BF 109 Dive Rate

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules


Nice table timppa. Re: your additional note: I just was composing a post to that effect - I might qualify/clarify that by noting that the rankings will change somewhat as altitude increases. For example the Spitfire IX and Me 109G will flip places over ~ 16,000 ft. The documents below further support that view.

Below please find documentation regarding Me 109 dive limitations:

Bf 109 E Flugzeughandbuch


Bf 109 G-2, G-4, G-6 Bedienungsvorschrift-FL




 
Last edited:

Mike - I do not, but Erich has compiled a detailed list of the JG 301 losses which include 355/361 and 339 clashes from ene Celle to Dummer Lake.

I'm having a hard time getting to JG 1 and JG 6 losses for the same area.
 
Mike - I do not, but Erich has compiled a detailed list of the JG 301 losses which include 355/361 and 339 clashes from ene Celle to Dummer Lake.

I'm having a hard time getting to JG 1 and JG 6 losses for the same area.

Thanks Bill:

Here's what I have on JG 1 losses from 26 November 1944; from Prien:

 
I had forgotten about this British document relating to Me 109 dive which translates material found in German documents .

 

You might find the dive limits for the 109K also useful for this kind of chart (left coloumn for clean aircraft and also valid with for gondola cannons, right colomn with external stores ie. bombs etc.)
 

Attachments

  • 109K_dive_limits.JPG
    46.2 KB · Views: 212

I think you would find interesting the findings of A&AEE at Boscombe down a fully armed Spitfire Mk IX, ie. the fighter variant tested in dive trials.

As you probably know the often referenced Mach 0,89 dives with were performed with an unarmed photo-recce Mk XI variant. As I recall however this report does not describe the behaviour of the aircraft during the dive, only records the speeds measured with a pitot (which as you noted was not a particularly accurate device at those speeds).

This variant had no cannon stubs or gun ports in the wings, neither it did have the armored windscreen of the fighter variants, ie. it was considerably different aerdynamically than the normal fighter variants. Personally it strikes me as illogical to compare a fully armed fighter such as the P-51 with the additional burden of armament with an unarmed photo recce.

Below you will find the details of the dive with the said Spitfire Mk IX fighter variant. It strikes me that the general behaviour was not at all different from the results with the Mustang in the test you quoted - normal in operation up to Mach 0.70, clear danger signs at around Mach .75, and begun to loose control at anywhere above Mach 0.80+.

If the Spitfire manual said Mach .85 as a limit, it was certainly a very bold suggestion for the pilots.
 

Attachments

  • Spit9_high_speed_divebehaviour.JPG
    66.5 KB · Views: 165

Kurfurst - you may recall the spirited debates about Drag last year and in particular Lednicer's VSAERO modelling results. It demonstrated the stagnation pressure region in front of and on the windscreen of the Spit IX - at only ~ 300kts model speed.

Your report points to the possibility that as the 'Q" pressures built up over another 120 kts there should be quite a bit of turbulence at the forward portion of the Malcolm Hood before it re-attaches
 
Of further interest, diving restrictions for Supermarine Spitfire Mk II, from Pilots manual issued July 1940. Some may appear familiar.

One particular difference was that the Spitfire had to be trimmed into dive to avoid excessive G pullouts and structural failure. The correct operation of the Bf 109 was the opposite, leaving the aircraft trimmed for level flight, ie. as before the dive commenced.
 

Attachments

  • Spitfire2_Pilotsnotes_July1940_diving.JPG
    142.6 KB · Views: 221
  • Spitfire2_Pilotsnotes_July1940_trimming.JPG
    101.2 KB · Views: 213
Last edited:
From "Suggested method of keeping in range of Me 109 diving to Evade" - a tactical issue of No. 11 Group describing the roll-and-dive manoeuvre to circumvent negative-G cutouts, July 1941. The similiarity with the warnings placed in the Bf 109 G-2, G-4, G-6 Bedienungsvorschrift-FL is again, striking.
 

Attachments

  • Spit_carewithmetalailerons_July_1941.JPG
    62.4 KB · Views: 214
Last edited:
Apparently the precautions laid down in the Spitfire II manual about the dangers of excessive accelerations during pullout were to be taken seriously.

Due to size restrictions, I will only post the summary here, but I don't think many are familiar with report in its full, so it would be probably a good idea to create a PDF from it, and upload to the flight tests.
 

Attachments

  • spits2.jpg
    144.5 KB · Views: 226
  • spits1.jpg
    150.2 KB · Views: 243

Personally, I am simply amazed that today, with a reasonable accurate 3d model of the aircraft, it is possible to get a fairly accurate picture of the flow behaviour that was, 70 years ago, unpredictable for the very best of the aircraft industry ! Indeed the actual flight test results from the 40s demonstrate that the VSAERO analysis was fairly accurate.
 

Equally interesting was the fact that the P-51D had the best of the comparisons with its greater slope than the P-51B, and after the P-51 was the Fw 190, then the Spit. This was significant in Cd0

Had the Spit designers been aware of these results they would have sloped the windscreen earlier to reduce turbulence over the Malcolm Hood.

I was heavily involved in potential flow aero models in late 60's and those were better than classic aero formula but childs play for today's models
 
Hello Drgondog
I'm not sure that the problem of Spit IX was the slope of the windscreen because IIRC it was the same in Spit PR XI, and its critical Mach number was very high for a prop plane. IMHO the "bullet proof" windscreen, long cannon barrels, gun blisters and the mirror were the main culprits that the max dive speed flown by Spit IX was 0,6M lower than that of Spit XI. Spit IX and P-51B/D seemed to have had more or less same critical Mach number and only info I recall for Fw190 is that Vanir gave, namely that it had trim changes at 0.78 Mach.

Juha
 
From what I understand the exterior bullet proof wind screen on the Spitfires was worth about a 6mph loss.

I am not saying changing the slope wouldn't have helped but that much drag from such a small item seems to indicate it was doing something to the airflow in the region.
 

Juha - What I intended to say, if misinterpreted, is that based on Lednicer's VSAERO analysis, there was a stagnation pressure region all along the windscreen of the Mk IX windscreen which would lead to initial separation at the forward portion of the Malcolm Hood -------> explaining Kurfurst's article regarding observations of the turbulence over the canopy.

Having said that, further observation is that the slope of the P-51D windscreen was ~ 31 degrees, the P-51B was around 34 and the Mk IX was around 38 degrees which appears to be reflected in the graphical plots of pressure distribution.

Of course the wing was the much larger determinant in drag but that isn't what I was commenting about.
 

Shortround - try this for some insight

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/flight-test-data/p-51-performance-thread-12670.html - see post #4 for the Lednicer VSAERO study that I brought into the P-51 Performance section.

Lednicer and his consulting group has been used by the Dago Red and Strella teams to study and solve various P-51 related drag issues.
 

Users who are viewing this thread