And none of that means the 109 is of "flimsy consruction"...
Low Altitude P-47D Razorbacks vs Gustav
- Thread starter kettbo
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
And none of that means the 109 is of "flimsy consruction"...
I agree. Whilst Messerschmitt famously strove to make his aircraft as light as possible I don't think the adjective 'flimsy' can be applied to the Bf 109. It was a strong, light weight air frame, a result achieved by some very clever construction techniques.
Cheers
Steve
Kryten
Senior Airman
Well I have to disagree with this notion based on the aircrafts history, Willy built his aircraft as light as he could to gain performance from a given engine power, the resulting airframe was re engineered several times due to structural flaws such as wing and tail failures!
His application of glider design to powered aircraft killed a lot of test pilots.
There was no carbon fibre or hi tech materials in the 1930's, if you used less to make it light it could not be as strong, the joke amongst Luftwaffe pilots I heard was when a FW crashed Tank took all the parts and made the failed bit stronger, when a ME crashed Willy took all the parts and made the bits that didn't fail lighter!
Trying to pretend a 109 was as robust as a P47 is fantasy, Rall referred to the FW190 as a "robust plane" able to take damage, the 109 was referred to as "fragile".
His application of glider design to powered aircraft killed a lot of test pilots.
There was no carbon fibre or hi tech materials in the 1930's, if you used less to make it light it could not be as strong, the joke amongst Luftwaffe pilots I heard was when a FW crashed Tank took all the parts and made the failed bit stronger, when a ME crashed Willy took all the parts and made the bits that didn't fail lighter!
Trying to pretend a 109 was as robust as a P47 is fantasy, Rall referred to the FW190 as a "robust plane" able to take damage, the 109 was referred to as "fragile".
parsifal
Colonel
There are many ways to use dice. One novel way is to use sequential dice. Have a 2d6 but instead of adding the results together, which effectively gives you 36 slots, with a perfect bell curve probability matrix (something you usually want, but not always) you can have one dice (say red in colour) representing the "tens" and another dice, (say a white colour) representing the "ones". If you roll a red 5 and a white 1, youve rolled a 51, not a 6. This still only gives you 36 slots to play with but there isnt the bell curving that you get when you add the dice together. There is as much chance of rolling an 11 as there is a 66. Dont know if this helps but its a statistical trick that gives you a different way of attacking your probability matrix.
I designed a game some years ago that included a fairly detailed combat model, but it had to be an abstract simulation just the same, otherwise it gets out of hand real quick
I had three altitude levels, with aircraft rated for optimal altitude performance. You could be rated Low, Medium or High. Example, P-40 was low, A6M was medium and P-51 was high. A/c suffered penalties if they operated below their rated altitude, but they suffered higher penalties if they operated above their rated altitudes
For air combat aircraft were rated for their firepower (fpf), defence value (dv) and manouver ratings (Mnv). There were values given for the (average) pilot skills, but that came later. In a battle match up a player would compare MNV + a 1d10 + pilot ratings, to obtain his Tactical Initiative Value (TIV) . Winner got to shoot first, but there was more than that to it. If his TIV was twice that of his opponent he could either shoot twice before any return of fire, or shoot then evade, which terminated the battle. if it was triple the TIV of the opponent, he just attacked three times, whic ewas the maximum number of attacks that could be made in a given round. The opponent in those battles got no return of fire except if he was a bomber,
I designed a game some years ago that included a fairly detailed combat model, but it had to be an abstract simulation just the same, otherwise it gets out of hand real quick
I had three altitude levels, with aircraft rated for optimal altitude performance. You could be rated Low, Medium or High. Example, P-40 was low, A6M was medium and P-51 was high. A/c suffered penalties if they operated below their rated altitude, but they suffered higher penalties if they operated above their rated altitudes
For air combat aircraft were rated for their firepower (fpf), defence value (dv) and manouver ratings (Mnv). There were values given for the (average) pilot skills, but that came later. In a battle match up a player would compare MNV + a 1d10 + pilot ratings, to obtain his Tactical Initiative Value (TIV) . Winner got to shoot first, but there was more than that to it. If his TIV was twice that of his opponent he could either shoot twice before any return of fire, or shoot then evade, which terminated the battle. if it was triple the TIV of the opponent, he just attacked three times, whic ewas the maximum number of attacks that could be made in a given round. The opponent in those battles got no return of fire except if he was a bomber,
The wing could be pulled off any aircraft if flown beyond its limits. Wing failures were not and endemic problem in the Bf 109 series. There was an issue with the empennage on the F series which resulted in some strengthening being added. Again, nothing unusual, many aircraft of the era had similar strengthening in various areas from time to time, the contemporary Spitfire being a good example.
As for damage, the P-47 or Fw 190 could certainly sustain more damage than a Bf 109, but you are comparing apples and oranges. A comparison of the Bf 109 with the Spitfire or even P-51 would be more relevant. Are these also 'flimsy'?
All the aircraft above could comfortably endure more positive g than any pilot, which belies the notion that they were flimsy. Light weight and flimsy are not the same thing.
Cheers
Steve
As for damage, the P-47 or Fw 190 could certainly sustain more damage than a Bf 109, but you are comparing apples and oranges. A comparison of the Bf 109 with the Spitfire or even P-51 would be more relevant. Are these also 'flimsy'?
All the aircraft above could comfortably endure more positive g than any pilot, which belies the notion that they were flimsy. Light weight and flimsy are not the same thing.
Cheers
Steve
Shortround6
Major General
I would not say the 109 was flimsy but in comparing it to a P-47 you are entering another category.
Using empty weights P-47 weighed about the same as a Bristol Blenheim and and 5-600lbs less than a Martin Maryland.
109 is trying to shoot down the equivalent of a light twin engine bomber (except only one engine).
Granted the 109 is a smaller target compared to the P-47 but it also means there is less empty space for hits to go into without hitting something important. WIngspan is about 80% of the P-47. Loose 2 feet of wing tip and the 109 is going to be more seriously affected.
(the . 50s are unlikely to to take several feet of wing tip off without hitting a lot of other stuff)
Some pilots considered how rugged a plane was in relation to how well it stood up in a crash, and more in regards as to how well the pilot survived rather than how repairable the plane was. Pilot walked away from hitting tree/s, building, vehicles on airfield without an overnight stay in hospital and most considered the plane pretty rugged plane was probably totaled.
Using empty weights P-47 weighed about the same as a Bristol Blenheim and and 5-600lbs less than a Martin Maryland.
109 is trying to shoot down the equivalent of a light twin engine bomber (except only one engine).
Granted the 109 is a smaller target compared to the P-47 but it also means there is less empty space for hits to go into without hitting something important. WIngspan is about 80% of the P-47. Loose 2 feet of wing tip and the 109 is going to be more seriously affected.
(the . 50s are unlikely to to take several feet of wing tip off without hitting a lot of other stuff)
Some pilots considered how rugged a plane was in relation to how well it stood up in a crash, and more in regards as to how well the pilot survived rather than how repairable the plane was. Pilot walked away from hitting tree/s, building, vehicles on airfield without an overnight stay in hospital and most considered the plane pretty rugged plane was probably totaled.
I don't know about that. The P-47 fuselage is the size it is because it is absolutely rammed with stuff the designers considered important. Some of it, like all the turbo ducting, might not be as susceptible to fatal damage as something like the cooling system on the 109, but it certainly wasn't empty space either.
I suppose the outer wings of a P-47 might qualify as empty space, but then so do a 109's.
Cheers
Steve
Who said it was as robust?
We said it was not flimsy. Flimsy annotates poor design and construction. That it was not.
Last edited:
So was the Spitfire, but with judicious strengthening (extra members, thicker skins etc) and aerodynamic alterations (bigger tails in both cases for example) both were able to cope with near enough twice as much power than that for which they were originally designed. Another factor which would tend to contradict the notion that either was 'flimsy' to start with.
Cheers
Steve
No liquid cooled inline engine "likes hits"...
Glider
Captain
All designers build their aircraft as light as possible given the task they are been asked to achieve, no exceptions, then and now. Any designer that didn't would soon be looking for a new job
Which is why the Bf 109 E and Spitfire Mk I had all up weights within about 100 lbs of each other. Two aircraft designed by different designers and different nations for similar purposes demonstrating what a naturalist would call convergent evolution.
Cheers
Steve
Cheers
Steve
Whearas air cooled engines loved hits, the more the better, as did the pilot no doubt, sat a few feet behind watching.
Well as you know, those air cooled engines where just there to drive a big fan that kept the pilot cool. Once it stopped turning, you could actually see the pilot start to sweat.
parsifal
Colonel
as a suggestion, you could apply the defense value of the aircraft as a minus to that damage roll. say you settle on 2d10 for damage calculation for a 30mm weapon (just for argument) and the DV for the target is say 6. Overall damage would be (2d10 - 6) in that example. possible for no damage due to the defense value of the target. DV should in that model just be a measure of strength, armour and fuel system/pilot protection.
This is just a suggestion, but I don't think adding guns results in a lineal increase in firepower in these sorts of simulations. Say your main armament is 1 x 0.303 mg. for arguments sake you might assign a 1d6 damage range for that calibre. it does not follow that with 8x 0.303" mgs you should get 8x1d6 damage. I would be inclined to assign 1d6 +(number of guns of that calibre) above 1 so for an 8 gun broadside you might get 1d6 (+7) for your damage calculation.
You can now get computer based random generators that are far better than the traditional dice random events. For one thing, dice are limited by the number of sides you have, whereas no such limit applies to a random generator. if you need it, you can have a seven sided "dice" with the computer tool, or even weirder, a 6.38 sided dice if you need to for a given algorithm....
MGs should have a slightly higher hit probability over a cannon, a better range (IMO) but much less damage. if you go for a critical hit concept, I would suggest that an MG armed platform has far less probability of achieving a critical hit over a cannon. The 30mm cannon should have a very high probability of inflicting a critical hit.
This is just a suggestion, but I don't think adding guns results in a lineal increase in firepower in these sorts of simulations. Say your main armament is 1 x 0.303 mg. for arguments sake you might assign a 1d6 damage range for that calibre. it does not follow that with 8x 0.303" mgs you should get 8x1d6 damage. I would be inclined to assign 1d6 +(number of guns of that calibre) above 1 so for an 8 gun broadside you might get 1d6 (+7) for your damage calculation.
You can now get computer based random generators that are far better than the traditional dice random events. For one thing, dice are limited by the number of sides you have, whereas no such limit applies to a random generator. if you need it, you can have a seven sided "dice" with the computer tool, or even weirder, a 6.38 sided dice if you need to for a given algorithm....
MGs should have a slightly higher hit probability over a cannon, a better range (IMO) but much less damage. if you go for a critical hit concept, I would suggest that an MG armed platform has far less probability of achieving a critical hit over a cannon. The 30mm cannon should have a very high probability of inflicting a critical hit.
Last edited:
drgondog
Major
If a 109 was designed to 8G/12G for Limit/Ultimate similar to US designs, it should be as 'strong' structurally.
IIRC the Brits did Not design the 8/12, did not compensate for side loads. When Schmeud came to UK to work with Supermarine for ideas to design the Lightweight XP-51F he reduced the design load Ultimate from 12 to 11G, but beefed up the empennage and targeted realistic Gross weight to account for the growth of the P51 airframe to current operational standards.
I have never seen any documentation for the standard design stress limits for any of their airframes. Soren once pulled a '13G' from a dark place but never produced docs for either 13G or the design Gross weight for which the 13 G applied.
IIRC the Brits did Not design the 8/12, did not compensate for side loads. When Schmeud came to UK to work with Supermarine for ideas to design the Lightweight XP-51F he reduced the design load Ultimate from 12 to 11G, but beefed up the empennage and targeted realistic Gross weight to account for the growth of the P51 airframe to current operational standards.
I have never seen any documentation for the standard design stress limits for any of their airframes. Soren once pulled a '13G' from a dark place but never produced docs for either 13G or the design Gross weight for which the 13 G applied.
All discussions are relative to a time line, what is considered robust against a fighter armed with 4 x 0.303 mgs (the Hurricane and Spitfire original spec) is not robust against 4 x 20mm cannon the preferred armament of the RAF from 1940 if/when they could get it to work. The P47 had the power and dry weight of a bomber from a few years before its first flight.
Last edited:
The Spitfire II Pilot's Notes state that
"...the safety factor of the aeroplane is about 10g."
It then, having given an approximation, advises that this can easily be exceeded by the pilot but notes rather disconcertingly that
"the wings would certainly fail if this figure is much exceeded."
Don't have figures for the Bf 109.
In any case every fighter pilot knew that, completely unofficially of course
"The aircraft G-limits are only there in case there is another flight planned for that particular airplane. If subsequent flights do not appear likely, there are no G-limits."
Cheers
Steve
"...the safety factor of the aeroplane is about 10g."
It then, having given an approximation, advises that this can easily be exceeded by the pilot but notes rather disconcertingly that
"the wings would certainly fail if this figure is much exceeded."
Don't have figures for the Bf 109.
In any case every fighter pilot knew that, completely unofficially of course
"The aircraft G-limits are only there in case there is another flight planned for that particular airplane. If subsequent flights do not appear likely, there are no G-limits."
Cheers
Steve
Last edited:
Users who are viewing this thread
Similar threads
