Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
The roll rate of the 109 is said to not compare too well to other fighters of similar weight and dimensions such as the La-7 or Yak-3. Even the Spitfire with its much larger wing outrolls the 109 in many flight regimes.
The cause of this is apparently that the 109 wing (from the F-version onwards) has a relatively large tip so that the aileron does not extend to end of the wing.
I think it would have been possible to rectify this flaw by extending the aileron further as seen in the sketch.
What do you think?
Pardon the amateurish sketch.
View attachment 621589
Hello Greg
I answered to Koopernic and Wade's graph is one of many he produced, IIRC used during a lecture IIRC. It is not a gospel but an educated opinion. NACA did not have a Bf 109 test data, so could not put it into the graph (that in their report Nr. 868).
109 was a great fighter but it had its weaknesses but also its strengths, its forte was in vertical fight which in any case was usually the more effective mode than horizontal.
Hi nuuumannn,
Thanks for the shout out. I am a Bf 109 fan (actually, I like almost all airplanes), but it did have some idiosyncrasies, like any other airplane.
The Flying Tigers (or AVG, more properly) used the strengths of the P-40 to good effect when attacking the Japanese Ki-43s Hayabusas that they typically misidentified as "Zeros." Almost all fighters had some form of "preferred" attack methodology in an ideal world and the Bf 109 was no different. So, if you'll excuse a generality, almost every fighter had some weaknesses and some strengths. Very few if any were simply bad airplanes or else they would never have been selected for production in the first place.
The Hurricane was generally not as well thought of as the Spitfire, but its main disadvantage was that it was slow. In point of fact, as we all know, it actually shot down more enemy aircraft than the Spitfire in the Battle of Britain.
So, the Bf 109 is in some very good company when employing its strengths for attack. While its weaknesses were not critical, they were likely annoying, particularly the lack of rudder trim, but could be avoided (aside from the trim) using proper tactics. The Bf 109 airframe enjoyed huge success in WWII, weaknesses notwithstanding. As I said, altogether a VERY effective fighter aircraft, and it had the huge advantage of being quick to produce in man-hours.
A Spitfire required something like 15,200 man-hours to build and Messerschmitt could pop out a Bf 109 in about 4,000 man-hours. If the Brits had had the opportunity to swap Spitfires for Bf 109s, they might have done so (I'm not saying they WOULD have, only suggesting that it might have been considered) if only due to the manufacturing advantages. Sounds like sacrilege, I know, but an advantage of 11,200 man hours is hard to ignore. Basically, the Germans could field four Bf 109s in the time it too the UK to make one Spitfire. The Spitfire was a great airplane, but was it four times better than a Bf 109? No way. I'm sure this will cause a stir of argument, but that is not my intent. I'm only pointing out that, flawed though the Bf 109 may have been, it nevertheless swapped the title of best fighter back and forth with the Spitfire for years and, at the same time, could be produced in one quarter of the time as the Spitfire while simultaneously acquitting itself very well indeed in aerial warfare. What's not to like?
Nice post, Koopernic!
I am a bit confused, the first set of numbers appears to be TAS from the sentence above it and the second set of numbers appears to be TAS from the data, but you have the phrase "In IAS" between the two n umbers sets. Can you elaborate a small bit? The chart I posted was in IAS.
Cheers, guys.
Sorry, but was does DVL stand for?
...
The Me 109 was far from immobile in the roll axis. Why would the DVL produce a report based on 30kg stick force if a German pilot couldn't produce it?
....