improving the 109??

[Shortround6]

I would also note that roll response was improved even on the early versions (MK I-V?) by fitting metal covered ailerons instead of fabric covered. Hardly what one would expect if the wing itself was flopping around.

 

[GrauGeist]

The -109 was famous for it's lack of in-flight adjustable trim tabs that most of it's competitors had before 1940, or 1941.

Wrong.
If you take the time to look at a Bf109 cockpit, you'll see the trim wheel on the lower left of the cockpit, next to the flap adjustment.

The Elevator was trimmable, not the ailerons.

The next largest source of dead pilots and wrecked planes is tail dragger landing gear! We knew that here and Specified Tricycle gear on many new prototypes before and during the early part of the war before the bean counters made them change for reasons of "Economy"!!! ( P38-39-77, just to name a few.) The Germans knew it too. They spec'd tricycle gear for the Me-309 and wide track gear for both versions of the Me-209 because they knew the original set up was a turd on a platter!

That is a myth. Inexperience is the biggest killer of pilots, not conventional versus tricycle gear.

You know how many U.S. fighters had tricycle gear? 2

That's two out of the eight types that the U.S. forces used during the war.

The Spitfire's maingear was as narrow as the Bf109, just set at a different camber. The Bf109's gear simplified production and contributed to a reduction in weight. It also allowed the Bf109 additional options for transport and it allowed extensive servicing without additional maintenance equipment.

 

[ww2restorer]

None of those European planes ever had Turbo-Superchargers! In fact, no European plane actually entered Service with a Turbocharger during WW-II! Turbochargers were incredibly hard to make well enough to last more than a few minutes at take off power! We were right to worry about the secrecy of the technology. The Germans and Japanese both tried to build them and took more than a year, or two to get to the point where they had prototypes that might be able to fly under TC Power by the time the War ended!

Being an Aeronautical engineer, I am very aware of the difference between the turbocharger and supercharger. FYI all aircraft of the time whether they had a turbocharger or supercharger had a short limit on the hours in service. This is where the term 'Written off' comes from. Nowhere in my post did I state turbo-supercharger, I stated turbocharger OR supercharger! If no European aircraft did not have superchargers, then come to my hangar my friend and you can take them out of our spitfires', also the BF109 had a supercharger, if you are familiar with the motor it is bolted on the left hand side. If my memory doesn't fail me the only ww2 motor that had a turbo-supercharger was a turbo compound radial, late in the conflict. I enjoy your fantasy post of continued rubbish.

 

[gjs238]

Being an Aeronautical engineer, I am very aware of the difference between the turbocharger and supercharger. FYI all aircraft of the time whether they had a turbocharger or supercharger had a short limit on the hours in service. This is where the term 'Written off' comes from. Nowhere in my post did I state turbo-supercharger, I stated turbocharger OR supercharger! If no European aircraft did not have superchargers, then come to my hangar my friend and you can take them out of our spitfires', also the BF109 had a supercharger, if you are familiar with the motor it is bolted on the left hand side. If my memory doesn't fail me the only ww2 motor that had a turbo-supercharger was a turbo compound radial, late in the conflict. I enjoy your fantasy post of continued rubbish.

The P-38, P-43 and P-47 had turbo-superchargers.
Plus the B-17, B-24, B-29 and B-32.

 

[ww2restorer]

you are correct gjs238, however not all p38s had turbochargers, they were called the p322, had no TCs and both motors turned in the same direction.

 

[Shortround6]

you are correct gjs238, however not all p38s had turbochargers, they were called the p322, had no TCs and both motors turned in the same direction.

And they made up a very minor percentage of the P-38s built. Like 143 out of over 10,000. Around 120 of the 322 were refitted with counter rotating engines when used as trainers by the US.

 

[Shortround6]

The books are by "Anthony G. Williams and Emmanuel Gustin".

The book on WW II does show a dispersion pattern for the Spitifire but makes NO claims as to why the the guns showed that dispersion. Strangely enough (or not) ALL the guns show the same dispersion (group size) at the same distance which is hardly what one would expect from a "floppy" wing. Perhaps the British intended the mounts to be loose, I don't know.
There is also zero reference to Hurricane in regards to numbers or patterns of dispersion or group sizes in the book.
If I am wrong please give page numbers.

 

[Airframes]

Yes, a .50 cal will certainly do a lot more damage than a dozen .303 rounds - but the aircraft armed with those weapons has to get into position to lay those rounds on target, which I doubt a P-40, any P-40, could have done, successively, and successfully, in the skies over the Channel or the UK, in the summer of 1940.

 

[Glider]

Just one point out of many, but the P-40 had two .50 calibers HMGs mounted over the engine and so had roughly twice the raw fire power of the eight .303s in the Hurry. Not in numbers of bullets, or even weight of fire, but in effective fire power based on the chance that any single bullet will damage some vital system, or perforate the Armor and kill the pilot. Because at 200 yards, no .303, even one of the rare AP types can perforate the 9 MM thick AR 600 steel plate behind his back, so NONE of the .303s count and all of the .50s do.

As ever you are incorrect. The two 0.50 guns in the nose had their rate of fire reduced to approx. 50% of normal by the synco gear which knocks a large hole in the firepower case for the P40. Also as others have stated tests of the 50 cal in 1940 could not penetrate the pilots seat of the Me109 from the rear which knocks an even bigger hole in your case. Its worth remembering that your 1940 P40 had no armour so all the LMG's could easily hit the P40 pilot.
Add the fact the P40 lacked the performance to climb and get in a firing position in the first place and would burn like a torch without the self sealing fuel tanks when hit and you have a death trap.

PS In this post you claim that two 0.5 are equal to approx. sixteen .303. I would like to see some supporting evidence to support that claim. I have seen the USN tests which showed the difference was closer to 4 to 1 when discussing if the rear guns should be either a single 0.5 or twin 0.30 in naval divebombers.

 

[rochie]

Really keep this going, funniest thread on this forum for a long time !

Feel all nostalgic, almost as if Soren and Kafurst are here with us again....

 

[stona]

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'm not even going to grace that bull shit with a reply, except to say that the Spitfire wing is not an elliptical planform.

Lance Cole can explain better than me.

"The Spitfire's wing is, in fact, composed of two differing elliptical sections of equal span, with different root chords, that have been woven together in a unique manner. It is a deliberately distorted, pulled or swept forward ellipse.This was the first use of such a deliberately distorted ellipse, one very different from earlier elliptical wings circa 1925-1933. The forward sweep took the shape near to a part crescent shape; adding an effective forward sweep enhanced the ideal elliptic flow patterns and span loadings. This added quality also meant that when the wing was twisted [he's talking about 'washout here] the adverse effect upon the low induced drag qualities of the basic ellipse, which wing twist would normally impose, were lessened. Outside the wing centre line, the two ellipsoidal elements are asymmetrical, they do not match in the manner of a normal elliptical wing (they are not a mirror image). The Spitfire's almost ellipse is a parabolic geometric sculpture that is hand crafted, actually invented in terms of both its shape and also its varying aerofoils.
This is the essential difference between the Spitfire's ellipse and any other ellipse of the time and specifically that of the He 70. The two are not generally similar in planform - as Shenstone himself pointed out."

Emphasis (my bold) in original.

A little more aerodynamic analysis rather than internet based opinion based on hot air.

"Getting the main spar forwards, towards the leading edge and making it unswept against its fuselage pick up points, imparted great strength against failure or twisting under high dynamic loads. Working in conjunction with the aerodynamics meant that the upward bending of the wing's centre of lift was also optimised inboard, for structural needs to reduce bending loads....
Modifying the basic ellipse created a wing with the best aerodynamics of all worlds, across a far wider set of speed and incidence values than even the normal ellipse could deliver. Shenstone tuned the mean aerodynamic centre from the outcome of joining two different elliptical sections together, balancing lift with the needs of strength. He refined the aerodynamic lift within a wing of multiple curves and two different aerofoils, and made sure that the purer, more effective elliptical lift retained its efficiency despite the addition of a touch of wing twist, 'washout'. Every aspect, from downwash to wing to fuselage interaction was calculated, plotted, sculpted and tuned to the highest degree of efficiency possible. Shenstone created a high speed wing that also worked at very low speed for take off and landing, without any need for leading edge lift improvement devices. This was a remarkable achievement."

Sadly, I doubt you are taking any of this onboard, so much easier to stick with uneducated opinion and prejudice. You will notice that whilst I might be pointing out your errors and the real properties of the Spitfire and its wing, at no time have I denigrated the Bf 109, another very good aircraft of the period. People often make rather futile comparisons between, say, the Spitfire I and Bf 109 E. There was little to choose between the two, but that answer doesn't pander to the prejudices and ill informed opinion of the uneducated....shame really.

Cheers

Steve

 

[rochie]

I'm not even going to grace that bull shit with a reply, except to say that the Spitfire wing is not an elliptical planform.

Lance Cole can explain better than me.

"The Spitfire's wing is, in fact, composed of two differing elliptical sections of equal span, with different root chords, that have been woven together in a unique manner. It is a deliberately distorted, pulled or swept forward ellipse.This was the first use of such a deliberately distorted ellipse, one very different from earlier elliptical wings circa 1925-1933. The forward sweep took the shape near to a part crescent shape; adding an effective forward sweep enhanced the ideal elliptic flow patterns and span loadings. This added quality also meant that when the wing was twisted [he's talking about 'washout here] the adverse effect upon the low induced drag qualities of the basic ellipse, which wing twist would normally impose, were lessened. Outside the wing centre line, the two ellipsoidal elements are asymmetrical, they do not match in the manner of a normal elliptical wing (they are not a mirror image). The Spitfire's almost ellipse is a parabolic geometric sculpture that is hand crafted, actually invented in terms of both its shape and also its varying aerofoils.
This is the essential difference between the Spitfire's ellipse and any other ellipse of the time and specifically that of the He 70. The two are not generally similar in planform - as Shenstone himself pointed out."

Emphasis (my bold) in original.

A little more aerodynamic analysis rather than internet based opinion based on hot air.

"Getting the main spar forwards, towards the leading edge and making it unswept against its fuselage pick up points, imparted great strength against failure or twisting under high dynamic loads. Working in conjunction with the aerodynamics meant that the upward bending of the wing's centre of lift was also optimised inboard, for structural needs to reduce bending loads....
Modifying the basic ellipse created a wing with the best aerodynamics of all worlds, across a far wider set of speed and incidence values than even the normal ellipse could deliver. Shenstone tuned the mean aerodynamic centre from the outcome of joining two different elliptical sections together, balancing lift with the needs of strength. He refined the aerodynamic lift within a wing of multiple curves and two different aerofoils, and made sure that the purer, more effective elliptical lift retained its efficiency despite the addition of a touch of wing twist, 'washout'. Every aspect, from downwash to wing to fuselage interaction was calculated, plotted, sculpted and tuned to the highest degree of efficiency possible. Shenstone created a high speed wing that also worked at very low speed for take off and landing, without any need for leading edge lift improvement devices. This was a remarkable achievement."

Sadly, I doubt you are taking any of this onboard, so much easier to stick with uneducated opinion and prejudice. You will notice that whilst I might be pointing out your errors and the real properties of the Spitfire and its wing, at no time have I denigrated the Bf 109, another very good aircraft of the period. People often make rather futile comparisons between, say, the Spitfire I and Bf 109 E. There was little to choose between the two, but that answer doesn't pander to the prejudices and ill informed opinion of the uneducated....shame really.

Cheers

Steve

Thank you Steve, you said all i wanted to but with much more knowlage and insight than i have.

 

[stona]

Whilst we are on the subject of structural strength I though it might be interesting to see a Luftwaffe pilot's the opinion of the Bf 109 F expressed in the report of his post capture interrogation. The pilot is not named, but if you have access to the report, the list of questions to be asked, and Bader's request to fly the captured aircraft, then you don't have to be Sherlock Holmes to work out that he is Rolf Pingel, fresh from helpfully delivering his virtually intact Bf 109 F to the British.

Bader for one was aware that there was a perceived problem of potential structural failure among Luftwaffe pilots and described his adversaries as being a bit "porky" on the stick when pulling out of a dive going very fast. It was a weakness he felt a well flown Spitfire could exploit. This is the point really, both aircraft had relative strengths and weaknesses, maximising your strengths and exploiting your enemy's weaknesses was the way to prevail in aerial combat. Very few pilots on any side were capable of doing this.

Other pilots had been killed when they tore the entire empennage of the Bf 109 F. This was cured initially by external strengthening, later by an internal fix.

Cheers

Steve

 

[Shortround6]

Yes, a .50 cal will certainly do a lot more damage than a dozen .303 rounds - but the aircraft armed with those weapons has to get into position to lay those rounds on target, which I doubt a P-40, any P-40, could have done, successively, and successfully, in the skies over the Channel or the UK, in the summer of 1940.

No it won't. It has the potential of doing about 4-5 times the damage given the right placement. However a dozen.303 rounds have the potential of hitting a lot more things. Radio/s, oxygen tanks, control runs, radiators, etc. including structural parts. And yes, .a 303 bullet can penetrate/perforate some structural parts like fuselage frames. Please note in the drawing below that the pilots back (but not head and neck) are also protected by the fuel tank meaning the super .50 doesn't really get a clear shot at the back armor. ANY projectile coming from a narrow arc from the rear has to negotiate a path through the aircraft skin, perhaps other obstacles, two side of the fuel tank (probably empty in the pilots back area) before reaching the armor. .303 rounds were quite capable of making holes or at least large cracks in cast aluminium (or elektron alloy) engine parts, they didn't need to hit just radators or coolant lines to make coolant leaks.

 

[Airframes]

I agree - my statement was a very 'open' comparison against the .50 cal round.
Note that, on the Bf109E, at least, the back armour was aft of the tank, in line with the frame, and was in two halves, split vertically.
BTW, the .303 round was indeed capable of doing a lot of damage - I've put one (standard, jacketed ball round) through a car engine block at a range of 150 meters.

 

[Graeme]

I've put one (standard, jacketed ball round) through a car engine block at a range of 150 meters.

And I'm sure that engine block deserved it Terry!
Never good to be on the receiving end of Rule 303...

 

[Shortround6]

Do you think that raising the cockpit to yield at least 7 Degrees of view down over the nose would not cure one of the planes most glaring weaknesses?

Yep, raising the cockpit would help the view, which is sort of an admission that the view was none to good for deflection shooting to begin with. You earlier claimed an angle of attack of well over 14 degrees for the 109 when defection shooting. If the angle of view was under 7 degrees that means that any such shooting was done "blind". Hitting what you can't see with a gun is called (technical term here) SHI* LUCK. Raised canopy means more drag.

In addition it would have given the plane between 8-15% more thrust for a >7% increase in speed! 393 to 421, or 452 in the K to 485 MPH, isn't that a useful increase in performance?

Oh boy, back to the technical BS. In the real world increases in speed for aircraft were subject to the cube rule, at least for speeds lower than than the approach to compressability. Disregarding this drag rise near compressability an increase of 7% in speed needs about 22% increase in power or thrust, everything else being equal.
Expecting an increase in thrust of between 8-15% at the time of WW II from a contra-rotating propeller is like believing in the tooth fairy.
For instance, an F4U-4 experimental installation replaced the normal 667 lb 4-blade, 13 foot diameter Hamilton Standard Hydromatic prop with a 864lb 6 blade 12'7" Aeroproducts contra rotating prop. The plane was 6mph slower at 26,000ft and lost 600fpm in climb.
There were two P-72s using the P-4360 engine, one with a 4 blade prop and one with a 13'7" contra-rotating prop. Both exhibited similar speed (about 490mph at 25,000ft ?) but the plane with Contra-prop crashed early in the test program (in flight fire, nothing to do with the prop).

SOurce: http://www.enginehistory.org/Convention/2009/Presentations/AP_Piston.pdf

Contra-rotating props were used to convert large amounts of power to thrust when conventional propellers could not do the job, ie they would be too large or tip speeds would be excessive. They are heavy, and expensive.
A 109 doesn't really need more weight on the nose and froma production stand point every contra prop is worth at least two normal propellers.

I have a couple of really great ideas for improving the 109, MY version would run on dilithium crystals solving the the german fuel problem and use a photon torpedo firing through the propeller hub instead of a conventional cannon thereby insuring the destruction of any target aircraft with a single hit!!!!!

Stands about as much chance of being built in 1944 as shooters proposal.

 

[stona]

Shooting down the Bf 109 E or Ju 87 or even the Bf 110 doesn't seem to have been a problem for the .303 armed eight gun fighters of the RAF.
Inflicting sufficient damage to bring down the ever more heavily armoured bombers, which were after all the primary target, in the limited firing time available, did present a problem. Even damage which might ultimately have brought an aircraft down was often insufficient to prevent it reaching the other side of the Channel, only 20-30 miles away.
I have seen it written that many Luftwaffe aircraft were written off after landing back on the continent, if not at their bases, but can't find a figure to confirm this.
Cheers
Steve

 

[FLYBOYJ]

So, instead of calling names, why don't we discuss the merits of each of those ideas about how to improve the M-109?
.

The name calling is due to your unsubstantiated BS - you could fantasize all day but when I see other members getting pissed off it becomes my concern. You've been warned once, there won't be a second.

 

[drgondog]

I do believe Greg nailed it - Neocon or his other brother has returned to grace this forum with a wagonload of bovine fecal matter.

Letting him stir you up is a sad thing.