Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Very true, I think they are more closely matched then any other two planes that fought vs each other in history.
But talking about BoB Soren, I believe the 109 and Spit were equals. But I believe Germany used better fighter tactics (until Hitler and Fatboy stepped in), which resulted in a better kill ratio when talking about fighter vs fighter in BoB (and even more so in 41 42 when Germany was defending).
The lateral jolt/snach (not the bang or impact felt, but actual movement of the a/c) caused by the slats deploying didn't occur on 109F and later models, neither did the slats jamming in high G turns, corect Soren?
Very true, I think they are more closely matched then any other two planes that fought vs each other in history.
But talking about BoB Soren, I believe the 109 and Spit were equals. But I believe Germany used better fighter tactics (until Hitler and Fatboy stepped in), which resulted in a better kill ratio when talking about fighter vs fighter in BoB (and even more so in 41 42 when Germany was defending).
Now that the British test pilots didn't push the captured 109's to the limit isn't unnormal, as anyone new to the type would be vary about the slats owing to the unusual feel such a device gave, the rather violent jolt it would give as the slats deployed on an Emil scaring pilots witless, making them think they were just on the edge. Fact is there weren't eve close to the edge, the slats coming out very early in a turn, long before you're even approaching the limit.
Fully agreed Hunter.
Not sure about that, the tactics used by the LW RAF fighters seem very similar to me. The fact that the Bf-109 acquired itself a very favourable kill/loss ratio against the Spitfire was most likely because of its fuel injection system, which meant the Spitfire Hurricane had nearly no means of escape if a 109 was on their tail (Unless the 109 pilot was unwilling to push the a/c to the limit ofcourse)
At any rate the Bf-109 Spitfire were very close to each other in every aspect of flight performance, and both were excellent fighter a/c.
The RAE turn times were done at 12000ft, right in between the two sets of numbers in the BAUBESCHREIBUNG test. When you look at it that way, they compare quite favorably I think.
How on earth anyone can read that and then claim they were afraid of the slots opening and backed off as soon as they did so, I don't know.
Equally, I find it bizarre that anyone could believe test pilots later in the war would be so frightened of a simple aerodynamic feature like a slot (fitted to lots of different aircraft, after all) that they would be incapable of testing the aircraft properly.
This is just another of Soren's opinions that has little basis in fact.
I am confused, Can I ask how the following quotes which have been mentioned a couple of times, show that the British Test Pilots didn't take the 109 through the deployment of the slats.
If people cannot prove that these tests support the oft mentioned claim that the test pilots didn't take them through the deployment can I ask that they stop making that claim. Its clearly wrong, insulting and starting to sound like a scratched record.
Apart from their excessive heaviness at high speeds, the most serious defect of the Me. 109 ailerons is a tendency to snatch as the wing tip slots open. This is particularly noticeable when manoeuvring. For example, if the stick is pulled back in a tight turn, putting additional g on the aircraft, the slots open at quite a high airspeed; as they open, the stick suddenly snatches laterally through several inches either way, sufficiently to upset a pilot's aim in a dog fight. The snatch appears to be associated with the opening of the slots, for once they are fully open a steady turn can be done, with no aileron vibration, until the stall is approached.
When doing tight turns with the Me. 109 leading at speeds between 90 m.p.h. and 220 m.p.h. the Spitfires and Hurricanes had little difficult in keeping on the tail of the Me. 109. During these turns the amount of normal g recorded on the Me. 109 was between 2J and 4 g. The aircraft stalled if the turn was tightened to give more than 4 g at speeds below about 200 m.p.h. The slots opened at about 1\2 g before the stall, and whilst opening caused the ailerons to snatch; this upset the pilot's sighting immediately and caused him to lose ground. When the slots were fully open the aircraft could be turned quite steadily until very near the stall. If the stick was then pulled back a little more the aircraft suddenly shuddered, and either tended to come out of the turn or dropped its wing further, oscillating meanwhile in pitch and roll and rapidly losing height; the aircraft immediately unstalled if the stick was eased forward. Even in a very tight turn the stall was quite gentle, with no tendency for the aircraft to suddenly flick over on to its back and spin. The Spitfires and Hurricanes could follow the Me. 109 round during the stalled turns without themselves showing any signs of stalling.
The comments about the 109 being embarrased clearly refers to the 109 losing its sighting position which is quite understandable
Just a question Glider and Bill, you both have more knowledge then I on the test in question. Could you please tell me the following:
How many pilots actually flew the 109 in question while testing it, their names?
How many hours did each pilot actually fly the 109 while testing it?
RAE did no test for either turn times or radius. The figures given by RAE for the 109E are rough estimates, with the Cl figures estimated from tests done to determine Cl on the Spitfire. Even on the latter, the Cl was determined, or rather again, estimated from stall speed tests. And, none of the RAE figures contain data for turn capacity of the Emil with its flaps deployed (the Spitfire didn`t have combat flaps, it was either up or down for landing). It think its quite reasonable to think that Messerschmitt AG had better understanding of the 109E`s Cl than RAE.
The comments about the 109 being embarrased clearly refers to the 109 losing its sighting position which is quite understandable
And second the 109F and later models no longer had problems with aileron snatching, lateral shutter, or high G jamming of the slats. Although the pilot could still feel and hear a shock from the slat deployment on later models iirc, there was no effect on the aircraft its self, so no change in sighting.The Hawker Tempest Page
Tempest V Tactical Trials
...
Turning Circle
The Tempest is slightly better, the Bf.109G being embarrassed by its slots opening near the stall.
The comments about the 109 being embarrased clearly refers to the 109 losing its sighting position which is quite understandable