f6f-5 vs 109

[Soren]

I mostly fly the aerobat, but its' been a while now since I sold it. I worked out a deal where I can get to fly it when'ever I want though, as long as I pay for the gas. It's a great little a/c, but the STOL (A CH107 once IIRC) a/c I've tried were definitely better at tight maneuver, despite having roughly the same wing loading, and the slats were no doubt the reason behind that.

 

[Glider]

I admit that I didn't like the aerobat, it was tight for space and I didn't like the visibility. However I wasn't paying so wasn't in a position to complain.

 

[drgondog]

I haven't flown two otherwise identical a/c, one with slats and one not, but I fly the Cessna Aerobat, and I've tried several STOL a/c of the same weight, and they do turn a lot better.

Also we flew 3 STOL a/c in formation once, chasing each other, and I never felt any disturbance to the slats. Ofcourse I could feel the propwash, but so would I in any a/c.

And regarding what I said about the slats being deployed symmetrically, I was talking about a high performance turn where both wings have exceeded 15 degree's AoA, at that point both slats will be fully deployed and are therefore symmetric.

That would be true... at the point of near stall.

I have never seen any data about the rate of deployment for the 109 so I really don't know what the characteristics would be from say, 13 degrees to 17 degrees. I suspect it is gradual (post E) and entirely dependent on the local pressure distribution of the airfoil behind the slats.

 

[88l71]

And for the love of God, would u please cease and desist in calling the Hellcats firepower "devestating/massive"... It was adequete for the job and should of had cannons...

The F6F was notoriously rugged, and hard for a Zero to bring down, and the Zero had double the cannon armament of the 109. The P-51, which had the same firepower as the F6F, had no trouble bringing down the Messerschmitt. So since we're comparing two aircraft in a hypothetical combat it's about relative firepower, not absolute. The Hellcat is a very large fighter, almost the size of a P-47, with a reputation for extreme ruggedness while the 109 is a much smaller and lighter airframe.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

The F6F was notoriously rugged, and hard for a Zero to bring down, and the Zero had double the cannon armament of the 109. The P-51, which had the same firepower as the F6F, had no trouble bringing down the Messerschmitt. So since we're comparing two aircraft in a hypothetical combat it's about relative firepower, not absolute. The Hellcat is a very large fighter, almost the size of a P-47, with a reputation for extreme ruggedness while the 109 is a much smaller and lighter airframe.

Would you like to explain "no trouble"?

 

[Soundbreaker Welch?]

In terms of ruggedness, it was easier for a P-51 to bring down a 109 than a 190, due to the lesser amount of armor.

 

[Vincenzo]

this is true only if have talking with same plane, a less armoured plane can be more hard to shoot down simply he denied you more easily the fire possiblity

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

In terms of ruggedness, it was easier for a P-51 to bring down a 109 than a 190, due to the lesser amount of armor.

Does that make a plane "no trouble" to shoot down? Is that the only factors involved?

 

[Soundbreaker Welch?]

Well like Vincenzo said, that extra armor wasn't everything, the small size of the 109 was an asset to it's sucsess. It was harder for a fighter with guns in the wings to get a good convergence on it. Plus without the added weight the 109 was a dogfighter from the start, while the FW 190 took some tweaking.

 

[fritzie 101]

It depends on the pilot,although the Hellcat was definitely more rugged both structurally and in terms of engine reliability the R-2800 could keep on going with whole cylinders blown off,one hit in the cooling system of the DB 605 or any liquid cooled engine and it was just a matter of how much time you had before you went down. That's why P/F 51s had such a hard time in Korea. the mustang was a much better air to air fighter than ground attack plane.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Since everyone is missing the point I was trying to make, please go back and read post #164.

 

[delcyros]

Judging from ammo expendeture figures of p-51 groups after action reports, no statistically meaningful distinction between fw-190 and bf-109 can be observed.
It appears that range was far more a factor for gun effeciency than the type of (fighter) aircraft engaged. This is not true for the Me-262 and Ar-234 jets. Both of which required more avg. rounds per kill.

 

[drgondog]

Judging from ammo expendeture figures of p-51 groups after action reports, no statistically meaningful distinction between fw-190 and bf-109 can be observed.
It appears that range was far more a factor for gun effeciency than the type of (fighter) aircraft engaged. This is not true for the Me-262 and Ar-234 jets. Both of which required more avg. rounds per kill.

I absolutely agree 100%.

Statistically speaking the 8th AF FC destroyed far more Me 109s than Fw 190s but I'm still researching the relative percentage between P-51, P-47 and P-38's in destruction of each a/c.

I also feel sure the ammo expenditure for downing Jets was far hiher because of range. So many of the Encounter roports on destroyed 262s report ranges of 600-900 as 'starting point'

 

[Soundbreaker Welch?]

I don't think the 109 was ever no trouble to shoot down, unless it had a real rookie at the stick. It was a good opponent for the P-51.

 

[drgondog]

I don't think the 109 was ever no trouble to shoot down, unless it had a real rookie at the stick. It was a good opponent for the P-51.

Whatever the real number was, the claim was "90% of the victims never knew they were a victim until it was too late"

All good airplanes are vulnearble when another a/c has your six

 

[finnster]

I disagree, esp. since the 109's slats did NOT pop in and out during turning fights because of a wake or turblunce, that is merely an old untrue myth. It never happens. If it were to happen it would mean that a normal wing would experience the same effect and a sudden drop of lift when following another a/c, but it doesn't.

Dave Southwood, a modern 109 pilot, has addressed this issue before and made it quite clear that he has never experienced such a thing in the 109G ever whilst following or turning with other a/c.

Odd, If i remember Brown's account properly, they opened assymetrically on him when he was behind a p51. But I may well be misremembering it. I'll have to re-read his account when I get home this weekend.
And slipstream effect can, as you suggest, affect other traiing aircraft profoundly.
My first flightinstructor told me a story about trying to pull in behind a b52 to take a picture from his Canadaire F86 Sabrejet and winding up tossed around to the point where he wound up losing about several thousand feet of altitude.
Of course, the b52 is a huge plane- and generates massive vortices as well as slipstream!

finnster

 

[finnster]

I just realized i'm replying to an OLD post- no point to it. sorry.

 

[finnster]

Ah Henning, as usual the voice of reason
Thank god!
finnster

Hi Juha,

>The term Emberassed might come from the fact than in turning fight slats began popping out separately when 109 hit the wake of the other a/c and so ruined aiming. But what I remember on Finns experiences British seemed to have overstated this problem.

Absolutely. Radinger/Schick in their "Me 109" note that the Bayerische Flugzeugwerke and the Deutsche Versuchsanstalt für Luftfahrt undertook extensive trials of the slats in a major test program (worth 2,000,000 Reichsmark), which resulted in the deletion of the locking mechanism which originally held down the slats while the flaps were extended by less than 10 degrees. (If you're familiar with the US analysis of a captured Me 110, they found the remnants of such a locking mechanism which had been disabled, so it was not only used in the Me 109.)

Another series of test flights were undertaken in 1936 to determine if there was any danger of the slats during spins. Gustav Lachmann of Handley Page suggested that the slats should be equipped with a pneumatic retraction device to safeguard against the opened slats making the spin irrecoverable, but it turned out that this device had never to be used during the trials.

The results of these test flights were that the handling characteristics of the Me 109 were made much more docile in turns and aerobatics with flaps retracted by the freely operating slats.

If you read the French comparison report on the D.520 vs. Me 109E trials, you'll find that the two fighters had virtually identical turn rates at the test altitude, but the Me 109 could be flown reliably at the edge of the stall with sufficient warning to stay in the turn, while the D.520 lacked such a warning and sooner or later flicked out of the turn when the pilot inadvertently flew it into the stall.

(The Spitfire could be reliably flown on the edge of the stall like the Messerschmitt too, relying on aerodynamic wash-out to achieve a gradual instead of an abrupt stall. For the record, I don't think the Me 109 could match the Spitfire's sustained turn, except perhaps when you take a particularly heavy and poorly performing Spitfire variant like a tropicalized Spitfire V against a very light and well turning Messerschmitt variant like the Me 109F-4.)

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

 

[Soren]

Hello Finnster

About the story with the B52, I must point out that any fighter flying behind that beast would get affected the same, it really has nothing to do with the slats. Neither the Bf109 or F86 ever experienced problems following other a/c in turns, and they used the same slat design.