Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
I agree and disagree with you. At the same time I would want to test the aircaft as found but also I would want to compare it to an aircraft in a similar configuration. So I agree and disagree with you.
Glider said:The fact that a plane has good stalling characteristics doesn't help you avoid the stall in the first place.
Soren said:FLYBOYJ said:Soren said:First off I wasnt specificly talking a high speed stall FJ, so I don't know why wmaxt mentioned this.
Now about the 109 and its stall characteristics...
Messerschmitt put automatic wing-slats on the 'outer' part of the wings. At sufficient AoA, these open, effectively extending the lift vs AoA curve. Basically this means that on the Bf-109, the outer wing sections stall at a considerably higher AoA than the inboard parts of the wing. What does this do? It virtually eliminates the wing-drop of the wing when the wing starts to stall. Plus, it allows full aileron usage up to the point at which the outer part of the wing starts to stall. This leads to a very gentle stall until the wing slats themselves stall.
So the 109 will stall later and much more gently than the Spitfire, but(Assuming the Spitfire atcually had an elliptic wing "Which it didnt") I agree that its final stall warning 'might' not be as pronounced as in the Spitfire, however it is reached much later in the 109. So nontheless the Spitfire doesnt have better stall characteristics than the 109. This is what my point was all about...
Now about the Spitfire's wing, well as I've already said it has a 2 degree twist to it, so the lift distrobution IS NOT elliptical.
Soren, I know that the LE slats do, I've flown aircraft with them, and the slats don't stall, the whole wing does. The Slats change the shape of the wing, increasing the wing area, they're a great device. Just because you stall later (or slower), it doesn't mean anything if you don't know its coming. As shown, the Spit talks to you - its telling you its going to stall - the 109 doesn't do this at the most critical time the aircraft is in the air, at landing! A 2nd Lt. Eliminator! Besides even with the slats both aircraft carry very similar stall speeds!
The tests posted show the data, sure the LE slats help, but they also hurt as well. I'll rephrase my comment from yesterday - good aircraft stall characteristics? 1. - 25% stall warning, 2 - 25% knowing what the aircraft is going to do when it stalls and 3 - 50% winding up in a desired attitude after the stall.
Well then we agree.... the Spitfire didnt have better overall stall characteristics than the 109.
Upon landing the Spit's stall characteristics were better, but in a dogfight the 109's were better. (Not that the Spit's werent good)
Now as far as aerodynamics on the Spit's wing - we could discuss this all day if its really elliptical aerodynamically, but the bottom line, it carries the shape, the tips stall earlier than a rectangular wing and that's my point.
FJ there's nothing to discuss about the Spit's wing being Elliptical or not, cause it simply wasnt. The "Wash-out" was there to help the wing the same way the 109's slats did(although not as effectively), but at the same time it ruined the microscopic advantage of the elliptical shape.
As seen by the posted pilot reports, both aircraft stall well, but with the -109 giving no stall indication when its dirty, well that's an accident waiting to happen and apparently it did on many occasions!
Yes because of the landing gear.Other than that pilots quote the 109 as very predictable, and stalls were very gentle.
Soren said:So overall you think the Spit has a 25% advantage in stall characteristics because of its stall warning ?
Soren said:it stalls later, more gently, and recovers equally well...
DerAdlerIstGelandet said:Well here is my question. In the stuff you posted up there FJ about the stall warnings, 2 said that there were no stall warnings at all and one said you got a nice buzz in the stick. So could this mean that unless you knew what to look for you would know the aircraft is about to stall however if you knew what to look for the stall warning was there and quite good? Just a theory since that would explain how German pilots enjoyed flying the aircraft and got the best out of it and the British did not. They simply did not know the aircraft.
Glider said:The accident rate was according to them due to the narrow track undercarriage (no surprise there) and the variable pitch prop. In the article they didn't mention the stall.
DerAdlerIstGelandet said:I agree also.
FJ I was not attacking you with my post up there I was just wondering your thoughts on it.
FLYBOYJ said:What I would surmise is the narrow track landing gear gave problems during landing, especially in a crosswind. Combine this with carrying a few extra knots on landing and it makes sense.
KraziKanuK said:FLYBOYJ said:What I would surmise is the narrow track landing gear gave problems during landing, especially in a crosswind. Combine this with carrying a few extra knots on landing and it makes sense.
The Spitfire had a narrower track than the 109. The Russians did not use the Spit as a front line fighter partly because of its weak gear and nose heaviness.
What gave problems to the 109 was the toe in the wheels had. If the landing was not 'square' (wings level) then the a/c would begin a ground loop (to the opposite direction of the wheel touching) and if not caught in time would put too much stress on the leg and it would collapse.
KraziKanuK said:An old Spit pilot once told me that a flick stall in a Spit could be very deadly > almost impossible to get out of the resulting spin.
FLYBOYJ said:I believe the -109 had a seamless tube oleo, light but not too strong. I also believe the -109s landing gear were "toe out, camber in" potentially causing a "wheell barrel" effect if one tire contacts the runway first further adding to the problem.
vanir said:some missions every single Luftwaffe fighter would have as many as 540 machineguns trained on them each pass by the bombers overlapping cover zones.