 190.

As we know 109 was designed with superior climbrate and speed in mind. Thats why many other things had to be compromised. He seems to think that every plane should have qualities of a p-51.


Message Edited on 11/22/0308:47AM by ladoga

XyZspineZyX
11-22-2003, 10:02 AM
edit

Message Edited on 11/22/0309:03AM by Panelboy

XyZspineZyX
11-22-2003, 10:21 AM
Huckebein_FW wrote:
- lrrp22 wrote:
-- Basic facts, Huck? Tell us again how the K-4's Erla
-- Haube offered superior rear visibility because the
-- P-51D pilot didn't have enough room to look around
-- the head armor...
-
- Again this bullsh*t with the Mustang pilot looking
- though the armored seat? Slickun's dad made it clear
- that if he wanted to check six he had to use the
- rudder (in a Mustang). Read this account of a real
- pilot and spare us of your guesses.


Quote from slickun's post:

"I asked about rear vision. He said you looked around the headrest, and could see 6:00 easily in the Jug and Pony. High and mid level. You looked around one side, and sideslipped the rudder to clear both sides."

Why do you continue to deliberately misquote. Reread the post you reference. Sideslipping to clear both sides implies clearing more than just 6 o'clock.


Barfly
Staffelkapitan
7./JG 77 "Black Eagles"

http://www.7jg77.com

XyZspineZyX
11-22-2003, 10:35 AM
a lot of interesting posts here !


but pls keep in mind that the elevator heaviness in the BF109 in FB1.2RC01 not starts at high speed (IAS /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif )- it begins above 400Km/H !!!!!!!

thats a litle bit strange.

and pulling out of a highspeddive (above700Km/H) with that controls is like wearing a very good Anti-G-siute - its near to impossible to get a black out /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif


about the incorrectness about the P-51 speedbar anf cockpit gauge- thats interesting !! the question would be , what counts !! anyone tested all MPH gauge planes ??

http://www.jagdgeschwader53.flugzeugwerk.net/diverses/franky.gif

XyZspineZyX
11-22-2003, 11:38 AM
Here`s a relevant one:

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


As can be seen, dive recovery was initiated at 850 kph TAS from a ~80 degree dive at 4000m, and by 2900m, the plane was perferctly level.

BTW, I enjoy as `Chimps surreal theories grew wilder and wilder with every post he makes.



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

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

XyZspineZyX
11-22-2003, 12:47 PM
SkyChimp wrote:
-
- Huckebein_FW wrote:
-
-- He makes it clear that Bf-109 was a better diver
-- than P-51.
-
-
-
- Oh yeah, it was so good the VIIIth Fighter Command
- had to issue instructiosn to its pilots on how NOT
- TO OVERSHOOT a diving German while flying the P-47
- and P-51.
-
- The ONLY time any Bf-109 was better was as lower
- speeds and low altitude.

Exactly - in a sense you could both be right. Different
countries and people rated dive performance by different
criteria - e.g. initial acceleration, performance
after a sustained drive, etc. So saying "A dived better
than B" is only meaningful is A has better dive
performance than B over all applicable criteria. Otherwise
the point is somewhat moot as which is better depends
on circumstance.

XyZspineZyX
11-22-2003, 12:53 PM
SkyChimp wrote:
- Try it the way I said. Oleg has it correct, very
- correct.

If there is a speed bar and gauge discrepancy something is wrong somewhere. I thought it was a little odd
that my IAS on the gauge seemed a little low when I was
flying the P51 last night, but I just assumed my quick
mental conversion between mph and km/h from the speedbar
was a bit off, and nothing more.

The lack of 6 view is more of an issue, but that's
due to lack of lateral head movement and an issue for
all planes.





Message Edited on 11/22/0311:53AM by AaronGT

XyZspineZyX
11-22-2003, 01:15 PM
Salute Isegrim

First of all your chart is unlabeled, no indication of what aircraft is being tested.

Additionally, pardon my scepticism, but looking at this chart, it seems possible that this is a chart dealing with theoretical dive speeds and acceleration.

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


Also, what's this 'Ziehen' point indicated on the chart at 775 kph??? I don't speak German, but seems to be 'extraction', 'pulling'or 'drawing'.

Flugbahn is 'flight path'.

Wirkliche Geschwindigkeit is 'Actual Velocity'

Drucken is 'to print'?


Would seem that since Dive speeds were listed as a maximum of 750 kph in the pilot's manual for the 109's, that 775 kph might be the point at which catastrophic damage might begin... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

By the way Huckbein:

The later model P-47's with Dive flaps were cleared to dive up to 550 mph IAS, (880 kph) and recovery by all pilot accounts, was 'routine', even at very high altitudes.

Earlier models suffered from compressibility at high altitudes at those speeds, but recovered below 10,000 ft. There are no accounts of P-47's in terminal dives as a result of compression.

The P-38 was another matter, and pilots needed to be very careful with them, especially at high altitudes.

So, just to repeat: 109 pilot manuals clearly said no higher than 750 kph.


Cheers Buzzsaw




Message Edited on 11/22/0312:17PM by RAF74BuzzsawXO

XyZspineZyX
11-22-2003, 01:19 PM
Huck wrote:
"Again this bullsh*t with the Mustang pilot looking though the armored seat? Slickun's dad made it clear that if he wanted to check six he had to use the rudder (in a Mustang). Read this account of a real pilot and spare us of your guesses."

What was really said Huck:

"I asked about rear vision. He said you looked around the headrest, and could see 6:00 easily in the Jug and Pony. High and mid level. You looked around one side, and sideslipped the rudder to clear both sides."

Now when are you going to improve your Englaih reading comprehension skills? I do not lie or distort intentionally, unlike 2 others who post here, who try to claim the 109 was the PERFECT a/c. They would put Herr Goebbels to shame.



Huckebein_FW wrote:

-
-
- Can you read English?
-
-
-
-
-
- This is your latest lie in a long series of lies.
- Nobody is more experienced in lies and distorsions
- on this board than you, except maybe your little
- kibitz, Milo.
-


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



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

XyZspineZyX
11-22-2003, 01:22 PM
Ziehen = pull

Drücken = push


=38=OIAE

47|FC=-

XyZspineZyX
11-22-2003, 01:25 PM
So, these "push" and "pull" indications are referring to the grey underlayed areas in regard to the actions of the pilot.

=38=OIAE

47|FC=-

XyZspineZyX
11-22-2003, 01:34 PM
Looking at the chart again, I find the "Ziehen" on top of the chart interesting. What's that about? My guess is that's because this maneuver is initated at the slowest speed possible (keep in mind IAS, not TAS like refered to in the chart), and he has to pull back a bit in order to stay level. Or is it in fact a spin recovery chart? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Seems unlikely regarding the increase of speed and loss of altitude http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif. Really Isegrim, an unlabeled chart about an unidentified aircraft is not very proffesional.




Message Edited on 11/22/0302:21PM by Heart_C

XyZspineZyX
11-22-2003, 03:08 PM
Chadburn, Aaron:

I tried to post this last nioght, but the forum was down and I could not:

Ok, I see what you are saying. I didn't understand that you were saying the
Air Speed Indicator in the cockpit and the speed bar/arcade speedo weren't calibrated together.

I agree with you.

I usually only fly in full real mode. So I almost never pay attention to the speed bar
or the speedometer in the arcade view.

I did some testing to see how much they are off and you also appear correct in that regard.



http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/speed_1.jpg


This screenshot shows the Air Speed indicator pegged at about 505 mph. The Air Speed Indicator (ASI)
reads in Indicated Air Speed (IAS). The speed bar next to it also reads in IAS, but in km/h. As you
can see, the ASI reads 505 mph IAS, but the speed bar reads 930km/h IAS. 930km/h equals 577mph. So the speed
bar is reading about 72mph higher than the ASI. The altitude is 4,150 meters or 13,615 feet. 505mph IAS at
13,615 feet is 636 mph TAS. But 930 km/h (577 mph) IAS at 4,150 meters (13,615 feet) is 1170 km/h (727 mph)
TAS.


http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/speed_2.jpg


This is a screen shot of the arcade view (same dive - I paused the game and took a screenshot in the cockpit
and in arcade view). The Arcade ASI shows speed in True Air Speed (TAS). In this case it reads 1172 km/h.
1172 km/h TAS is equal to 728 mph TAS.

So, its apparent the speed bar and the Arcade speedo are consistent with each other. They are reading higher
than the in-cockpit Air Speed Indicator.

Now, I'm not say anyhting in this post about whether or not the buffeting effect is correct at either speed
. This post simply is made to illustrate that the in-cockpit ASI and the speed bar/arcade speedo are not
consistent.

=====

It's also apparent that this inconsistency between the ASI and the speed bar get larger as speed increases.

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


This is the real-life top speed of the P-51D at approximately the correct height. The arcade view reads
703 km/h (436 mph) TAS at 7596 meters (24,921 feet). Again, this is real-life max speed at that altitude.


http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/topspeed2.jpg


Now here is the view from the cockpit. The speed bar reads 460 km/h (285 mph) IAS. In this case, 460 km/h
really does equal 285 mph, which is what the ASI shows! So in this case, the speed bar and the ASI are consistent
- not like the above example where they were 72 mph apart. BUT, 285 mph IAS at 24,921 feet equals 421 mph TAS.

======

So we have an odd situation.

In the first example - a dive- the Speed Bar and the Arcade Speedo are consistent, and they both register
higher than the Air Speed Indicator in the cockpit.

In the second example - level flight speed - the Air Speed Indicator and the Speed Bar are consistent, and they both
register lower than the Arcade Speedo.


HMMMMMMMM.



Regards,

SkyChimp

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



Message Edited on 11/22/0309:09AM by SkyChimp

XyZspineZyX
11-22-2003, 03:13 PM
MiloMorai wrote:
- Huck wrote:
- "Again this bullsh*t with the Mustang pilot looking
- though the armored seat? Slickun's dad made it clear
- that if he wanted to check six he had to use the
- rudder (in a Mustang). Read this account of a real
- pilot and spare us of your guesses."
-
- What was really said Huck:
-
- "I asked about rear vision. He said you looked
- around the headrest, and could see 6:00 easily in
- the Jug and Pony. High and mid level. You looked
- around one side, and sideslipped the rudder to clear
- both sides."
-
- Now when are you going to improve your Englaih
- reading comprehension skills? I do not lie or
- distort intentionally, unlike 2 others who post
- here, who try to claim the 109 was the PERFECT a/c.
- They would put Herr Goebbels to shame.


He misrepresented the article by the Russian pilot.
He misrepresented the statement by Oleg.
He misrepresented the statement by Slickun's father.

It doesn't sound like to me that he has a a reading problem. Sounds more like an honesty problem.


Regards,

SkyChimp

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

XyZspineZyX
11-22-2003, 03:16 PM
Vo101_Isegrim wrote:
-
- Here`s a relevant one:
-
<img
- src="http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/109/109F
- _pullout.jpg">
-
-
- As can be seen, dive recovery was initiated at 850
- kph TAS from a ~80 degree dive at 4000m, and by
- 2900m, the plane was perferctly level.
-
- BTW, I enjoy as `Chimps surreal theories grew
- wilder and wilder with every post he makes.


What plane is that for, isegrim? Your chart is unlabled.

And even if it were a chart on a Bf-109, IT HAS NO STICK FORCES! And isn't that what we are talking about?

Perhaps posting the whole report is in order? Otherwise, its just more useless stuff from you.

Regards,

SkyChimp

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



Message Edited on 11/22/0309:28AM by SkyChimp

XyZspineZyX
11-22-2003, 03:43 PM
SkyChimp wrote:
- Vo101_Isegrim wrote:
--
-- Here`s a relevant one:
--

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


-
-
- What plane is that for, isegrim? Your chart is
- unlabled.
-
- And even if it were a chart on a Bf-109, IT HAS NO
- STICK FORCES! And isn't that what we are talking
- about?
-
- Perhaps posting the whole report is in order?
- Otherwise, its just more useless stuff from you.
-
- Regards,
-
- SkyChimp

Yeah, just what I was referring to. You become more and more surreal.

But besides, why do you ask such silly questions like what plane is that ? You said in this thread you have this report, you even claimed a qoute from it...

Were you perhaps lying, Chimp ?



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

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

XyZspineZyX
11-22-2003, 03:45 PM
S! Sykchimp - thanks for that test.

It would be nice to know which is a more accurate readout of the true ASI as modelled in the game - the speedbar
or the gauge. From what Oleg has said before, it seems
that additional code is placed between the core game
engine and the gauges (makes some sense, since gauges
are aircraft specific) which probably means the gauge is
wrong, and the speedbar is likely correct, as it is
probably a more basic part of the engine. As to how
the difference varies with speed - is it linear? If so
that would represent a simple scaling error in
conversion.

One of us needs to volunteer to log a bug on this, so
it can maybe be fixed before the final patch is out!
It's not desperately important, unless playing on a
very full real (if that makes any sense) server where
the speedbar is off.

As to whether the buffeting speed is correct - I suppose
that depends on how it was tested. If it was tested by
hardcore no speedbar testers, then it might be that the
buffeting speed is pegged to the correct gauge
indicated speed, but be wrong in terms of actual game
speed.

I only noticed it last night as I was panning about
off to low left so the speedbar and gauge were visible
next to each other.

XyZspineZyX
11-22-2003, 03:49 PM
having Olegs sentences in mind about the gauges, because of a little disscussion about the RPMs and ManifoldPressure gauges in the 109s, that the gauges does NOT show correct (what the game behind calculates) , i think the speed bar is correct.

nevertheless its a pitty that the gauges does not show correct !

http://www.jagdgeschwader53.flugzeugwerk.net/diverses/franky.gif

XyZspineZyX
11-22-2003, 04:01 PM
RAF74BuzzsawXO wrote:
- Salute Isegrim
-
- First of all your chart is unlabeled, no indication
- of what aircraft is being tested.

Bf 109 F-2.


- Additionally, pardon my scepticism, but looking at
- this chart, it seems possible that this is a chart
- dealing with theoretical dive speeds and
- acceleration.

It`s dealing with Lukas Scmidt <u>actual</u> dive where he reached 906 kph / 0.805 Mach, it`s part of the report.


- Also, what's this 'Ziehen' point indicated on the
- chart at 775 kph???

Ziehen = Pull (on the flightstick)

It`s just indication that at the marked area the pilot was pulling on the stick, not that he started pulling up at that point. He already started that at 4000m. As a matter of fact, one can follow the elevator reversal described by Schmidt at high altitudes, to keep the plane steady in the dive, he pulled (elevator reversal !) it above 9.5 km, then pushed it down to 4 km to keep the nose down, and began the pullout at 4 km / ~850 km/h TAS and leveled out at at 2800m with the speed decreased to about 700 km/h. I guess someone with a better understanding of aerodynamics than me can actually calculate G-loads etc. from that.


- Flugbahn is 'flight path'.

Yep.

- Wirkliche Geschwindigkeit is 'Actual Velocity'

Yes word by word, the English term for it is True Air Speed.
IAS would be Anzeige, or "shown" (= indicated )

H-Flossenstellung shows the horizontal elevator trim (+1 degree 15 min, this was set to give neutral trim in normal level flight).


-
- Drucken is 'to print'?

To push.


- Would seem that since Dive speeds were listed as a
- maximum of 750 kph in the pilot's manual for the
- 109's, that 775 kph might be the point at which
- catastrophic damage might begin... /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Indeed they were very conservative with those limits. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif




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

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

XyZspineZyX
11-22-2003, 04:06 PM
Lets see if I am reading Ise's chart correctly, for whatever German a/c it is.

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



for the 'heavier' of the 2 lines

The dive starts at 9.5km at a speed of 200kph(120mph).

At 4km at a speed of 400kph(240mph) the a/c begins its pull-out.

At 3km and a speed of 600kph(360mph) the a/cis pulling out of the dive.

At ~2.7km and 700kph(420mph) the a/c has recovered from the dive and accelerates to +1200kph(720mph) at 3.3km.

There Barbi I fixed my typo(3.3km now) - you feel better?


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



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

Message Edited on 11/22/0310:31AM by MiloMorai

XyZspineZyX
11-22-2003, 04:13 PM
Try again.

BTW, I don`t get what so freakin complicated on that curve.

One curve, Flugbahn shows the flightpath of the aircraft, ie. the angle of dive vs. altitude on the Y axis.

A dark area next to Flugbahn shows wheter the pilot was pulling or pushing the stick vs. altitude on the Y axis

A third line "Wirkliche Geschw." (=TAS) shows the speed (X axis) vs. altitude on the Y axis in rather large increaments.

PS : Do you really believe the 109 F-2 could reach 1200 km/h on high orbit at 3 300 000m ? /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

œberfunny.


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

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

Message Edited on 11/22/0304:16PM by Vo101_Isegrim

XyZspineZyX
11-22-2003, 04:13 PM
Nope- I retract what I said - I was closer to guessing what the chart meant - just no banana.

Isegrim - the problem with interpreting it is our collective poor German!

Message Edited on 11/22/0303:16PM by AaronGT

XyZspineZyX
11-22-2003, 04:16 PM
Vo101_Isegrim wrote:

- Yeah, just what I was referring to. You become more
- and more surreal.
-
- But besides, why do you ask such silly questions
- like what plane is that ? You said in this thread
- you have this report, you even claimed a qoute from
- it...
-
- Were you perhaps lying, Chimp ?


Oh, that's the TERMINAL DIVE speed test of the Bf-109F. I should have known http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif.

I see the dive started at 32,800 feet (10,000 meters), but the terminal dive speed of 906 km/h (mach .805) was not reached until 16,400 feet (5,000 meters). It took a whopping 16,400 feet to go from 400 km/h to 906 km/h? And I thought you and Huck were telling us about how fast the Bf-109 accelerated in a dive?

In contrast:

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/47dive.jpg


In contrast, the P-47C achieved a much higher mach number, at a much higher altitude. In addition, the P-47C pulled out sooner, at a higher alttitude.



Thanks. I'll save your chart for future use.




Regards,

SkyChimp

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

XyZspineZyX
11-22-2003, 04:27 PM
Vo101_Isegrim wrote:

- PS : Do you really believe the 109 F-2 could reach
- 1200 km/h on high orbit at 3 300 000m ?

Typo error Barbi./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif You make quit a few yourself./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif



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



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

XyZspineZyX
11-22-2003, 04:36 PM
SkyChimp wrote:
- In contrast, the P-47C achieved a much higher mach
- number, at a much higher altitude. In addition, the
- P-47C pulled out sooner, at a higher alttitude.

Chimp - your chart and Isegrim's chart show slighty
different things, as far as I can tell. Your chart
does not show the maximum speed achievable for a P47C
diving from the same altitude as the 109F2 test, but
simply the terminal mach achievable from any (and
unspecified altitude).

It's likely that at 5000m,
0.805 (or thereabouts) _is_ the terminal mach for the 109F2,
since the 109F2 was in a long dive. We don't have any information from Isegrim's chart about 109F2 terminal
mach at any other altitudes for you to assert that the
P47C achieved a higher mach at higher altitudes, though.
We don't have any information on the terminal mach of
the 109F2 at 30,000 feet, say, from Isegrim's graph to
do a comparasion. If you have other charts from which
you are making the comparasion, then no "when I
get home" excuses - let's see the charts! :-)

Also I note the terminal machs on that graph are estimated,
not actual. For example the actual data point for the
P39N1 is at 15000 ft, and below the estimated terminal
mach. The actual data points for the P47C are also
below the estimated curve (doing a fit between the two
P47C points would yield 0.825 at 16,000 ft).

However, the terminal mach for the P47C at 5000m at
0.83 is better than the 109F2's of 0.805, so you are
absolutely correct there. 0.805 is quite creditable
for a plane a year earlier into production than the
P47C.

XyZspineZyX
11-22-2003, 04:43 PM
SkyChimp wrote:
-
- I see the dive started at 32,800 feet (10,000
- meters), but the terminal dive speed of 906 km/h
- (mach .805) was not reached until 16,400 feet (5,000
- meters).

Wrong.

Mach .805 was already reached at 7000m/23k ft .
906 km/h TASmax was reached at 5800m.
737 km/h IASmax was reached at 4500m.

The plane accelerated from MAch 0.76 to 0.8 in about 1000m according to the charts. Still, it`s with the old DB 601 N of the Emil, which certainly wasn`t a dedicated high altitude engine, developing only about 2/3s the power at altitude than later DBs.


- In contrast, the P-47C achieved a much higher mach
- number, at a much higher altitude.

I don`t see anything that would support this. Only a piece of paper, with <u>estimated</u> Terminal velocities, and one for the P-47C, that says "Flight data", but not a single clue about at what speed, altitude, Mach number the dive initiated, what was the dive angle - in short, not a single detail.

Besides, High Mach numbers are much easier to be achieved at high altitudes, as Mach/IAS ratio gets lower. So you basically said that the P-47C could achieve higher Mach numbers under conditions where it was easier to do.


- In addition, the
- P-47C pulled out sooner, at a higher alttitude.

I don`t see any pullout chart here, Chimp. Unless of course if you claim the entry point is at 0.84 Mach. I never knew the P-47C could reach 0.84 MAch in level flight. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif




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

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

XyZspineZyX
11-22-2003, 05:08 PM
AaronGT wrote:

- Also I note the terminal machs on that graph are
- estimated,
- not actual. For example the actual data point for
- the
- P39N1 is at 15000 ft, and below the estimated
- terminal
- mach. The actual data points for the P47C are also
- below the estimated curve (doing a fit between the
- two
- P47C points would yield 0.825 at 16,000 ft).


No, the lines represent estimations, the curve is actual flight data.

Regards,

SkyChimp

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

XyZspineZyX
11-22-2003, 05:28 PM
Vo101_Isegrim wrote:

- The plane accelerated from MAch 0.76 to 0.8 in about
- 1000m according to the charts. Still, it`s with the
- old DB 601 N of the Emil, which certainly wasn`t a
- dedicated high altitude engine, developing only
- about 2/3s the power at altitude than later DBs.


That's fine, it very well could have gone from .76 to .80 in 1000 meters. But it didn't begin it's dive at .76, did it? .76 is above the planes critical mach and it would have never begun a dive at that high of a speed. In fact, it couldn't reach .76 in level flight, only in a dive.

You stated that x axis is TAS. At 9,000m, the plane is diving at 600km/h (372 mph). At that altitude that's around mach .55.

So, it may have gone from mach .76 to mach .80 in a thousand meters. Whoopee. Hell, it went from mach .78 to mach .80 faster than that. But it's rather meaningless because that is not where it started its dive from. It started at around mach .38 at 10,000 meters, and reached around mach .80 at 5,000 meters.

That's acceleration from 248 mph to 554 mph in an 80 degree dive in 16,400 feet.

Regards,

SkyChimp

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

XyZspineZyX
11-22-2003, 05:35 PM
Slickun's Dad used the rudder to clear the OPPSITE SIDE. The view was so good that turning to his right, with the use of a little rudder, not only could he see the entire right hemisphere of his six o'clock but the left hemisphere as well. In other words, he could see well past the vertical stabilizer from either side. Are you able to make the distinction between the concepts of 'Through' and 'Around'? Apparently not.

Aren't you going to call 'OBee' O'Brien 'a Clown' now because he says that he could read his planes serial number on the rudder?


Huckebein_FW wrote:
- lrrp22 wrote:
-- Basic facts, Huck? Tell us again how the K-4's Erla
-- Haube offered superior rear visibility because the
-- P-51D pilot didn't have enough room to look around
-- the head armor...
-
- Again this bullsh*t with the Mustang pilot looking
- though the armored seat? Slickun's dad made it clear
- that if he wanted to check six he had to use the
- rudder (in a Mustang). Read this account of a real
- pilot and spare us of your guesses.
-
-
-
-
-
- <center> <img
- src="http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-m
- ain.jpg"> </center>

http://www.cebudanderson.com/images/a0001.jpg

XyZspineZyX
11-22-2003, 05:36 PM
When are they going to fix the me262s elevator btw.

1100kmph full use of elevator

<center>http://www.geocities.com/leadspittersig/LS1.txt
Good dogfighters bring ammo home, Great ones don't. (c) Leadspitter
<a HREF="http://www.il2skins.com/?action=list&authoridfilter=:Leadspitter:&comefrom=top5&ts=1068087655"> LeadSpitters Skins
</center>

XyZspineZyX
11-22-2003, 05:42 PM
SkyChimp wrote:
-
- That's fine, it very well could have gone from .76
- to .80 in 1000 meters. But it didn't begin it's
- dive at .76, did it?

- .76 is above the planes
- critical mach and it would have never begun a dive
- at that high of a speed. In fact, it couldn't reach
- .76 in level flight, only in a dive.

Had to mention that you don`t even know the 109`s critical Mach. Anyway, you claim your chart to be a flight test that shows Mach numbers reached by P-47C... yet the entry Mach was - 0.84 ? Obviously the P-47 could never reach that in level flight, so it doesn`t seem to be a flightpath vs. MAch number reached curve, more likely calculated terminal mach number figures which were derieved from a terminal Mach number achieved at a single altitude.


- You stated that x axis is TAS. At 9,000m, the plane
- is diving at 600km/h (372 mph). At that altitude
- that's around mach .55.

No, Mach .77 reached according to the documentation at 9000m.


- It started at around mach .38 at 10,000
- meters, and reached around mach .80 at 5,000 meters.

As I said, Mach .80 was already reached 8000m. And I would be rather interested from where exactly you took the .38 / 10 000m figure. A guess, right?

-
- That's acceleration from 248 mph to 554 mph in an 80
- degree dive in 16,400 feet.

Whatever. Present some similiar data to be compared with.



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

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

XyZspineZyX
11-22-2003, 05:54 PM
SkyChimp wrote:
- No, the lines represent estimations, the curve is
- actual flight data.

Those can't be terminal mach numbers. If they were
then the estimations are absolutely terrible estimations.
Although they are labelled "flight data" I am very
unsure as to what they represent, or the testing regime.

What I do see are a number of discrete, labelled points.

Can you explain the diagram more, as there doesn't seem
to be much relationship between the "flight data" curves
and the estimated lines, but rather better relationship
between the labelled discrete points and the estimated
lines. Or are those points referring to something else
entirely???

It's not at all clear.

Ah - I looked again. I think the XF2A flight data
line shows the mach for the entry, terminal, and
pull out portion of the dive. The estimated line
is well above that for the XF2A. I presume the estimated
line is intended to be tangential to the terminal
portion of the XF2A line.

For the P47 there is only a high altitude critical
line, and I assume the additional two data points
noted for the P47 are to be taken into account as well?
So there are 3 trials for the P47, one for the XF2A,
and one for the P39, if the dots are also trials.



Message Edited on 11/22/0304:57PM by AaronGT

XyZspineZyX
11-22-2003, 06:07 PM
SkyChimp wrote:
- You stated that x axis is TAS. At 9,000m, the plane
- is diving at 600km/h (372 mph). At that altitude
- that's around mach .55.

I verify these figures.

Althoughm, saying this, I don't know why it implies
that the 109F2 was somehow poor just because the pilot
happened to start the dive when going relatively slowly.
Maybe he was just going relatively slowly. It doesn't say
on either the US or LW documents that the pilot was
deliberately going as fast as possible prior to entering
the dive, so the initial velocity doesn't really have
much relevance, nor the absolute altitude at which the
terminal mach was achieved. If they 109F2 had been at
a higher level speed at 10000m maybe it would have reached
terminal mach at a higher altitude?





Message Edited on 11/22/0305:11PM by AaronGT

XyZspineZyX
11-22-2003, 06:08 PM
SkyChimp wrote:
-
- Vo101_Isegrim wrote:
-
-- The plane accelerated from MAch 0.76 to 0.8 in about
-- 1000m according to the charts. Still, it`s with the
-- old DB 601 N of the Emil, which certainly wasn`t a
-- dedicated high altitude engine, developing only
-- about 2/3s the power at altitude than later DBs.
-
-
- That's fine, it very well could have gone from .76
- to .80 in 1000 meters. But it didn't begin it's
- dive at .76, did it? .76 is above the planes
- critical mach and it would have never begun a dive
- at that high of a speed. In fact, it couldn't reach
- .76 in level flight, only in a dive.

The never ending bias.. No skychump, at that point they begun to record the data, the plane was already in a dive.


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

Message Edited on 11/22/0312:09PM by Huckebein_FW

XyZspineZyX
11-22-2003, 06:18 PM
Maybe this table (serived from as much of Isegrim's
graph as I can read)

<table>

<tr><td>Altitude(m)</td><td>iaskm/h</td><td>mach</td></tr>

<tr><td>10000</td><td>400</td><td>0.37</td></tr>
<tr><td>9000</td><td>600</td><td>0.55</td></tr>
<tr><td>8000</td><td>720</td><td>0.65</td></tr>
<tr><td>7000</td><td>800</td><td>0.71</td></tr>
<tr><td>6000</td><td>850</td><td>0.74</td></tr>
<tr><td>5000</td><td>900</td><td>0.78</td></tr>
<tr><td>4000</td><td>830</td><td>0.71</td></tr>
<tr><td>3000</td><td>600</td><td>0.51</td></tr>
</table>

XyZspineZyX
11-22-2003, 06:29 PM
SkyChimp wrote:
-
- MiloMorai wrote:
-- Huck wrote:
-- "Again this bullsh*t with the Mustang pilot looking
-- though the armored seat? Slickun's dad made it clear
-- that if he wanted to check six he had to use the
-- rudder (in a Mustang). Read this account of a real
-- pilot and spare us of your guesses."
--
-- What was really said Huck:
--
-- "I asked about rear vision. He said you looked
-- around the headrest, and could see 6:00 easily in
-- the Jug and Pony. High and mid level. You looked
-- around one side, and sideslipped the rudder to clear
-- both sides."
--
-- Now when are you going to improve your Englaih
-- reading comprehension skills? I do not lie or
-- distort intentionally, unlike 2 others who post
-- here, who try to claim the 109 was the PERFECT a/c.
-- They would put Herr Goebbels to shame.
-
-
- He misrepresented the article by the Russian pilot.
- He misrepresented the statement by Oleg.
- He misrepresented the statement by Slickun's father.
-
- It doesn't sound like to me that he has a a reading
- problem. Sounds more like an honesty problem.

You are evaluating honesty now? The most dishonest member of this board?

** I did not misrepresent any article of a russian pilot. This is his quote:

"In a fighter with a linked throttle-pitch system in a dive we either fell back or he caught up to us."

There no doubt about what he says. He says that american linked system was worse than the german one. There is no way around it.

** Oleg statement:"Thats true and here I agree with you, that this thing is really great 109th myth about impossiblity to recover."

What I said "Oleg says that Bf-109 difficult dive recovery
was just a myth."

What's the difference? where's the misinterpretation?

You skychump is the only one misquoting and misinterpreting anybody else. This two example are only the latest 2. But I made a thousand posts correcting you misquotes or lies.



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

XyZspineZyX
11-22-2003, 06:48 PM
From Oleg's post:

"Trust me, 109 is harder to recover than most other aircraft in a dive. But it doesn't means that it was impossible. Harder for sure and sometime in comparison very harder. Thats true and here I agree with you, that this thing is really great 109th myth about impossiblity to recover."

It's not an issue of misinterpretation with you Huck, it is plain and simple misrepresentation.


Huckebein_FW wrote:
- SkyChimp wrote:
--
-- MiloMorai wrote:
--- Huck wrote:
--- "Again this bullsh*t with the Mustang pilot looking
--- though the armored seat? Slickun's dad made it clear
--- that if he wanted to check six he had to use the
--- rudder (in a Mustang). Read this account of a real
--- pilot and spare us of your guesses."
---
--- What was really said Huck:
---
--- "I asked about rear vision. He said you looked
--- around the headrest, and could see 6:00 easily in
--- the Jug and Pony. High and mid level. You looked
--- around one side, and sideslipped the rudder to clear
--- both sides."
---
--- Now when are you going to improve your Englaih
--- reading comprehension skills? I do not lie or
--- distort intentionally, unlike 2 others who post
--- here, who try to claim the 109 was the PERFECT a/c.
--- They would put Herr Goebbels to shame.
--
--
-- He misrepresented the article by the Russian pilot.
-- He misrepresented the statement by Oleg.
-- He misrepresented the statement by Slickun's father.
--
-- It doesn't sound like to me that he has a a reading
-- problem. Sounds more like an honesty problem.
-
- You are evaluating honesty now? The most dishonest
- member of this board?
-
- ** I did not misrepresent any article of a russian
- pilot. This is his quote:
-
- "In a fighter with a linked throttle-pitch system in
- a dive we either fell back or he caught up to us."
-
- There no doubt about what he says. He says that
- american linked system was worse than the german
- one. There is no way around it.
-
- ** Oleg statement:"Thats true and here I agree with
- you, that this thing is really great 109th myth
- about impossiblity to recover."
-
- What I said "Oleg says that Bf-109 difficult dive
- recovery
- was just a myth."
-
- What's the difference? where's the
- misinterpretation?
-
- You skychump is the only one misquoting and
- misinterpreting anybody else. This two example are
- only the latest 2. But I made a thousand posts
- correcting you misquotes or lies.
-
-
-
-
- <center> <img
- src="http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-m
- ain.jpg"> </center>

http://www.cebudanderson.com/images/a0001.jpg

XyZspineZyX
11-22-2003, 07:16 PM
lrrp22 wrote:
- From Oleg's post:
-
- "Trust me, 109 is harder to recover than most other
- aircraft in a dive. But it doesn't means that it was
- impossible. Harder for sure and sometime in
- comparison very harder. Thats true and here I agree
- with you, that this thing is really great 109th myth
- about impossiblity to recover."
-
- It's not an issue of misinterpretation with you
- Huck, it is plain and simple misrepresentation.


** Oleg statement:"Thats true and here I agree with you, that this thing is really great 109th myth about impossiblity to recover."

What I said "Oleg says that Bf-109 difficult dive recovery
was just a myth."


Where is the misrepresentation??? Oleg talks about two different things in his post, one is stick forces the other is the the myth of impossibility to recover. You deliberately want to mix them, to support the poor chimp, who's in ropes now. Regarding the myth of impossibility to recover I quoted Oleg very well. I'm not obligated to quote every problem that Oleg mentions in a post just to quote his opinion in only one of the matters.

------------------

As for stick forces Oleg did not bring any proof to support his affirmantion. I will believe him when he will support his oppinion with documents. Otherways it is a gross exageration. If there are planes with smaller stick forces in high speed dives those can be only TWO: Fw-190 and Mustang, but the difference, if it was a difference, it was very small. Do you know other planes that should be better stick forces than 109 in a dive, beside the two mentioned?


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

XyZspineZyX
11-22-2003, 07:29 PM
Don't understand the difference between 'Difficulty' and 'Impossibility', huh?

You were using Oleg's post to support your unsupportable argument that the 109 was the 'best' diver when in fact Oleg said that the 109 was HARDER, commonly much harder, to pull out of a dive than most other aircraft: not impossible, but definitely harder. But you knew that, didn't you?

Care to comment on Slickun's dad's quote again?

Huckebein_FW wrote:
- lrrp22 wrote:
-- From Oleg's post:
--
-- "Trust me, 109 is harder to recover than most other
-- aircraft in a dive. But it doesn't means that it was
-- impossible. Harder for sure and sometime in
-- comparison very harder. Thats true and here I agree
-- with you, that this thing is really great 109th myth
-- about impossiblity to recover."
--
-- It's not an issue of misinterpretation with you
-- Huck, it is plain and simple misrepresentation.
-
-
- ** Oleg statement:"Thats true and here I agree with
- you, that this thing is really great 109th myth
- about impossiblity to recover."
-
- What I said "Oleg says that Bf-109 difficult dive
- recovery
- was just a myth."
-
-
- Where is the misrepresentation??? Oleg talks about
- two different things in his post, one is stick
- forces the other is the the myth of impossibility to
- recover. You deliberately want to mix them, to
- support the poor chimp, who's in ropes now.
- Regarding the myth of impossibility to recover I
- quoted Oleg very well. I'm not obligated to quote
- every problem that Oleg mentions in a post just to
- quote his opinion in only one of the matters.
-
-------------------
-
- As for stick forces Oleg did not bring any proof to
- support his affirmantion. I will believe him when he
- will support his oppinion with documents. Otherways
- it is a gross exageration. If there are planes with
- smaller stick forces in high speed dives those can
- be only TWO: Fw-190 and Mustang, but the difference,
- if it was a difference, it was very small. Do you
- know other planes that should be better stick forces
- than 109 in a dive, beside the two mentioned?
-
-
- <center> <img
- src="http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-m
- ain.jpg"> </center>

http://www.cebudanderson.com/images/a0001.jpg

ZG77_Nagual
11-22-2003, 08:28 PM
- first off I think the term 'impossible' was rhetorical in the initial post - so the argument - impossible vs difficult is not real. Moreover it is ridiculous. I mean I can assert the 109 was impossible to pull out of a 2000kph dive - and I'd be right - right? The only subject being discussed here is the relative difficulty of dive recovery - which includes, obviously stick forces - compared to other aircraft in general. Oleg's asserts that the 109 is one of the most difficult aircraft in the simm in relation to dive recovery - and he has data from german factory tests to back it up. Given this is not really even the gold standard - but the most optimistic standard for flight modeling - I'd say he's been generous with the 109.

Huck - you seem to draw wide ranging conclusions based on very limited information

exa: Golodnikov says the auto prop pitch on the early p40s and p39s did not make for the best performance.

you conclude: American planes had inferior auto prop pitch to german planes.

The mustang d view argument was raised again - just look at a mustang d some time - it is not possible to support your argument about rear visibility. I stayed out of the original thread because your assertion about mustang d visibility was really just silly.

Personally I'm as sick of mustangs as the next guy - but I'm starting to get sick of 109s too. At least nobody is complaining about the p39 anymore /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

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

XyZspineZyX
11-22-2003, 09:45 PM
Huckie, better look a little closer at the throttle quadrant on the P-38, P-47, P-51, F6F and Spitfire for they all had a lever for manual prop pitch control.



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



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

XyZspineZyX
11-22-2003, 10:09 PM
Salute Isegrim

Ahh... now we have the truth.

Yes we know about that test.

This is a chart from a one off test aircraft, which was not combat equipped and which had modifications.

The results cannot be duplicated in normal combat flying and are irrelevant.

That is why you only posted this single chart, and didn't include all the material from the test.

If you did, it would become obvious that this was not a standard F2.


RAF74 Buzzsaw



Message Edited on 11/22/0310:17PM by RAF74BuzzsawXO

XyZspineZyX
11-22-2003, 10:26 PM
Vo101_Isegrim wrote:

-- You stated that x axis is TAS. At 9,000m, the plane
-- is diving at 600km/h (372 mph). At that altitude
-- that's around mach .55.
-
- No, Mach .77 reached according to the documentation
- at 9000m.


Um, 600 km/h TAS is not mach .77 at 9,000 meters. As stated its around mach .55.

Regards,

SkyChimp

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

XyZspineZyX
11-22-2003, 10:29 PM
Huckebein_FW wrote:

- The never ending bias.. No skychump, at that point
- they begun to record the data, the plane was already
- in a dive.


SkyChump? Wasn't it you that cried to moderators when someone called you Huckie http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

BTW, I'm still waiting for that P-51D chart you stated you would post to prove I was wrong! I haven't seen that yet. Do you plan on failing in that regard, also?

Regards,

SkyChimp

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

XyZspineZyX
11-22-2003, 10:39 PM
Huckebein_FW wrote:

- ** Oleg statement:"Thats true and here I agree with
- you, that this thing is really great 109th myth
- about impossiblity to recover."
-
- What I said "Oleg says that Bf-109 difficult dive
- recovery
- was just a myth."
-
-
- Where is the misrepresentation??? Oleg talks about
- two different things in his post, one is stick
- forces the other is the the myth of impossibility to
- recover. You deliberately want to mix them, to
- support the poor chimp, who's in ropes now.
- Regarding the myth of impossibility to recover I
- quoted Oleg very well. I'm not obligated to quote
- every problem that Oleg mentions in a post just to
- quote his opinion in only one of the matters.

Because Oleg said it was a myth that it was IMPOSSIBLE to pull the plane from a dive.

But he also said it was hard, and in some comparisons, VERY hard to pull out of a dive.

Then you, just a couple of post later, said Oleg said it was a myth it was difficult to pull from a dive.

He didn't say that! He said it was hard.

Get the difference.

It's a perfect example of your intentional manipulative dishonesty that you permeate these boards with.



- As for stick forces Oleg did not bring any proof to
- support his affirmantion. I will believe him when he
- will support his oppinion with documents. Otherways
- it is a gross exageration. If there are planes with
- smaller stick forces in high speed dives those can
- be only TWO: Fw-190 and Mustang, but the difference,
- if it was a difference, it was very small. Do you
- know other planes that should be better stick forces
- than 109 in a dive, beside the two mentioned?



So Oleg's a liar now, Huh?

Lets see, your list of liars:

1) Me, because I don't worship German planes.
2) Anyone else that doesn't worship German planes.
3) Anyone that does worship German planes that happens to have the audacity to post an objective, but unflattering, analyisis of a German plane.
4) Frances Dean, since American planes simply had no characteristics that were superior to German planes.
5) The USAAF, if they found that a plane performed in a manner you wished it didn't.
6) Experienced German veterans who state that any American plane could outperform theirs in any manner whatsoever.
7) All allied pilots.
8) Oleg, because he said the Bf-109 was very hard to pull out of dives.
9) Milo, since he doesn't buy your crap either.
10) Anyone that thinks on their own and doesn't accept at face value your stupid assertions.


Regards,

SkyChimp

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

Message Edited on 11/22/0306:21PM by SkyChimp

XyZspineZyX
11-22-2003, 10:40 PM
AaronGT wrote:
- Maybe this table (serived from as much of Isegrim's
- graph as I can read)
-
- <table>
-
- <tr><td>Altitude(m)</td><td>iaskm/h</td><td>mach</
- td></tr>
-
- <tr><td>10000</td><td>400</td><td>0.37</td></tr>
- <tr><td>9000</td><td>600</td><td>0.55</td></tr>
- <tr><td>8000</td><td>720</td><td>0.65</td></tr>
- <tr><td>7000</td><td>800</td><td>0.71</td></tr>
- <tr><td>6000</td><td>850</td><td>0.74</td></tr>
- <tr><td>5000</td><td>900</td><td>0.78</td></tr>
- <tr><td>4000</td><td>830</td><td>0.71</td></tr>
- <tr><td>3000</td><td>600</td><td>0.51</td></tr>
- </table>
-
-

I agree, and these are the same figures I came up with. Yet Isegrim says they are wrong. The Bf-109 was doing better than mach .70 at 9,000m.

But those speeds are TRUE AIR SPEEDS, not Indicated Air Speeds:

Isegrim wrote:

"As can be seen, dive recovery was initiated at 850 kph TAS from a ~80 degree dive at 4000m, and by 2900m, the plane was perferctly level."



There is no way for them to be Indicated Air Speeds. It would have made the plane supersonic.





Regards,

SkyChimp

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



Message Edited on 11/22/0304:49PM by SkyChimp

XyZspineZyX
11-22-2003, 10:42 PM
Huckebein_FW wrote:

- "In a fighter with a linked throttle-pitch system in
- a dive we either fell back or he caught up to us."
-
- There no doubt about what he says. He says that
- american linked system was worse than the german
- one. There is no way around it.


That's one way to twist it, Chubby. But in reality he's saying that he preferred the option of unlinking them, as opposed to the option of having them linked. Bell provided both options.

Only you could twist it to mean "all German planes were superior in every regard." Which is waht you really mean, no isn't it?



Regards,

SkyChimp

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

XyZspineZyX
11-22-2003, 10:45 PM
RAF74BuzzsawXO wrote:
- Salute Isegrim
-
- Ahh... now we have the truth.
-
- Yes we know about that test.
-
- This is a chart from a one off test aircraft, which
- was not combat equipped and which had modifications.
-
- The results cannot be duplicated in normal combat
- flying and are irrelevant.
-
-
- RAF74 Buzzsaw

'
That is exactly right. It was a plane rigged to achieve a high dive speed without crashing, with equipment no Luftwaffe pilot would have ever had access to.



Regards,

SkyChimp

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

XyZspineZyX
11-22-2003, 11:31 PM
Stay tuned for more bias posts by the dynamic due Issy & Huck, right after these messages.....

XyZspineZyX
11-23-2003, 02:30 AM
Cappadocian_317 wrote:
- Stay tuned for more bias posts by the dynamic due
- Issy & Huck, right after these messages.....
-
-

Duo dude, Dynamic Duo (-:

Just letting you know.

XyZspineZyX
11-23-2003, 12:22 PM
Let's put the context in which P-47 was dived to 0.86 Mach. It was flown by a champion weightlifter, nobody else could take the plane up to that speed. You needed a champion weightlifter to pull-out P-47 from high speed dive. This must be modelled in FB.



"GILRUTH: We didn't have any meetings unless we really had to have them. We used to have joint meetings. For example, during the war, the P-47 which was one of our best fighters developed a problem called stick freezing in high speed dives. P-47 pilots would report that they got in a dive and they actually could not pull out. They kept pulling and pulling on the stick until they were getting dangerously close to the ground and then all of a sudden the airplane would respond and pull out just before hitting the ground. Some of them lost ailerons when they overshot the limits and others bent their wings. That was a big mystery, why in the world was this stick apparently freezing? There were lots of airplanes lost, and when I get talking to some of the old pilots about that they still say, "Boy, that was something."

Well, Perkins called a meeting at Wright Field and we got all the experts to come to this meeting. We had our toptheoretical man from NACA, Dr. Therdorsen, and we had the head of the load section, Mr. Richard Rhode, and we had other experts. Each one had a different idea of what it might be.

Some believed it was drastic deformation of the elevator surfaces, others thought it was aerodynamic problem at the tail surface, and not one had the correct answer to the problem. Actually, one of the experts actually said, that the stick was not responding because the elevators were freezing due to condensation in the hinges and elevator gap!

So, we decided that we really needed to have a test, and we would put some recording instruments on the airplane and see what it really was. We were going to hire a test pilot, pay him a lot of money to make these dives, but Perkins found a young major at Wright Field, who said, "I'll be glad to dive that thing."

DEVORKIN: You mean, actually put the plane into a stick freeze condition?

GILRUTH: Yes, put it into a dive, and it would freeze and then pull it out. Well, this young man was also the Olympic champion weight lifter, so we figured he could pull it out.

DEVORKIN: He could pull the stick loose, if anybody could.

GILRUTH: Yes. This was a fellow named Perry Ritchie. His idea of heaven, he told me before this, was a throttle in one hand and a hamburger in the other. He was a happy-go-lucky guy. We put recording instruments in the P-47 and he took it on up to 30,000 feet, which is about as high as it would go, put it straight down in a dive -- and pretty soon, we saw him coming back in and the plane was okay. He said, "Boy, that was a good one, it really does freeze, all right, but I was able to pull it out."
[..]
GILRUTH: Well, of course, you know, the wind tunnels were aghast. They were smarting, very much, because here was somebody with ten cents worth of instruments (not really--but it was really small compared with the millions of dollars that those wind tunnels cost). And everything that you could find that you could compare was not in conflict with the data that I got. The wing-flow tests showed conclusively that a thick wing like you had on the P-47 lost its lift curve slope when you got above a Mach number of about .7 or .8, which caused it to have this so-called stick freezing characteristic. The stick didn't actually freeze; you could still move it the usual amount, but when the wing lost its lift curve slope, it wouldn't do anything for the airplane. It kept going straight down, till it got to the lower altitudes where the drag was great enough to slow it down to a Mach number where the lift effectiveness was restored. Then you could pull it out -- if you could wait that long. It was tough on the pilots the first time it came. They didn't know it was going to stop. To this day I still meet people who flew the P-47 who say, "My God, I never knew why that was.""

or a pilot description:

"Upon entering a vertical dive in a P-47, rapid acceleration was inevitable and, at high altitude it was exaggerated. At about 550 MPH indicated, buffeting became evident and it rapidly became severe. The control stick jerked violently in all directions and it was necessary to hold on firmly, with both hands, to manage it. Quite suddenly, the buffeting stopped and the stick became rigid - as though set in concrete. At that point, you jammed both feet hard against the rudder pedals and pulled back on the stick with all your strength - still with both hands. And you stayed that way, simply waiting for the airplane to respond.

In the vicinity of 15,000 feet, depending on atmospheric pressure, the nose of the airplane began to slowly creep toward the horizon. The rate of movement increased as altitude decreased. Level flight could be restored by 8,500 feet if you were willing to absorb the G-force punishment. In my last two dives, I pulled out gradually attaining level flight a bit below 4,000 feet with the airspeed needle still on the stop."

It doesn't seem to pull-out "at will" like Buzzsaw put it.




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

XyZspineZyX
11-23-2003, 01:58 PM
Salute Huckbein

The comments you have posted are from tests of an early model P-47B, which in fact never saw combat.

There were many changes made to the P-47C and D models which followed.

Here are some comments from a Republic test pilot regarding those aircraft equipped with dive flaps:

"The P-47 has dive flaps which lift the restriction on dive speed. you will now get compressibility without the flaps, but they are to be used for recovery. At high altitudes, up around 25,000 to 27,000 ft, you will recover at about 4 and a half G without any trouble to the pilot. At lower altitudes, down at 17,000 to 18,000 ft, recovery is around 6 G, and it progressively modifies itself because of the natural tendencies of the aircraft to come out of compressibility at low altitudes, so it would be 3 G at 10,000 ft. So you actually have no restrictions as far as a dive and compressibility are concerned."

Get that again???

'NO RESTRICTIONS'.

Even the early model B without dive flaps would pull out after it reached lower altitudes and the air density became higher.

I quote from your article:

"...it got
- to the lower altitudes where the drag was great
- enough to slow it down to a Mach number where the
- lift effectiveness was restored. Then you could pull
- it out "

Also you didn't mention the dives speeds achieved during these tests.

In fact they pilots reached speeds in the area of 600 mph IAS, some pilots claimed speeds which would have been in excess of the speed of sound, but it is likely that their instruments were not capable of reading velocities that high.

As mentioned, there were many changes from B to C and later.

Here are the changes to the C model from the B:

Provision for water injection on C-5 model, quick engine change mounting, forward fuselage extended eight inches at firewall, overall length increased 13 inches, redesigned elevator and rudder balances, radio change and new radio mast, belly shackles added under fuselage for 200 gallon external fuel tank or 500 lb bomb, new bobweight system in elevator.

Note especially the change in the elevator balance and the new bobweight system. Both were modified to give better response at high speeds, including in dives.

This whole attempt by Huckbein to bring in the issue of the P-47 going into compressibility is actually backfiring on him. This is because he is just proving the point that the aircraft accelerated in a dive VERY quickly, up to speeds that other aircraft could not even hope to follow.


Cheers RAF74 Buzzsaw







Message Edited on 11/23/0301:05PM by RAF74BuzzsawXO

XyZspineZyX
11-23-2003, 03:14 PM
Huck, nevermind the fact that the P-47 dove to speeds the Bf-109 could not hope to match? Just forget that point, it's not relevant.


BTW, do you have any idea how fast 550 mph IAS is above 15,000 feet?


/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif



Regards,

SkyChimp

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



Message Edited on 11/23/0309:17AM by SkyChimp

XyZspineZyX
11-23-2003, 04:21 PM
RAF74BuzzsawXO wrote:
- Salute Huckbein
-
- The comments you have posted are from tests of an
- early model P-47B, which in fact never saw combat.
-
- There were many changes made to the P-47C and D
- models which followed.


Again your ignorant comments.

NACA made the dive tests on P-47C not B. This is the plane Gilruth is talking about.

So all the problems mentioned there were encountered by later models. Dive flaps helped pilot to pull out of dive, but if he pressed the dive exactly the same effects were encountered. Extreme stick buffeting then freeze together with heavy airframe buffeting. There were many fatal accidents in which P-47 broke in midair, lost tail, wings or controls.


- This whole attempt by Huckbein to bring in the issue
- of the P-47 going into compressibility is actually
- backfiring on him. This is because he is just
- proving the point that the aircraft accelerated in a
- dive VERY quickly, up to speeds that other aircraft
- could not even hope to follow.

Yes it accelerated surprisingly quickly for an american pilot. For a german pilot P47 was a dog in dive acceleration. Only at high altitude P-47 was competitive, but if it entered in compressibility he could not pull-out until it reached very low altitudes, if ever.


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

ZG77_Nagual
11-23-2003, 04:58 PM
Huck - if you check your quote above it undermines your weight lifter argument when it says the stick moved the normal amount - it just did nothing for the aircraft. The question is one of turbulence over the control surfaces neutralizing their effectiveness - not force required to move them. I'll let others with more data at their fingertips deal with your other arguments - I just wanted to point out that your post contradicts one of your conclusions.

"The stick didn't actually freeze; you could still move it the usual amount, but when the wing lost its lift curve slope, it wouldn't do anything for the airplane. It kept going straight down, till it got to the lower altitudes where the drag was great enough to slow it down to a Mach number where the lift effectiveness was restored. Then you could pull it out -- if you could wait that long. It was tough on the pilots the first time it came."

Also worth noting is that the indicated ONSET OF BUFFETTING is reported as 550mph - we can probably assume control loss was a bit above this - that is pretty fast.

There is no question in anything I've read that the p47 outdove 109 - and I've mostly read german pilot accounts. I don't think that's the issue here. Near as I can tell you seem to be trying to prove american planes had flaws?

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


Message Edited on 11/23/0311:03AM by ZG77_Nagual

XyZspineZyX
11-23-2003, 05:31 PM
Hop said it best: "I've got my mind made up, don't confuse me with fact." It describes Huck perfectly. He tries so hard to show the superiority of all-things-German, and the inferiority of all-thing-American that he scarcely takes the time to even read what he posts.
His careless lack of attention to detail is generally his downfall. We see it all the time.





Regards,

SkyChimp

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

ZG77_Nagual
11-23-2003, 05:47 PM
I like these debates - but it'd be nice to see a bit more intellectual rigor in some quarters. I personally don't really care who's plane is best.

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

XyZspineZyX
11-24-2003, 04:08 AM
In his book "An Ace of the Eighth", Bud Fortier also describes the P-47 stick as being "set in a bucket of concrete" in a high-speed dive.

On p. 113 Fortier writes:

"The P-47's rapid acceleration in a dive was legendary. The Jug often reached speeds at which the 'compressibility effect' froze the controls, making recovery chancy at best."


Notice that Fortier, who actually flew the P-47 in combat says recovery under these conditions was "chancy at best".

In fact, at seeing his friend Jim Duffy heading into a cloud at 20,000ft. in a vertical dive in a P-47 "chances were that I had lost my best friend and roommate."


At lower altitudes and thicker air, Duffy recovered and was nearly shot down by AAA. He was quite fortunate when a 20mm shell ripped through the belly of his Thunderbolt and lodged under the pilot's seat but failed to explode.


The damage to Duffy's P-47 Thunderbolt from the dive recovery was quite extensive - apart from the damage he recived from AAA. It's described on p.115:


"The damage was impressive. The landing gear fairings were buckled, some rivets had popped in the wings, and the right aileron was bent - all this from his recovery from that high-speed dive."


<center><img src= "http://perso.wanadoo.fr/christophe.arribat/stoffwjabo.jpg" height=205 width=385>

<center>"We are now in a position of inferiority...There is no doubt in my mind, nor in the minds of my fighter pilots, that the FW190 is the best all-round fighter in the world today."

British Air Marshall, Sholto Douglas, 17 July 1942

XyZspineZyX
11-24-2003, 07:35 AM
Salute FW190 Fan


What model P-47 was this??

It obviously was not one equipped with dive flaps.

Also, maybe you could be specific at the dive speeds in this example?

The early P-47D's reccommended dive limit was 500 mph IAS (800 kph) under 25,000 ft. That translates to 697 mph TAS at 20,000 ft.

I suppose it is possible that the pilot exceeded his limit, but he would have to be going VERY fast.

By the way, please provide one example of a P-47 pilot who was unable to recover from a high speed dive. You will note that this pilot recovered.

I know I can provide multiple examples of pilots who reached tremendous speeds and recovered, without any damage to their aircraft.

For example, Bob Johnson describes strafing a German airfield from 10,000 ft:

"...rolled over at 10,000 ft and dropped straight down.... I came out of the dive at 500 mph. At this speed the ground doesn't merely approach, it leaps out at you. As my bullets arced ahead, red flashes appeared magically all over the hanger... I became so engrossed in the scene, I barely pulled out in time."

Does this sound like a pilot having trouble in pulling out? With a stick set in concrete? His attention perhaps a little too much on his job, but no problem in controlling the aircraft at those tremendous speeds.

On the other hand, there are many examples of P-47 and P-51 pilots who followed 109 and 190's in dives, and watched the German aircraft go straight into the ground without recovering.

Those examples can be found in almost any bio of USAAF pilots.


RAF74 Buzzsaw

XyZspineZyX
11-24-2003, 08:08 AM
I agree Buzz. But pi**ing my self laughing at the "please provide one example of a P-47 pilot who was unable to recover from a high speed dive." I don't know how they would be around to provide this example. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

XyZspineZyX
11-24-2003, 03:49 PM
Since we started quoting pilots, This is from the book "We defended you, Sofia" by Stoyan Stoyanov(N1 Ace of Bulgarian Air Force). After he managed to fend off a few P-38s attacking a fellow, he was in a difficult situation himself.

"I pushed the stick and immediatelly felt the consequences of the Centripetal forces. My stomach pushed hard at my lungs. I lost sight for a moment but my brain was working and I continued pushing as if for an inverted looping while at the same time rolling so I could level out in a normal position. In that manner I dove for more than 6000 meters and low above the terrain I "broke" the plane in level flight. My speed was more than 700kmh and without decreasing it I kept on level. I turned around a few times but there was nobody on my tail."

Did you heard any comments about the impossible pullout?



Some things are worth fighting for...
And most of them wear mini skirts.
/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

XyZspineZyX
11-24-2003, 04:26 PM
RAF74BuzzsawXO wrote:


- Salute FW190 Fan
-
-
- What model P-47 was this??



Buzzsaw, What model P-47 was the 355th FG equipped with on Feb. 11, 1944?



- It obviously was not one equipped with dive flaps.


Are you sure about this?


- Also, maybe you could be specific at the dive speeds
- in this example?


On p. 113 it says in excess of 500mph, between 20,000 and 10,000ft.

But is this the point? Isn't the assertion being made here that the P-47 recovered from dives fairly easily, regardless of speed? Unlike the 109? This doesn't seem to be the case.


Jim Duffy said the stick felt like it was "set in concrete."

Bud Fortier said recovery was "chancy at best" under these conditions.



- By the way, please provide one example of a P-47
- pilot who was unable to recover from a high speed
- dive. You will note that this pilot recovered.


I know of a case where about 5 P-47 Thunderbolts dove straight into one of the Great Lakes because they tried to attempt a Split-S below 15,000 ft.

None of the P-47s recovered, and all of the pilots lost their lives.


And besides, pilots unable to recover from dives in the P-47 are not around to speak about it.



- I know I can provide multiple examples of pilots who
- reached tremendous speeds and recovered, without any
- damage to their aircraft.


Go ahead, knock yourself out.

"Be sure" that I can do the same with the FW190.



- For example, Bob Johnson describes strafing a German
- airfield from 10,000 ft:


- "I barely pulled out in
- time."

/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif



- Does this sound like a pilot having trouble in
- pulling out? With a stick set in concrete?


No, but Jim Duffy's experience in his vertical dive from a much higher altitude sure does. By his own account:

The stick seemed "set in concrete".

Bud Fortier, an ace in the 8th AF said that under these conditions,

"...recovery was chancy at best".


Set in a bucket of concrete.

Recovery chancy at best.

It seems that these 8th AF pilots that actually flew the P-47 in combat were aware that the P-47 could be deadly in a dive.



- On the other hand, there are many examples of P-47
- and P-51 pilots who followed 109 and 190's in dives,
- and watched the German aircraft go straight into the
- ground without recovering.


There are many examples of the FW190 being dived at speeds as fast as any model P-47 Thunderbolt could reach and recovering.

Tests done by German fighter pilots both in combat and under specific dive test conditions that are confirmed by RAF tests with the FW190.

And yes, I can quote them directly.



- Those examples can be found in almost any bio of
- USAAF pilots.


So you will accept a USAAF pilot experiences when they suit you, but you will dismiss them when they don't quite line up with what you want them to say?

This is how you are coming across, either intentionally or not.

How about what RAF test pilot Eric Brown concluded in his tests with a P-47D?



<center><img src= "http://perso.wanadoo.fr/christophe.arribat/stoffwjabo.jpg" height=205 width=385>

<center>"We are now in a position of inferiority...There is no doubt in my mind, nor in the minds of my fighter pilots, that the FW190 is the best all-round fighter in the world today."

British Air Marshall, Sholto Douglas, 17 July 1942

XyZspineZyX
11-24-2003, 04:41 PM
RAF74BuzzsawXO wrote:
- Salute Isegrim
-
- Ahh... now we have the truth.

Indeed, despite your counterwork.


- This is a chart from a one off test aircraft, which
- was not combat equipped and which had modifications.

No, this is not a chart from a strictly "test" aircraft. The Bf 109 F-2 in the dive tests was a serially produced plane, weighting 2900 kg during the test whereas the combat load of Fighter F-2 was 2830 kg. So it was even heavier than under full combat load.

The only modification was limiting aileron travel in this particular test that dived the plane to 906 km/h, but that would hardly mean anything, given that in previous tests with the same a/c up to 890 km/h, <u>done without limiting aileron travel</u>, were also successfull. In any case, even the modification to the ailerons could not in any way effect the plane`s ability to pull out, since the elevator was not modified at all.


- The results cannot be duplicated in normal combat
- flying and are irrelevant.

Wrong here too, there are literally dozens of pilots describing diving to 8-900 km/h and over with their Me 109s w/o any trouble, Finns (One those was already posted on this board), Hungarians, Germans, and I bet Huck could provide similiar accounts from Rumanian pilots.

http://www.mit.bme.hu/~tade/ac-pict/Hung-AF/pre-1945/Bf-109/Bf109col.gif

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

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

XyZspineZyX
11-24-2003, 04:45 PM
SkyChimp wrote:
--
-- No, Mach .77 reached according to the documentation
-- at 9000m.
-
- Um, 600 km/h TAS is not mach .77 at 9,000 meters.
- As stated its around mach .55.


I don`t think there`s much to dicuss about it.

On hand we have your/Aaron`s calculation - which I believe is a very generic one, not taking into account the outside air temperature etc. during the tests -, which says .55 Mach was reached at 9000m.

On the other hand, we have the original report, which among others has a TAS, an IAS, a Mach and an outside temp. vs. altitude charts, and the Mach chart, calculated by professional engineers from Messerscmitt, shows exactly 0.77 Mach at 9000m.

I tend to believe the latter. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif


http://www.mit.bme.hu/~tade/ac-pict/Hung-AF/pre-1945/Bf-109/Bf109col.gif

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

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

XyZspineZyX
11-24-2003, 04:54 PM
Vo101_Isegrim wrote:
-
-
- On the other hand, we have the original report,
- which among others has a TAS, an IAS, a Mach and an
- outside temp. vs. altitude charts, and the Mach
- chart, calculated by professional engineers from
- Messerscmitt, shows exactly 0.77 Mach at 9000m.
-
-

We do??? Pray tell, point out where on the graph you posted is this info.

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




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



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

XyZspineZyX
11-24-2003, 05:03 PM
RAF74BuzzsawXO wrote:


- This whole attempt by Huckbein to bring in the issue
- of the P-47 going into compressibility is actually
- backfiring on him.


Is it? Are you suggesting the P-47 didn't enter compressibility?


Again, from USAAF ace Bud Fortier:

"The Jug often reached speeds at which the 'compressibility effect' froze the controls, making recovery chancy at best."

Please note that Fortier and Jim Duffy both flew P-47s that were equipped with all of your aforementioned bob-weight, mass-balance improvements, etc.



- This is because he is just
- proving the point that the aircraft accelerated in a
- dive VERY quickly,


Uh-huh



-up to speeds that other aircraft
- could not even hope to follow.


This is incorrect.

The FW190A was tested in both Germany and confirmed in Britain and was capable of reaching dive speeds ranging from 955-980 km/h.

I'm really sorry if this doesn't fit in with what you believe to be true, but the information is there in black and white, according to RAF tests with a captured FW190.


The Me-262, the world's first jet fighter to see combat could most certainly exceed dive speeds of the P-47 Thunderbolt.


No doubt the Do-335 Pfiel, had it been an operational fighter would have had a tremendous dive speed as well but it apperantly never saw combat and so we won't include it to be fair.








<center><img src= "http://perso.wanadoo.fr/christophe.arribat/stoffwjabo.jpg" height=205 width=385>

<center>"We are now in a position of inferiority...There is no doubt in my mind, nor in the minds of my fighter pilots, that the FW190 is the best all-round fighter in the world today."

British Air Marshall, Sholto Douglas, 17 July 1942

XyZspineZyX
11-24-2003, 05:03 PM
MiloMorai wrote:
-
- We do??? Pray tell, point out where on the graph you
- posted is this info.

Did I say the info is on the graph I posted here?

Read again : <u>it`s in the full report</u> .

Besides, it`s hardly relevant since you or the spawn would deny it anyway to the point the test was never even made. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

http://www.mit.bme.hu/~tade/ac-pict/Hung-AF/pre-1945/Bf-109/Bf109col.gif

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

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

XyZspineZyX
11-24-2003, 05:10 PM
With all those calculations in the report, you would think Messerschmitt would produce a graph reflecting those calculations. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif


Vo101_Isegrim wrote:
-
- Did I say the info is on the graph I posted here?
-
- Read again : <u>it`s in the full report</u> .
-
-

Obw, your sig pic is TOO large.



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



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

Message Edited on 11/24/0311:12AM by MiloMorai

XyZspineZyX
11-24-2003, 05:22 PM
Here is RAF test pilot Eric Brown's report on a dive test with a P-47D of the 8th AF:

(please note that it refers to a 30 degree dive)


"Before the next flight a Machmeter was fitted to the aircraft, and as instructed I climbed to 35,000ft, carried out a 2min. level run at full power and trimmed the aircraft before pushing over into a 30 degree dive. At mach .72 the aircraft began to buffet slightly and pitch nose down, requiring a strong pull force to maintain the dive angle. At mach .73 the buffeting increased severely and the nose down pitch was so strong that it needed a full-blooded, two-handed pull to keep the dive angle constant. I had to hang on grimly in this situation, unable to throttle back until mach number decreased as altitude was lost. The pullout was not effected until 8,000ft. Analysis showed that a dive to Mach .74 would almost certainly be a graveyard dive".


=========================


This would certainly corroborate Jim Duffy's experience (among others) with regard to the P-47's controls being very difficult to handle in a High-speed dive.


The 109 was certainly not the only fighter of it's era that could have problems recovering from a high-speed dive.


<center><img src= "http://perso.wanadoo.fr/christophe.arribat/stoffwjabo.jpg" height=205 width=385>

<center>"We are now in a position of inferiority...There is no doubt in my mind, nor in the minds of my fighter pilots, that the FW190 is the best all-round fighter in the world today."

British Air Marshall, Sholto Douglas, 17 July 1942

ZG77_Nagual
11-24-2003, 06:13 PM
Considering Eric Brown seems to have got pretty well dissed for his 109 tests, it might be we should find some other opinions /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif
nice to see some solid arguments both ways.

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

XyZspineZyX
11-24-2003, 08:39 PM
I've read through most of this thread and had to take a break afterwards.

It left me with one question.

When will people be satisfied? What do you honestly expect from a group of game designers with limited time and a limited budget?

I enjoy Forgotten Battles immensely. Each patch seems to only improve the game. I am eagerly awaiting the paid add-on and 1.2 Final.

- To Huck -

I love the Messerschmitt 109. It is one of my favorite planes and one of the chief reasons I originally bought IL2. The P47 Thunderbolt and P51 are my two other favorite aircraft.

and... I hope to anything holy that YOUR version of the ME109 is never modeled.

According to everything you've said (and not proven) the ME109 could outdive the P51. It could outdive an aircraft 2,500 pounds heavier that also had a much smoother airframe?

Its so entertaining when a debate becomes an argument and the laws of physics are thrown clear out the window in the process.

A ~S~ to Skychimp and others that actually presented information backed with sources.

The truth is the ME109 as it is now in RC01 is a match for any other fighter if flown properly. Why don't we sit back, relax, and finally confirm to ourselves that Germany was actually not superior to the Allies in every technological regard?

Gunner of the 361st vFG

XyZspineZyX
11-24-2003, 10:23 PM
Gunner_361st wrote:
- I've read through most of this thread and had to
- take a break afterwards.
-
- It left me with one question.
-
- When will people be satisfied? What do you honestly
- expect from a group of game designers with limited
- time and a limited budget?
-
- I enjoy Forgotten Battles immensely. Each patch
- seems to only improve the game. I am eagerly
- awaiting the paid add-on and 1.2 Final.
-
- - To Huck -
-
-
- I love the Messerschmitt 109. It is one of my
- favorite planes and one of the chief reasons I
- originally bought IL2. The P47 Thunderbolt and P51
- are my two other favorite aircraft.
-
- and... I hope to anything holy that YOUR version of
- the ME109 is never modeled.
-
- According to everything you've said (and not proven)
- the ME109 could outdive the P51. It could outdive
- an aircraft 2,500 pounds heavier that also had a
- much smoother airframe?
-
- Its so entertaining when a debate becomes an
- argument and the laws of physics are thrown clear
- out the window in the process.
-
- A ~S~ to Skychimp and others that actually presented
- information backed with sources.
-
- The truth is the ME109 as it is now in RC01 is a
- match for any other fighter if flown properly. Why
- don't we sit back, relax, and finally confirm to
- ourselves that Germany was actually not superior to
- the Allies in every technological regard?
-
- Gunner of the 361st vFG



AMEN! Now lock this thread I'm worn out from reading it. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-

XyZspineZyX
11-24-2003, 11:04 PM
JG53Frankyboy wrote:
- a lot of interesting posts here !
-
-
- but pls keep in mind that the elevator heaviness in
- the BF109 in FB1.2RC01 not starts at high speed (IAS
- /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif )- it begins above 400Km/H
- !!!!!!!
-
- thats a litle bit strange.
-
- and pulling out of a highspeddive (above700Km/H)
- with that controls is like wearing a very good
- Anti-G-siute - its near to impossible to get a black
- out



this is excatly what i was referring to in the original post and on the first page of this thread ! the stiffness does not appear at extremly high speed but is there already at a rather low speed - and it does not work as if the stick is heavy... but the elevator seems to clog up and get stuck at a certain deflection way to early - i think it should be more effective at 500-600 km/h then it is now. slow stick movement is totally acceptable - but not being able to pull more then a low-g turn at those speeds is a little irritating - even though it is not that much of a problem when flying the 109 like it should be flown - in a B&Z style.

hehe this thread has become some kind of battleground /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif



Message Edited on 11/24/0310:06PM by johann_thor

XyZspineZyX
11-25-2003, 01:15 AM
Vo101_Isegrim wrote:

- I don`t think there`s much to dicuss about it.
-
- On hand we have your/Aaron`s calculation - which I
- believe is a very generic one, not taking into
- account the outside air temperature etc. during the
- tests -, which says .55 Mach was reached at 9000m.
-
- On the other hand, we have the original report,
- which among others has a TAS, an IAS, a Mach and an
- outside temp. vs. altitude charts, and the Mach
- chart, calculated by professional engineers from
- Messerscmitt, shows exactly 0.77 Mach at 9000m.
-
- I tend to believe the latter.

You believe whatever you like. 600 km/h TAS at 9,000 meters is NOT mach .77 at 9,000 meter. Not in Germany, not in Russia, not in the US, not at the North Pole. Maybe in Fantasy Land, but not on our earth.

600 km/h at 9,000 meters is mach .55.

Regards,

SkyChimp

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

XyZspineZyX
11-26-2003, 12:07 PM
Concur. It is not the near-impossible pullup at 700kph that bothers me so much, it is the very hard pullup at 500kph. I mmight actually start using that elevator trim. not sure it will help, though...

maybe oleg modeled a sabotage mechanoc who puts a stick in your elevator so you cannot move it?

Some things are worth fighting for...
And most of them wear mini skirts.
/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

XyZspineZyX
11-26-2003, 06:38 PM
thats the only problem i have with the 109, is when i try to BNZ somebody, doing 700+, at last second they turn and i can in no way turn with them,plane is like its in mud, and these arent really steep dives, more gradually from a distance etc... its crazy...

XyZspineZyX
11-27-2003, 05:01 AM
johann_thor wrote:
- i have no problems with fighting in 109 with the
- current elevator - i feel the K4 is a little heavy
- though .... but i never fly the K4 anyway .....


The K-4 weighed more, should feel more heavy. But many 109's were lost due to a heavy elevator preventing a pullout at low altitude. It is MUCH less of an issue higher up.

XyZspineZyX
11-27-2003, 02:50 PM
yes but as you can see we are complaining about concrete elevator at 500-700km/h - not pullout from some 800+ dive of death !

XyZspineZyX
11-27-2003, 05:18 PM
I found this interesting:


http://www.wwiionline.de/index.php?name=PNphpBB2&file=viewtopic&t=864

XyZspineZyX
11-27-2003, 07:19 PM
MiloMorai wrote:
-
- Vo101_Isegrim wrote:
--
--
-- On the other hand, we have the original report,
-- which among others has a TAS, an IAS, a Mach and an
-- outside temp. vs. altitude charts, and the Mach
-- chart, calculated by professional engineers from
-- Messerscmitt, shows exactly 0.77 Mach at 9000m.
--
--
-
- We do??? Pray tell, point out where on the graph you
- posted is this info.
-
<img
- src="http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/109/109F
- _pullout.jpg"> -
-

http://109lair.hobbyvista.com/index1024.htm

The chart is from
http://109lair.hobbyvista.com/techref/structures/tails/109.05e43_report/05e43-p1.htm
click right into the image to see the next one...

the Werksnummer of the "unknown" plane is W.Nr.9228 It was a 109F (which reached the terminal dive speed 0.805 Mach /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif )

The plane was equiped with 109G wings and it had the new tall tail!
The test had not the aim to evaluate the max. divespeed, it should only test if the new tail increase the stability in highspee- diving, the tall tail did the job good...

With the wrong trimset the pilot was not able to pull out of the dive, he had to correct the trim to recover the dive, but then the reaction of the plane was so violant that he had to pull the stick foreward to be not blacked out...

with the right trimset +1?15 it was possible to pull out of the dive without using the trim, just pull the Stick (its the graphic Isegrim posted!) the interesting fact is... BOTH flightpaths, with (and with the danger to be blackout) and without use of the trim are nearly the same... so even if you only use your stick (and right trimset!) you can pull a 109 so hard that you get close to a blackout... /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif



JG53 PikAs Abbuzze
I./Gruppe

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