Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
I think the late war Spits were far better than the late war 109's, as they lost a lot of their manoeverability.
Early war though they were very even.
RG_Lunatic said:I disagree. The Spit V was a match for the 109-F, the Spit IX was generally superior to the 109G-2. It certainly out turned them.
RG_Lunatic said:So if we don't play with the numbers, the numbers tell a totally different story don't they?
=S=
Lunatic
Soren said:RG_Lunatic said:So if we don't play with the numbers, the numbers tell a totally different story don't they?
=S=
Lunatic
Too bad i didnt play with the numbers.
I tend to find the German specification more accurate.
Soren said:The Bf-109F4 weighed exactly 1970 kg *Empty*. (Guess the U.S. forgot to strip the last 20mm ammo-belt)
Soren said:Oh and btw, you forgot the Bf-109 has "Wing-slats", wich increases lift in turns with about 20-25%.
Soren said:And about the 1350/1400 hp, well difference in testing i presume. The Russians rated it at 1350 hp.
That is a laugh - German figures are known to often be estimates, not tested figures.
Well, that seems quite impossible. We know the F-4 weighed more than the F-2. I'm sitting here right now looking at a document titled
Kennblatt
fur Das Flugzuergmufter Bf 109
Bauriel F-1 und F-2 mit DB601 N Motor
See the attached chart (at bottom of this post) from the GERMAN document.
As you can see the "empty" weight is 2010 kg, and that clearly means no guns installed. It appears that 25 kg are accounted for the MG17's and 100 kg for the 20mm motor cannon (this seems high but when you factor in the charger, drum, and mountings... maybe its reasonable?). Empty weight under the US/British definition usually include standard armament such as guns, armor, other essential items such as O2 systems, and usually includes coolant and hydrolic fluid but not fuel and oil or ammo. In order to be comparing apples to apples, the 2182 KG figure seems the more reasonable figure to use, after all we know the -4 was more than 150 kg heavier than the -2.
I cannot really read the table and it is too distorted for me to try to use translation software, perhaps someone here can translate it?
Besides, the normally loaded weights are what matters anyway.
Where do you come up with 20-25%. I believe the figure is more like 8-10%, and they were only useful in very low speed turning.
But they were a clear disadvantage in high speed combat because one of them could spontanously deploy in a high speed turn or accelearated stall forcing the pilot into a recovery manuever. Some Luftwaffe' pilots liked the slats, some did not, usually this depends on when they flew the 109 - early in the war they generally liked them, late in the war they didn't.
I thought you were using German documents? Well, I've given the better of the two figures, so you have no complaint on that issue right?
Soren said:That is a laugh - German figures are known to often be estimates, not tested figures.
Its their aircraft, they tested it the most, they know the plane the most. (I will be damned if your telling me the U.S. knew the 109 better than the Germans !) And wich German tests have you come across that were *estimated* ?
Soren said:Well, that seems quite impossible. We know the F-4 weighed more than the F-2. I'm sitting here right now looking at a document titled
Kennblatt
fur Das Flugzuergmufter Bf 109
Bauriel F-1 und F-2 mit DB601 N Motor
See the attached chart (at bottom of this post) from the GERMAN document.
As you can see the "empty" weight is 2010 kg, and that clearly means no guns installed. It appears that 25 kg are accounted for the MG17's and 100 kg for the 20mm motor cannon (this seems high but when you factor in the charger, drum, and mountings... maybe its reasonable?). Empty weight under the US/British definition usually include standard armament such as guns, armor, other essential items such as O2 systems, and usually includes coolant and hydrolic fluid but not fuel and oil or ammo. In order to be comparing apples to apples, the 2182 KG figure seems the more reasonable figure to use, after all we know the -4 was more than 150 kg heavier than the -2.
I cannot really read the table and it is too distorted for me to try to use translation software, perhaps someone here can translate it?
All the sources i have either qoute it as weighing 1950, 1964 or 1970 kg *Empty*. Russian test figures are 1964 kg for Empty aircraft, German figures 1970 kg.
Soren said:Besides, the normally loaded weights are what matters anyway.
Sure but what weighes the most, 2x20mm and 4x7.7mm Machine guns, or 1x20mm and 2x7.9mm machine guns ? (Simple really)
Soren said:Where do you come up with 20-25%. I believe the figure is more like 8-10%, and they were only useful in very low speed turning.
And where does that assumption come from ?!
A full-Wing-slat configuration gives you about 50-60% more lift (Learned that when i toulk my Flying license), and compined with Flaperons you can get 100% more lift.
The Wing-slats on the F-4 fill aprox. 40% of each wing, and will provide aprox. 25% more lift. (If not more)
Soren said:Mark Hanna quotes the Wing-slats as being extreemly useful below 300mph. (Except there would be a slight *Bump* when they activated)
And he flew the G-6 btw, a much heavier variant, and the most sluggish one to.
Soren said:But they were a clear disadvantage in high speed combat because one of them could spontanously deploy in a high speed turn or accelearated stall forcing the pilot into a recovery manuever. Some Luftwaffe' pilots liked the slats, some did not, usually this depends on when they flew the 109 - early in the war they generally liked them, late in the war they didn't.
Do you have quotes on that ?
Q: The plane it had these wing slats and you mentioned they pop open uneven?
A: Two meter slots on fore wings. The reason was to increase the lift during low speed take off and landing. To reduce the length of runway you need. In the air, if you make rough turns, just by gravity, the outer slot might get out. You can correct it immediately by release of stick, you know? Only little bit, psssssssht, its in, then its gone. You have to know that. And if you know it, you prevent it.
Q: Did you use this extra lift from the slats in combat?
A: Not at all. ... (he goes on to talk about the usefulness of the slats for taking off from short runways and stuff).
- Gunther Rall Interview
http://www.virtualpilots.fi/hist/WW2History-GuntherRallEnglish.html#start
Soren said:The wing-slats were excellent for angle fighting at slow-moderate speeds. At high speeds, well, I've got not a single German report on them being a problem, do you ? ("Novice pilots tended to be thinking they should back off their turn when they deployed", as described by Galland, but really it was just a booster to turn-performance)
Soren said:Also if the wing-slats were so bad, then why did 1950's jets use them ?F-86 Sabre for example.
Soren said:I thought you were using German documents? Well, I've given the better of the two figures, so you have no complaint on that issue right?
RG i tend to look on the broader side of things, and not only rely on a single source. And no there's no complaint from me, im just trying to deliver the right numbers.
As for the weight figures, the F-1 was lighter than the F-2, which was lighter than the F-4.
I agree the 109E was a match for turning with the 109F. But the Spit IX clearly out-turned the 109G - even the German pilots admit this.
If you really need, I'll find sources on this tommarow (I just got done with a St. Pat's day party and am beat).
As for the slats, I've never read a single account that indicates they were of use for anything but low speed turn fighting - NOT ONE!
You can find specific pilot comments to assert almost any position on any plane. Unless the pilot is of particular stature, such as Gunther Rall or Galland, it's silly to keep posting chosen accounts.
And your Russian pilot is talking about which Yak? The Yak-1 I would bet! The Yak-3 was superior in almost every catagory to the 109 below about 15,000 feet - so much so that the Luftwaffe' was ordered not to engage them below that altitude! And which 109?
As for the leading edge slats on the F-86, the pilot could control whether or not the would deploy. I'm not sure how much control there was, it may just have been the ability to lock them in the in position once they rectracted. As for how much lift they added, that depends on the specific wing design,
you are trying to apply knowlege about another wing-slat application to the 109 which may or may not be valid.
In general though, I know that wing slats help swept wings more than they do strait wings.
Again, I've never seen any comment by any German pilot that indicates the slats were useful for anything other than landing/takeoff and some who though they were useful for slow turning fights.
Not one has said they were usefull for 300 mph combat.
And that the 109 might out-roll a P-51 is almost funny - only at speeds below something like 200 mph could it do this - the P-51 simply was not made to fight that slow, so it's irrelevant.
Where you say "stability problems" for the F-86, you should say "low-speed stability problems".
Once about 10 knots above stall, the slots were no longer needed.
Those kills are probably against novice P-51 pilots - there were a lot of them. A good P-51 pilot would never engage in that kind of turn fight against a 109.
As for the roll being similar to the P-51, that is pure crap. The P-51 roll was easy up to very high speed.
And it was faster than the FW190 at about 360 IAS and beyond.