KraziKanuK
Banned
- 792
- Jan 26, 2005
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Soren said:Recent actual measurements have said 10.6m for the F-4 and 9.94m for the K-4. But all my bookreferences say 9.92m for both.
However there is a German specification book out there, wich says the K-4 had shortened wingspan from all the other models, wich is why i believe the newest measurements.
KraziKanuK said:Soren said:Recent actual measurements have said 10.6m for the F-4 and 9.94m for the K-4. But all my bookreferences say 9.92m for both.
However there is a German specification book out there, wich says the K-4 had shortened wingspan from all the other models, wich is why i believe the newest measurements.
I have factory drawing, all in German, of the wing that says 9.92m as well as many other dimensions related to the wing. The title block says Me109F - Me109K.
Soren said:That settles it then. Whats the document called btw ? What other wing- specifications are there ?
KraziKanuK said:Soren said:That settles it then. Whats the document called btw ? What other wing- specifications are there ?
It is titled Flugel (the u should have .. above it)
Not specs but dimensions related to slats, flaps, ailerons, chords, etc.
It says the area is 16.05m2.
One thing to watch for is if the area is calculated using what is under the fuselage or not. ie span x mean chord. Some areas are given from the root chord out, naturally x2.
Soren said:It says the area is 16.05m2.
Strange, why would the larger wings of he F-K series have a smaller wing-area than the B-E series smaller wings ?
One thing to watch for is if the area is calculated using what is under the fuselage or not. ie span x mean chord. Some areas are given from the root chord out, naturally x2.
Yes, that is offcourse also a possibility.
DerAdlerIstGelandet said:Well I can only tell you what every book I have ever read on the Bf-109 has said.
Soren said:Strange, why would the larger wings of he F-K series have a smaller wing-area than the B-E series smaller wings ?
Soren said:I guess you havent read the AFDU's tests with the 109F i presented, so i will quote it again.
AFDU 28 October 1941: TACTICAL TRIALS Me.109F AIRCRAFT- 7:
No manoeuvrability trials were carried out against other aircraft but the Me.109F was dived up to 420 mph, IAS, with controls trimmed for level flight and it was found that although the elevators had become heavy and the ailerons had stiffened up appreciably, fairly tight turns were still possible.
"....
It is considered however, that the aircraft could have been out-turned easily by a Spitfire. At high speeds the ailerons are more effective than the fabric ailerons of the Spitfire, but not as good as the metal ones. As a result of the heaviness of the elevators at speeds over 400 m.p.h, violent evasion is not possible, and the aircraft would present a simple target to a following Sptifre. Similarly, a Spitfire attacked by a Me.109F from above should have no difficulty in evading if he turns sharply towards the direction of attack. It is considered that recovery from a high speed dive near the ground would be difficult, as the loss of height entailed is considerable. This may account for occasional reports of Me.109F's being seen to dive straight into the ground without apparently being fired at."
RG_Lunatic said:(http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=61962#61962)
Soren said:I guess you havent read the AFDU's tests with the 109F i presented, so i will quote it again.
AFDU 28 October 1941: TACTICAL TRIALS Me.109F AIRCRAFT- 7:
No manoeuvrability trials were carried out against other aircraft but the Me.109F was dived up to 420 mph, IAS, with controls trimmed for level flight and it was found that although the elevators had become heavy and the ailerons had stiffened up appreciably, fairly tight turns were still possible.
I found this report - Interesting that you chose to leave out the rest of the paragraph, let me add that for you...
"....
It is considered however, that the aircraft could have been out-turned easily by a Spitfire. At high speeds the ailerons are more effective than the fabric ailerons of the Spitfire, but not as good as the metal ones. As a result of the heaviness of the elevators at speeds over 400 m.p.h, violent evasion is not possible, and the aircraft would present a simple target to a following Sptifre. Similarly, a Spitfire attacked by a Me.109F from above should have no difficulty in evading if he turns sharply towards the direction of attack. It is considered that recovery from a high speed dive near the ground would be difficult, as the loss of height entailed is considerable. This may account for occasional reports of Me.109F's being seen to dive straight into the ground without apparently being fired at."
It is not right to put things out of context Soren. You implied this report indicated the Bf109F could turn with the Spitfire, which it most certainly does not!
=S=
Lunatic
RG_Lunatic said:You cannot use one sentance out of a paragraph to claim the 109 was able to make competitve turns against other aircraft when the very next line clearly disputes such a claim.
=S=
Lunatic
Soren said:I didnt !!! I used lots of other facts ! This was merely to show you that the 109 would still do tight turns even at a 420 mph dive !
Tight compared to what? A Bf110? It cannot be a very tight turn if the Spitfire can "easily" out-turn it.
RG_Lunatic said:Your missing the point.
=S=
Lunatic