109 flaps'N'ailerons
- Thread starter thedab
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
1 increased lift, particularly on landing.
2 As above but as far as roll rate, no effect, as the ailerons operated independently of the flaps.
3. I remember a photo of a wing for a Bf 109 K, taken at Prague, which looks to be metal. It would be a wing destined for the DIANA production facility near Tisnov and also has a rarely seen Flettner tab fitted.
I can't post it because I'm not at home.
Steve
2 As above but as far as roll rate, no effect, as the ailerons operated independently of the flaps.
3. I remember a photo of a wing for a Bf 109 K, taken at Prague, which looks to be metal. It would be a wing destined for the DIANA production facility near Tisnov and also has a rarely seen Flettner tab fitted.
I can't post it because I'm not at home.
Steve
AFAIK, Flaperons will reduce aileron effectiveness when they are down, as they effectively reduce the travel of the downward aileron. Apparently this can make crosswind landings more challenging (I've never flown anything with flaperons).
When they are retracted, there shouldn't be any effect of aileron effectiveness.
99% of Bf 109 pilots only used the flaps to land and the increased lift of this feature (the Bf 109 wing needed high lift 'add ons' to fly at low speeds) was the reason for it. Other issues with the ailerons in this flight mode, and there were some, were considered acceptable.
Cheers
Steve
Cheers
Steve
davparlr
Senior Master Sergeant
Who can think about flaps and ailerons when there is a avatar of Mrs. Emma Peel in view??
- Thread starter
- #7
Yes they do a bit,I wonder why that it not untill the K that the 109 got metal aileron. did any of the G's have metal aileron?
I did see on here some were,that the K had a higher dive limit than the G,dose get me wondering,did the metal aileron help,
and did they need to beef up the airframe on the K? anyone know what the dry weight are for the G-10 and the K-4.
I did see on here some were,that the K had a higher dive limit than the G,dose get me wondering,did the metal aileron help,
and did they need to beef up the airframe on the K? anyone know what the dry weight are for the G-10 and the K-4.
- Thread starter
- #8
Who can think about flaps and ailerons when there is a avatar of Mrs. Emma Peel in view??
She was fairly classy eh what? Didn't that series come out at about the same time as The Thunderbirds and the original Star Trek?
Anyway, back to subject: I'm reasonably sure that the ailerons on late 109s were wooden structure with wood covering; late war painting instructions required that all non metal surfaces on the undersides were to be painted in RLM 76, while the alloy was left unpainted, as per Stona's photo.
GregP
Major
Star Trek had some attractions of its own. Anyone remember this one? Sherry Jackson ... black and blue never looked better.
Last edited:
davparlr
Senior Master Sergeant
My source says the K-6 empty weight is 5161 lbs. You need to subtract the weight of two MK 103s mounted under the wing.
I can't answer those specific questions whilst I am away from home.
I would like to clarify that the Bf 109 did not have a system which could be described as 'flaperons'. The flaps and ailerons were two distinct sets of control surfaces and in all flight in which the flaps were not deployed, that is the vast majority of flight, the ailerons acted in an entirely traditional manner.
With flaps fully up the ailerons have a droop of 1.2 degrees. The maximum deflections are 25 degrees up and 13.5 degrees down giving a differential of about 2:1.
With the flaps fully down the ailerons droop by 11 degrees and the differential is slightly reduced. I have a diagram for this somewhere but apparently not on this computer.
Most Bf 109 pilots, Luftwaffe and allied, felt that deploying the flaps caused the ailerons to feel 'heavier' and slightly less effective.
Cheers
Steve
I would like to clarify that the Bf 109 did not have a system which could be described as 'flaperons'. The flaps and ailerons were two distinct sets of control surfaces and in all flight in which the flaps were not deployed, that is the vast majority of flight, the ailerons acted in an entirely traditional manner.
With flaps fully up the ailerons have a droop of 1.2 degrees. The maximum deflections are 25 degrees up and 13.5 degrees down giving a differential of about 2:1.
With the flaps fully down the ailerons droop by 11 degrees and the differential is slightly reduced. I have a diagram for this somewhere but apparently not on this computer.
Most Bf 109 pilots, Luftwaffe and allied, felt that deploying the flaps caused the ailerons to feel 'heavier' and slightly less effective.
Cheers
Steve
GregP
Major
The ailerons on the Hispano He-1112 Buchon are fabric. Never seen a "K" in person, but adding metal skins to an aileron is not difficult.
It caused Vickers-Supermarine some head aches. It took until July (not May) 1941 to get them on the Spitfire production line despite them being planned for the Mks I and II. Some senior officers seem to have acquired them slightly earlier, they had been tested in late 1940. Time lines often get confused in the re-telling, but Bader certainly had them fitted when he was shot down in August ('41)
Sqn Ldr A V R 'Sandy' Johnstone (not 'Johnny' as often stated) supposedly tested some in November 1940 and offered to buy them, so impressed was he with their effect.
Cheers
Steve
GregP
Major
The trick was to make sure they were about 10% - 15% overbalanced so the flutter margin was sufficient. For lower speeds, 10% overbalanced was OK, but for higher speeds, more overbalance was needed.
When I removed the fabric from the control surfaces of our A6M5 Model 52 Zero, they were all about 15%+ overbalanced and did not flutter in combat. We are making sure this overbalance does NOT get compromised. If we went with metal covering (we are not), the balance % would have to be increased slightly to assure the same flutter resistance. Perhaps not in theory, but NOBODY who flies fighters would argue about adding to the overbalance.
The leading edge is heavy enough to be very noticeable to anyone trying to carry it around. The surfaces are HEAVY but light relative to the wing. Lots of lead that is screwed into the aluminum surface envelope.
Anyone who has picked one up or recovered one will know that just from experience.
The bobweight on a P-51 elevator bellcrank are significant weight ... but are vital to controlability of the aircraft. Jimmy Leeward found that out in 2011.
When I removed the fabric from the control surfaces of our A6M5 Model 52 Zero, they were all about 15%+ overbalanced and did not flutter in combat. We are making sure this overbalance does NOT get compromised. If we went with metal covering (we are not), the balance % would have to be increased slightly to assure the same flutter resistance. Perhaps not in theory, but NOBODY who flies fighters would argue about adding to the overbalance.
The leading edge is heavy enough to be very noticeable to anyone trying to carry it around. The surfaces are HEAVY but light relative to the wing. Lots of lead that is screwed into the aluminum surface envelope.
Anyone who has picked one up or recovered one will know that just from experience.
The bobweight on a P-51 elevator bellcrank are significant weight ... but are vital to controlability of the aircraft. Jimmy Leeward found that out in 2011.
Last edited:
That's very interesting Greg.
It just goes to show (and I sometimes get bored saying it) that even seemingly simple alterations to these high performance aircraft often entailed a lot more calculation, experimentation and work than is often assumed. The RAF and Luftwaffe didn't employ the services of hundreds of men at places like Martlesham Heath and Rechlin for the fun of it.
Cheers
Steve
It just goes to show (and I sometimes get bored saying it) that even seemingly simple alterations to these high performance aircraft often entailed a lot more calculation, experimentation and work than is often assumed. The RAF and Luftwaffe didn't employ the services of hundreds of men at places like Martlesham Heath and Rechlin for the fun of it.
Cheers
Steve
Not forgetting that these powerful, high speed monoplanes were being developed just over 30 years after the Wrights first flew, nor that the designers and engineers were breaking new ground with every leap in performance...what had already been achieved was pretty impressive.
GregP
Major
The designs ARE impressive given the time of development between first flight of man and these fighters.
What makes it even more so to me is that 80 years after WWII, these things are still the highest performance pistons ever built.
As you said, impressive.
What makes it even more so to me is that 80 years after WWII, these things are still the highest performance pistons ever built.
As you said, impressive.
- Thread starter
- #20
great so that 2346Kg empty,have you got the empty weight for G-10, got the empty weight for the F-4 from here Kurfürst - Mtt. AG. Datenblatt, Me 109 G - 1. Ausführung which at 2386Kg empty, well i think it the empty weight, it dose make the F-4 look heavier, which I do fine a bit odd
