improving the 109??

[pbehn]

No, what I was trying to communicate is that the -109 had all the best traits, at least as history has taught us and any plane that traded speed for maneuverability like the Mustang and Spitfire got a less powerful weapon.

As has been pointed out the Spitfire was faster than the 109 at certain altitudes. The 109 had thin wings and a small structure which was very fast that small structure and thin wings had no room for larger weapons or even thicker tyres. All designers trade speed for maneuverability, if you dont you end up with a plane that needs perfect conditions to land, lands and takes off at high speed and kills a lot of its own pilots, if an aeroplane cannot maneuver how does it get in a position to shoot?

History tells me that the Spitfire was a match for the 109 throughout the war especially the BoB and Malta while the P51 swept it from the skies over Germany in 1943/44

 

[GregP]

Hi James,

Thank you for proving my post. Appreciate it.

109 was very good, but not really the best at much except results, not that it helped the outcome. Great pilots and good armament make a difference, don't they?

 

[stona]

No, what I was trying to communicate is that the -109 had all the best traits, at least as history has taught us and any plane that traded speed for maneuverability like the Mustang and Spitfire got a less powerful weapon.

It's high wing loading was certainly not a 'best trait', nor was its undercarriage geometry,nor were some of its other rather crude aerodynamic fixes. For example, the wing-fuselage fillet is a horrible compromise. Compromise is the word here, all aircraft make them, and all designers make some good ones and some not so good ones. The Bf 109 is no different to any other aircraft in this respect.

The two allied aircraft you mention consistently top the list of 'best US fighter' and 'most feared opponent' in the recollections of the men who actually had to fight them (or avoid them when possible in the case of the late Mark Spitfires).
No Spitfire XIV pilot would have any undue trepidation taking on any German fighter, the testimonies to the aircraft's performance and their confidence in it stand out in their combat reports.

You can see some here:

Spitfire Mk XIV versus Me 109 G/K

Excellent site, you might bookmark it.

Cheers

Steve

 

[GregP]

Hi James,

You first link proves nothing. The URl starts with "temp" so I assume it is a Tempest, but don't know for sure which Tempest it might be. No annotation at all ... it's out in the ether.

Your second link shows the Bf 109 to be the slowest-rolling piston plane out there at middle speeds and the Bf 109 doesn't even show up on the higher speed right side.

So what is your point? Specifically?

 

[GregP]

You have 66 posts and I have 5,700+ with warbird time. Don't be an idiot and I won't take you for one, OK? Let's get non-insultive here going forward, please.

There is no reason to try to disprove everything that is being posted. When I was unemployed and seriously depressed, I went there (ask anyone in here, including moderators) and it sucks in the end. Well, I thought so, anyway.

Rolling well at 450 mph is relative. 90° per second seems good until you find an enemy that can do it at 400° per second. The Bf 109 was the champion slow roller speed of the major piston fighters of WWII at high speeds as it wasn't designed for that part of the envelope and didn't do well there.

The P-51s I have flown in rolled OK at 235 knots (under the speed limit below 10,000 feet) , but were less willing at 400 knots after a dive. All WWII warbirds do do it.

The Bf 109 had other strengths in abundance and they have been well covered.

 

[GregP]

James, is your name Shooter8 / Neoconshooter? Just asking because your post it seems very familiar. Good luck in here.

Leave me alone and I'll do the same. Promise.

For all three of your handles.

 

[pbehn]

Greg If you "READ" the post, where I quoted your claim the "NO piston" fighter could roll effectively at 450 mph..
The Tempest evidently could, & so could the Sea Fury, since it used the Tempest wing profile/planform/flying surfaces.

Or are you trying on a 'Shooter' role, & just playing dunb here..

no need

 

[Shortround6]

2. Ruski planes were equipped with really bad 20s, but great .50s. The 109 had probably the best all around 20 on the planet at the time. No matter how weak you think the 109's firepower was, it shot down more planes than the next three allied types combined.

How about comparing the guns using facts and figures, not opinion.
The MG 151 was good but hardly a "WONDER" weapon.

Gun....................weight....................rate of fire............MV in M/S.........Shell weight

MG 151/20..........42kg.........................700rpm...............800/710.............92/117grams
ShVak..................42kg.........................800rpm..................860....................97 grams
Hispano MK II......50kg.........................600rpm..................880...................128-130 grams.

Russian gun used a light conventional shell with lousy down range ballistics but since most combat was done at short ranges (under 400 meters) that hardly matters. High velocity at the shorter ranges means less lead is needed in deflection shooting. Weight of Hispano is low because the belt feeding mechanism doesn't seem to be included. Now if you want to discuss this further their are other threads but please use facts.

"Box score" results are hardly accurate because they don't account for such variables as target availability. You can't shoot down what isn't there no matter how wonderful the gun/airplane is.

3. Turning circle has many connotations and definitions depending on what you are talking about. In this case it refers to the ability of a slatted plane to either pull more G at any given speed, or it's ability to shoot farther across the circle than any other plane in the war?

It is statements like this that make people doubt if you have ever flown a real plane.
A slated plane can only pull more "G"s after the slats have deployed and since they deploy just above stall (and yes I know that stall varies a great deal depending on bank and "G"s being pulled) that means the slats only "help" a very small percentage of the time.
See. http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit109turn.gif

Slats are ONLY going to work near the stall boundary. Also note that neither plane can sustain an over 3 "G" turn without loosing altitude. In fact the 109E can't sustain a 2.5 "G" turn. Granted the "F"s and Early "G"s were better.
The ability to shoot across the circle is pure hokum. The slat are roughly 1/3 of the span and the airflow only stays stable (non-stalled) over the area of wing behind the slats. Since the wing behind the slats is of narrower cord than the more inboard areas the slats are affecting about 1/4 of the wing area. You really think you have time to shoot (you sure aren't aiming) with about 1/4 of the wing holding the plane "up"? Up being relative in a steep bank.
And then we have the aiming problem. Doesn't really matter if you can pull even 14 degree angle of attack if you can't even see past 7 degrees (and the 109 was less) below the nose. You are hosing an area of sky hoping your enemy flies into the shells.

4. Wing mounts did not work fine, or it would have been more effective! The 109 only had one 20 mm gun, but it was vastly more effective than the tempest's four. As an example; Head on pass, open fire at 700 meters. The Tempi starts taking hits at once, if the aim is true. The Tempi can not get hits if the pilot aimed true until the wing guns range is about 300-350 Meters at best, or 50-100 meters after the Messer has broken off the attack to avoid a head on collision! get the idea?

Oh Boy. I thought I was kidding about Photon torpedoes. Apparently somebody perfected phaser beam guns in WW II.

Yes you did say "if the aim is true" but that followed "Head on pass, open fire at 700 meters. The Tempi starts taking hits at once..."
Lets think about that. Even at each plane doing 300mph the closure rate is 880fps or 267meters per second. Of course the time of flight for the projectiles is about 1 second or worse to 700 meters so the "Tempi" won't start taking hits "at once". It may start taking hits at around 560meters due to the rate of closure. Of course the German 20mm shells have longer time of flight than the Hispano shells, like
20mm HET 117g...........0.477...........1.101 (from a MG 151) times are in seconds to 300 and 600 meters. The mine shell was worse at long distance even though it started out faster.
So the "Tempi" may not take any hits until even closer. Then we get into the "if the aim was true" bit If both planes are doing 300mph and the super duper German pilot breaks at just 350 meters he will have had time to fire 15 rounds of 20mm ammo. Lets hope he had his 20mm loaded with all one kind of ammo and not a mixed belt as the different 20mm ammo had different times of flight and different trajectories at these longer ranges (over 400 meter) as did the cowl guns of whatever caliber.
The "Tempi" will have fired about 60 rounds of 20mm ammo in the same period of time at the 109i. 109 is gambling that the Tempest pilot doesn't wobble or snake while firing.

BTW here is a list of German guns and times of flight to 300 and 600 meters at sea level. Higher altitudes are less.

7.92mm AP 10 g............0.453..........1.159
13mm HEI 34 g.............0.49............1.22
15mm HEI 57.5g...........0.357...........0.816
20mm HEI 92g..............0.551..........1.428 (from a MG/FFM)
20mm HET 117g...........0.477...........1.101 (from a MG 151)
30mm HEI 330g............0.696...........1.66 (MK 108 )
edit. Chart is copied from "Flying guns of WW II" By Williams and Gustin

 

[Milosh]

The Tempest starts taking hits at once.

 

[stona]

One final aerodynamic comment about the Bf 109, its wing, slats and all.
A Bf 109, however expertly flown, slats deployed, in a slower speed, combat turn, will stall before a Spitfire, irrespective of the difference in the radii of their turns. You simply can't out smart the laws of physics
There are of course cases of Bf 109s out turning Spitfires, but this is due to arguably the single most important factor in combat performance, the ability and experience of the pilots.
Cheers
Steve

 

[drgondog]

Greg - it would be very interesting to gather the load info for the Judy - sufficient to analyze individual stresses.

That said - the most probable 'failure mode' in the original design should be the symmetrical, high G, angle of attack loads in a dive pullout which you could ignore. The Longerons, I would think, would need to be analyzed for taking out the bending loads due to the empennage, They would alternatively be in tension and compression.

That would also lead to looking at the shear transfer for the panels attached to the longerons, including a.) buckling, b.) rivet type and spacing, c.)shear stress on the rivets, d. shear stress on the panels due to rivets

 

[drgondog]

Hmm, I wonder if closing speed was the most important factor (over maneuverability) when "83-90 died with less than 30% deflection"?

 

[Shortround6]

The Tempest starts taking hits at once.

I have no idea why they show they show the Visierlinie ( line of sight) on a slant. But it does show the Germans had trouble getting all the ammunition for various guns to land in the same space let alone at the same time. Now just for Shi*s and giggles move the line for the MG 151/20 up from the underwing gondola position to the center line gun position used by the MK 108 gun at 300 meters it might only be 40-50 cm higher than the MG 131 trajectory but it will be over 1.5 meters higher at 500 meters. Of course you could adjust the 20mm gun to be closer at mid-range (300 meters) but that means the gun hits lower compared to the line of sight at 500 meters and beyond.
Long range shooting from airplanes was pretty much luck. A really good shot might be luckier than a poor shot because he was at least getting his rounds in the same area of the sky

 

[Shortround6]

Just did some rough math on the Tempest and scale distances from drawing. Assuming the outer guns at 5.5 meters apart (scaling from drawing, subject to correction) and a 300 yd cross (270 meters) the shells will be 3.63 meters apart at 90 meters and at 450 meters. they will be 1.8 meters apart at at 180 meters and 360 meters. Granted a "109ee" fuselage isn't very wide but the wings and prop, while not easy targets are well within the impact area at under 400 meters (wing even further.) This depends on perfect aim from the Tempest pilot and zero dispersion from the guns/ammunition.

I don't know about others but I don't tell the dealer in blackjack to "hit me" when I am already holding 20 in my hand hoping to get an ace

 

[wuzak]

A slated plane can only pull more "G"s after the slats have deployed and since they deploy just above stall (and yes I know that stall varies a great deal depending on bank and "G"s being pulled) that means the slats only "help" a very small percentage of the time.
See. http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit109turn.gif

Slats are ONLY going to work near the stall boundary. Also note that neither plane can sustain an over 3 "G" turn without loosing altitude. In fact the 109E can't sustain a 2.5 "G" turn. Granted the "F"s and Early "G"s were better.
The ability to shoot across the circle is pure hokum. The slat are roughly 1/3 of the span and the airflow only stays stable (non-stalled) over the area of wing behind the slats. Since the wing behind the slats is of narrower cord than the more inboard areas the slats are affecting about 1/4 of the wing area. You really think you have time to shoot (you sure aren't aiming) with about 1/4 of the wing holding the plane "up"? Up being relative in a steep bank.
And then we have the aiming problem. Doesn't really matter if you can pull even 14 degree angle of attack if you can't even see past 7 degrees (and the 109 was less) below the nose. You are hosing an area of sky hoping your enemy flies into the shells.

So, if I am reading this chart correctly, at 250mph TAS and 12,000ft altitude the Bf 109E would do a 360° turn in approximately 35-38s, on a radius of 2,000ft, pulling 2.25G without losing altitude.

The Spitfire, on the other hand, would have a turn radius of roughly 1,500ft, take around 28s and pull around 2.8-2.9G.

And if the Spitfire was in front when he initiated the turn, he would be on the Bf 109's tail inside of 2 turns?

 

[BiffF15]

This thread reminds me of the quote, "What happens when you wrestle with a pig? You both get dirty and the pig is happy!"

 

[Peter Gunn]

*SNIP*

They are just finishing a beautiful Canadair Sabre Mk VI that has been converted to slats with the long wing. Every Sabre should be so beautiful! And should have the avionics this one has including Garmin GTN 750 / 650 units where the old radar used to be. Talk about a Cadillac, this is it.

*SNIP*

Greg,

Will you be able to post a few pictures of her? Dyed in the wool Sabre fan that I am, I'd love to see this one.

Pete

 

[rochie]

So, if I am reading this chart correctly, at 250mph TAS and 12,000ft altitude the Bf 109E would do a 360° turn in approximately 35-38s, on a radius of 2,000ft, pulling 2.25G without losing altitude.

The Spitfire, on the other hand, would have a turn radius of roughly 1,500ft, take around 28s and pull around 2.8-2.9G.

And if the Spitfire was in front when he initiated the turn, he would be on the Bf 109's tail inside of 2 turns?

that cannot be correct, all versions of 109's could out turn all versions of spitfires at any speed and altitude because the had slats !
the pilot would flick a switch, the slats would make his wing bigger, he would then be able to pull much tighter and cut across the spitfires turning circle.

i dont know why they put guns on Bf 109's the should've just saved the weight, avoided the RAF with their superior speed, climb, height and maneuverability and waited for the Spitfire pilots to kill themselves on landing as it was such a danger to do

also i now know CL guns have a longer range than wing guns and are more effective at said longer range .....

never in the field of the internet has so mush bull been spread by so few to so many !

 

[stona]

So, if I am reading this chart correctly, at 250mph TAS and 12,000ft altitude the Bf 109E would do a 360° turn in approximately 35-38s, on a radius of 2,000ft, pulling 2.25G without losing altitude.

The Spitfire, on the other hand, would have a turn radius of roughly 1,500ft, take around 28s and pull around 2.8-2.9G.

And if the Spitfire was in front when he initiated the turn, he would be on the Bf 109's tail inside of 2 turns?

There are all sorts of different parameters. The British were interested in the tightest possible turn.

RAE report BA1640 has a captured Bf 109 E at a non specified speed in bank angle, for no loss of height, at 12,000ft with a turn radius of 885ft. It took 25 seconds to complete 360 degrees and it could achieve this at a maximum of 129 mph.

The Spitfire I in the same test had a turn radius of 696ft. It took 19 seconds to complete 360 degrees and it could achieve this at a maximum speed of 133 mph.

Shenstone did some calculations in 1941 to estimate the turning performance of the two types at 275 mph. He imposed a rather high 6g limit in his equations.
The Bf 109 could make a 360 degree turn in 12 seconds on a radius of 720 ft.
The Spitfire I could make a 360 degree turn in 8 seconds on a radius of 580ft.

Now, tests on captured aircraft and the calculations of the world's best aerodynamicists don't necessarily reflect combat realities, but in just about every test and theoretical calculation it is clear that the lower wing loading of the Spitfire (and other aerodynamic factors) meant it could easily out turn its adversary in the hands of a competent pilot.

The only source that has them close, and in certain circumstances the Bf 109 turning better, is Len Deighton's 'Fighter' and he bases his assumptions on Mason's calculations, made with demonstrably erroneous data (see Ackroyd, Lamont et alter as well as the various coefficients of lift established by the Americans in 1942, significantly higher than those used by Mason).

I think that experienced Luftwaffe pilots knew that to get into a turning fight with a Spitfire was a very bad idea indeed. The Bf 109 had other areas of performance where, for most of the war, it was superior. This was what an experienced pilot would use, and that's why he had lived long enough to gain that experience.

Cheers

Steve

 

[Peter Gunn]

I tried to read through the post where Shooter responded to me but really, it started to become headache inducing. The only part I got to was talking about not dogfighting, apparently only WWII German pilots did the boom and zoom approach. I believe Oswald Boelcke <sp?> was the first one to actually codify that, although I could be wrong. I'm also pretty sure the aforementioned P-40, (which it seems if those silly Brits would have seen how awesome it was, would have ignored the time space continuum to get them into the BoB to save the day) used those tactics viz a viz any Japanese fighter.

I also didn't realize that the 109 and 190 shot down hordes more Mustangs and Thunderbolts than vice versa. As I said previously, this thread has been quite informative.