improving the 109??

[Shortround6]

Gentlemen. Examples of the oh so forward thinking of the Germans in 1934-35 in fighter design.

Yep, I can just see how deluded those poor fools in England were thinking they had a modern fighter.

 

[GrauGeist]

What was the Me-509? Can you please post a link to more info? Sincerely.

Alot of information was lost during the course of the war, Henkel and the He100's details are a prime example. So too, were the design elements of the Me509 proposal.
One good resource is here: Messerschmitt Me 509 Luft '46 entry

Incidently, the Japanese made an aircraft that was remarkably similar to the Me509, the Yokosuka R2Y "Keiun". It incorporated a great many of the details specified for Messerschmitt's design.
More info on the R2Y here: Yokosuka R2Y - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[BiffF15]

This thread is teetering on the edge of insanity.

I would like to commend you gents on your restraint and patience.

Cheers,
Biff

 

[gumbyk]

It is an allegory based on the planes attributes being biased just like a WW-I plane! Turn performance before speed. The ability of RCMGs to kill the unarmored pilot. Flimsy construction to save weight over strength of the air frame. Narrow track landing gear to save weight at a horrendous accident rate that supposedly destroyed more planes than the enemy? Single Spar wing to save weight which let the wing twist on application of Aileron. Short range over Combat Persistence, etc...
How many things do I have to list?

Which British WW1 type was deliberately given these attributes?
By the end of WW1 the limiting factor in strength was the fabric on the wings coming off, not structural strength, many pilot biographies have stories of aircraft with the fabric shedding after high-speed dives.
Narrow-track landing gear is, I believe, what you would call a 'straw-man argument'
What WW1 types had a single-spar wing (excepting, of course very early ones that utilised wing-warping)
WW1 aircraft range/endurance was limited by the load of fuel, which was in turn a function of the power and speed of the aircraft - not structural strength.

 

[stona]

It is up on You-Tube, but the very best one is the old Spitfire Pilot from Malta, also on You Tube. But if it is books you like, read all of the best three books on the oral history of the P-38 and it's pilots!

That's not an answer. I asked for evidence, the one thing you have provided remarkably little of in any respect. In fact I haven't seen an archive reference or even name or book title in any of your posts. You can't expect me to take seriously an argument you propose when you give me no means of checking the validity of the sources on which you base it.

Hearsay and recollection is very unreliable. For example, more than 100 people gave evidence to say they were attacked by US fighters following the bombing of Dresden, but we can prove that this was not so.

Cheers

Steve

 

[Elmas]

As very often happens in some hypotetical designs, the C.o.G. position is taken rather "lightly".

 

[stona]

It is an allegory based on the planes attributes being biased just like a WW-I plane! Turn performance before speed.

Absolute nonsense. Speed and firepower were the two primary quests for British aircraft designers to meet the operational requirements issued in the 1930s.
Rather than the vague references to certain books and Youtube I will give you a reference which you should read if you want to really have any understanding of this. It is not an exciting read, it is a technical reference book, but you might manage it.

"The Royal Air Force and Aircraft Design 1923-1939 - Air Staff Operational Requirements" by Colin Sinnott. ISBN 978-0-415-76130-7

In the words of Sebastien Cox (you look him up) this book "provides a most invaluable insight into the interface between industrial design and military requirement".

Relevant in a slightly different way might be,

"Industry and Air Power - The Expansion of British Aircraft Production, 1935-1941" by Sebastian Ritchie. ISBN 0-7146-4343-2

Do some reading and then maybe come back with some sensible, less juvenile and better researched opinions and arguments.

Cheers

Steve

 

[Ascent]

It is an allegory based on the planes attributes being biased just like a WW-I plane! Turn performance before speed. The ability of RCMGs to kill the unarmored pilot. Flimsy construction to save weight over strength of the air frame. Narrow track landing gear to save weight at a horrendous accident rate that supposedly destroyed more planes than the enemy? Single Spar wing to save weight which let the wing twist on application of Aileron. Short range over Combat Persistence, etc...
How many things do I have to list?
Then Compare it to the Me-109 and all the attributes the RAF likes are absent from the -109, but the 109 was unquestionably the most efficient killing machine of the war! The second and third closest place killers were different models of the Me-109 and fourth was not even a fighter plane at all, but the B-17!!! ( The B-24 was fifth!)
You have to go a long way down the list to find the Spitfire and it was the second, or very close third in numbers produced! More or less tied with the Fw-190 at about 20,000 made...
So, adjusted kills about 4200, or 4400, I can not remember, for 20,000 made and how many lost in combat, or to all causes? Right!
Long live the Me-109!
The Germans were the ONLY ones to have figured it out and the best plane of the war, which could have been the most magnificent winner of all had it had the correct tactics from the start was an accident! But America had it's collective head up it's rectum and failed to learn the lessons of WW-I and ignored the rust to war, so did not spend the money to have the world beater from the get go. They were as far as I know, the only National Air Force to recognize that the stronger plane would need bigger guns and do the testing to find out what worked. But even then, we listened to England, France and the rest of Europe and then ignored our own knowledge! Boy did we screw the pooch!

I'm sorry but any credibility your points may have had has now disappeared in my eyes with such a load of obvious bunkum. There is no point arguing with someone with a prevailing bias who will not listen to reasoned arguments that prove them wrong. When someone is repeatedly telling me things I know, not believe, are wrong and refuses to countenance they may be in error then their argument loses all weight with me.

 

[rednev]

[QUOTE="gumbyk, post: What WW1 types had a single-spar wing (excepting, of course very early ones that utilised wing-warping)
WW1 aircraft range/endurance was limited by the load of fuel, which was in turn a function of the power and speed of the aircraft - not structural strength.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE="Ascent, post: several ww1 aircraft had a single spar lower wing albatross dv dva (d5 d5a) being just one example and yes it caused problems

 

[Peter Gunn]

That's not an answer. I asked for evidence, the one thing you have provided remarkably little of in any respect. In fact I haven't seen an archive reference or even name or book title in any of your posts. You can't expect me to take seriously an argument you propose when you give me no means of checking the validity of the sources on which you base it.

Hearsay and recollection is very unreliable. For example, more than 100 people gave evidence to say they were attacked by US fighters following the bombing of Dresden, but we can prove that this was not so.

Cheers

Steve

Totally Agree, hell, I got feet and yards mixed up in my post yesterday and I should know better.

 

[Ascent]

[QUOTE="gumbyk, post: What WW1 types had a single-spar wing (excepting, of course very early ones that utilised wing-warping)
WW1 aircraft range/endurance was limited by the load of fuel, which was in turn a function of the power and speed of the aircraft - not structural strength.

[QUOTE="Ascent, post: several ww1 aircraft had a single spar lower wing albatross dv dva (d5 d5a) being just one example and yes it caused problems[/QUOTE]

This is kind of my point. I'm quite willing to believe that a single spar in the Spitfire may have caused issues with twisting of the wing although it's not something i'd heard before but in the very same paragraph he talks about issues with landing accidents in an aircraft considered easy to land. And this in a thread about the 109 which actually had an issue with the geometry of the landing gear causing problems.

How can I believe the wing twisting when I know the rest is nonsense?

 

[Shortround6]

I believe there was a potential problem with wing twisting although the speed at which it was calculated to happen was 525mph if memory serves. Now the calculation could be off and they had problems at lower speeds but hardly at normal level speeds, especially for the majority of the early Spitfires. At any rate I think some of the later ones got the wing beefed up a bit. The MK. 21 and later may have had an aileron reversal speed of over 800 mph (calculated of course).
Perhaps one of our Spitfire experts could correct me.

 

[ww2restorer]

Another great myth. The British (and French) ordered (or explored) P-38 variants not only without turbochargers but with the same long nose engines used in the early P-40s instead of the Spur gear engines used in the the early P-38s. They did this in the interest of simplifying the spare engine/spare parts situation. Allison Factory was over 3000 miles away. it also meant the engines both rotated the same direction.
Simple deleting the turbos would have left the counter rotating engines and offered an extra 100hp for take-off at the cost of really poor high altitude performance. (early P-38s used 6.44 supercharger gears).
I would also note that the British got approval to order the "secret" turbocharges by June 5th of 1940 and ordered 524 MK II Lightings with turbos on that date.

Interesting, not what is written in many records of the p38, even my late friend Robin Olds writes in his book about the P322 that were rejected p38 from the UK, also points out they did not have counter rotating props. The US also in the earlier period of the war did not want the turbo charger variant flying over Europe, they thought they were the only people with turbocharged or supercharged engines, guess they never knew much about the spitfire, hurricane, bf109 etc. etc.

 

[stona]

The Spitfire wing did have two spars, despite the fact that Mitchell himself described it as a 'single spar' design. The rear spar is usually described as a secondary or auxiliary spar. The strength of the Spitfire wing comes from the forward main spar and the 'D' box attached to the front of it. Much of the credit for this structure, and its position so far forward in the wing should go to Faddy, Smith ("a very good structures man"), Fenner, Clifton and Fear who were rather left to get on with it by Shenstone!
There were some issues with the Spitfire wing twisting at high speed when ailerons were used, much is made of this and even an aileron reversal issue, most of which is exaggeration, to be polite.

It seems odd with the benefit of hindsight, that in the letter written by Mitchell to Shenstone on 10th June 1931, in which he offered the man who would go on to be the Spitfire's chief aerodynamicist two months temporary employment at £45 per month, this very issue was mentioned.

"We were hoping that you would have had rather more experience on the constructional side of monoplane wings, and would be able to supply us with information regarding the necessary degree of stiffness to avoid wing flutter and reversal of aileron control; also the stresses to be developed in corrugated coverings. However we are of the opinion that your aeronautical knowledge may be of assistance to us."

Mitchell must have known that Shenstone had been working for Junkers and certainly did have information regarding 'corrugated coverings'. He seems to be a little disingenuous on this point

This also shows that years before the Spitfire was designed and built the men at Supernmarine were well aware of this potential problem in high speed monoplanes.

Cheers

Steve

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Yes, I agree! But once again, I did not start the P-40 argument, but certainly did contribute to it. So did others. I have a valid point to make about how to improve the Me-109. See;
Me-109 images - Google Search

I believe that one of our members created some of those drawings as a fantasy page. Sir, you are one of the most delusional people to come on this forum in a very long time. Please start posting some DOCUMENTED FACTS in lieu of some opinionated fantasy bullshit. It's quite apparent you're wearing thin on many of the members here.

 

[Glider]

This is all true, but not relevant. The original premise, not stated by me, was that the P-40 would have made a better option for the RAF, if they had been bought before the BoB. All I did was agree with and defend that point of view!

A combat ready P40 didn't exist at the BOB so you can buy what you like, but all it would be is a very expensive flaming coffin for the pilots that flew it.
The Hurricane for all its faults were more agile, climbed better, had armour, self sealing fuel tanks and more firepower than the first P40's. As an aside they also had better radios and sights. I can guarantee that the pilots would consider these advantages relevant, you can consider these irrelevant, but they wouldn't.

 

[Glider]

It depends entirely on the weapon launching it! because the mounts in the Spit's wings were so flimsy, the dispersion out of the gun, which would normally shoot less than 4 MOA, was 1.1 Meters, or 44 inches at 100 yards!
The exact same gun mounted more ridgedly in the Hurricane wing shot into less than 9" at 100 yards, plus the guns were grouped into a single battery where the bullet streams of all four guns were parallel to one another and thus much more effective at much longer ranges, typically Zeroed at 250 Yards rather than the Spit's 200.
The guns in the P-40 were typically Zeroed at 400 yards, but the CL mounted .50s were effective at twice that range.
PS, I have a friend at the Club who has a Lee Enfield Sniper rifle in .303 that shoots crap ammo into less than 1.5" at 100 yards! His own, hand loaded match ammo goes into less than 3/4"! So it all depends on the platform.

Do you have any supporting information for these claims?

 

[Shortround6]

Since ALL major aircraft engines, at least those making over 750hp and many under that had a supercharger of some sort.
Unfortunately for some historians the terms supercharger and turbosupercharger were sometimes used interchangeably. Perhaps it was implied/understood that the reader/listener understood that they were referring to a two stage system?

 

[GrauGeist]

In fact, no European plane actually entered Service with a Turbocharger during WW-II!

Do diesels count? (Jumo207)

 

[wuzak]

While much is made of the "Aileron Reversal" problem, very few people understand that it is not something that suddenly happens, but gradually intrudes into the performance as the speed increases. So while the Spit is very easy to fly at 100-165 MPH, by the time you get to 200 the twisting wing starts to reduce the rate of roll enough that it starts to become a problem. By 250 MPH it has reduced the rate of roll enough to make high speed dog fights very dangerous with the Me-109, IF the Messer's pilot knew his business. And that was a very big IF in the prior sentence. Even after all of the various "Strengthening" projects, it took an entirely new wing WO the fancy elliptical planform to make the Spit competitive with 4-5 year old planes! One of the "Critical" design objectives stated in the contract was to to make the Spit's rate of roll a world beater, instead of last place!

I've not seen anything that suggests that the Bf 109 was a good roller.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/naca868-rollchart.jpg

The Spitfire's rate of roll could be improved simply by cliping he wing. By doing so, the rate of roll was improved by a large amount. And that didn't require strengthening of the wing. The wing clipping was achieved by unbolting the standard wing tips and bolting on a new set.

The downside was that the rate of climb, turn rate and altitude performance were worse. So it was a trade off.

The Spitfire III prototype in 1940 was to have the clipped wings.

The VII, VIII, XIV and XVIII had a new wing which was identical in shape, but strengthened with alterations to the internal structure and thicker skins.

The 20-series Spitfires had a new wing, but the plan form was largely the same - only the tips and ailerons were substantially different.

The big advantage the Bf 109 had during the BoB was the fuel injection. To dive all the pilot had to do was push the nose over. The Spitfire pilot had to roll 180° and then dive if he was to avoid, potentially, starving the carburetor from the negative G force.