- Thread starter
- #21
Napier-Heston fighter instead of Napier-Heston racer?
- Thread starter tomo pauk
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
As an aside, what was the economics of these small manufactures which there seemed to have been a zillion of? Even if they only sell a few planes, they still need a designer, draftmen(?), and actual people to do the building, pay rent for space etc. Was the markup on these early aircraft so huge that even a few aircraft per year could sustain such a small manufacturer? Or to an extent, I guess "aviation" was the "AI buzz" of the day, with financiers lining up to shovel money to any aviation startup that seemed even remotely competent (though I guess venture capital as we know it today didn't really exist back then?)? Or did they have some rich aristocrat as a benefactor in the background? Or the founders were all themselves rich aristocrats?
Shortround6
Major General
More than one company went in and out of business at least once.
Lockheed went out of business in 1932 (?) for instance.
But it was very much a high stakes game, even on the flivver end of the market. On the low end the planes were mostly wood didn't require much in the way of tooling.
And many companies did sub-contracting during slow times for other companies. Even for competitors. Brewster at times made wings for Grumman biplanes.
The US was large enough so that there was some market for planes even during the depression.
I don't know much about the British market but in the US a lot of young men were "air minded".
My own father went to an "air school" in California after getting out of high school in Maine. His parents managed to pay for about 1 year were he learned how to make airplanes.
He then went to work for Sikorsky in Connecticut and later just down the road for Chance Vaught making Corsairs. He was an assembler.
But the job market in Maine was rather limited. Fisherman, potato or blueberry farmer or shoe maker
In some of the small companies the technology wasn't that far removed from WW I as far as construction went. And for 40-150hp 2 -4 seat high wing aircraft that were fabric covered most "designers" could stay out of trouble as long as they didn't try to get too tricky.
Also in the depression many 'air minded' communities offered deals to entrepreneurs in form of tax breaks and/or even deals on factory space once owned by other bankrupt companies.
The Taylorcraft company history glosses over a few things but gives the idea.
Taylorcraft Aircraft - Wikipedia
Even P & W aircraft has some "stories" about it's origin. Rarely known today Pratt & Whitney company goes back to 1860 and nothing to to with aircraft or even internal combustion engines until 1925. However they had an international reputation measuring tools, gauges and precision machinery. They still do.
The P & W company provided some money, space in their building (which also provided a bit of cover from creditors) and promise of more money if the engine was successful.
P & W aircraft parted ways with the Measuring tool company in 1929 but the engine company was allowed to keep P & W as part of the name. I don't know what the tool company got out of the deal in 1929.
Frank Stewart
Airman
- 44
- Aug 12, 2016
Why would you want to waste resources on a project like that? As soon as you add all that stuff and a big wing, it is no longer fast. The thin wing makes less lift per square foot of area, so why not make a more "Efficient" wing with LES, Fowler Flaps like a P-38 and a small, long wing like a Me-109? You do know that flown by the same ability to "Pull" Gs Pilot, the Me-109 out turns any Spitfire with ease.
wuzak
Captain
The Me 109 could not out-turn a Spitfire with similar skilled and experienced pilots.
The only reason the Me 109 ever out-turned a Spitfire was because the Spiftire pilot lacked skill, experience or confidence to pull a tighter turn.
- Thread starter
- #26
That's the way I like it.
wuzak
Captain
Fowler flaps need a cowling for the actuator(s).
The P-38 didn't, since it had booms at the end of the Fowler flaps.
The Me 109's "long slender wing" had a wingspen 4ft shorter than the Spitfire's.
Tell me Frank, could the Me 109 use its slats to shoot across the arc?
Frank Stewart
Airman
- 44
- Aug 12, 2016
Given pilots of equal skill, not a given, because the Germans were so much better trained, equipped and experienced, this is not open to debate given the NAZI's number of pilots who each scored more than ANY Allied Pilot, more total ACEs than the entire Allied effort, etc... But given highly experienced Pilots who COULD pull more than EIGHT Gs at 300 MPH just above the minimum speed required for an Me-109 to pull 8.1 Gs, no pilot on earth could pull more than 7.9 Gs, no matter how skilled or how high his "G" Tolerance in any Spitfire! EVER! It just stalls out, gently and with great manners, but falls to the ground any way!
ITS JUST NOT POSSIBLE! During WW-II less than 5% of ALL PILOTS could pull more than SIX Gs! More than 75% could not exceed FOUR Gs, regardless of which plane he was in.
But, because of its Leading-Edge Slats, the 109 could pull significantly more G at a lower air speed than any Spitfire pilot in any Spitfire.
You have obviously fallen into the "Wing Loading" dilemma of non-pilot people. You think wing loading is everything when it comes to maneuverability but take no interest in "Aspect Ratio" "Co-Efficient of Lift" or Sustained Power loading! ALL things that are considerably more important at creating lift than "Wing Loading"! Because it was so thin, it's CoL was significantly lower than most other planes of WW-II. Because it lacked Leading Edge Slats and Fowler Flaps, in the hands of equally skilled and G tolerance pilots, the 109 wins most of the time. Even during the BoB, MORE SPITS WERE SHOT DOWN THAN 109S AND MORE HURRIES WERE ALSO SHOT DOWN THAN THE TOTAL OF 109S LOST TO BOTH TYPES!!! SO; OVER THEIR HOME TURF, A huge ADVANTAGE, England lost over 1,100 fighters to the NAZIs over 500! When the roles were reversed, the RAF lost ~5 Spits for every 109 shot down!
Do not take my word for it look up the post war stats for RAF Circuses and Rhubarbs over France where the Germans had the same advantages as the RAF over England. These are easy to find and will debase you of any idea that the Spit was a wounder plane!
I have not exaggerated, or stretched the truth, but because the above knowledge is ignored by 99% of the WW-II Fighter aficionados, I am sure to take a drubbing because of this post!!!
- Thread starter
- #29
SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
Bring back some Cokes while you're at it. My treat!
wuzak
Captain
No-one said that the Spitfire was a wonder-plane.
It could, however, out-turn the Me 109, given pilots of the same ability.
ThomasP
Senior Master Sergeant
Hey Frank Stewart,
1. The Bf 109 did not have Fowler flaps, or Fairey-Youngman flaps. The Bf 109G had plain trailing edge flaps with lower surfaces behind the radiators where the radiator trailing edge cooling flaps also acted like a flap and could maybe be considered similar in effect to Junkers flaps, plus the ailerons acted like flaperons at approach and landing speeds. The flaps were not normally deployed at over 10° for maneuver as they increased the drag significantly, and the flaperon aspect had no appreciable positive effect during maneuver combat that I have read of, though they gave better control at landing speeds.
2. The effects of aspect ratio (AR) are not what you appear to think they are? Everything else being equal the wing with the higher AR will have lower drag (generally it is about equal to the cube root of the difference in AR), and the wing with the higher AR will stall at lower speeds - IF the wing planform and airfoil/wing section are basically the same (ie both are straight, both are straight-tapered, both are semi-elliptical, etc). However, given the same conditions as in the previous parts of of this paragraph, the higher AR wing will also stall at lower angles of attack than the lower AR wing.
3. As you have pointed out, leading edge slats or slots will significantly increase the CL of a given wing. I have not run across any specific authoritative information on the real world effect of the Bf109's slats relative to effective CL, but there is no reason i can think of that when deployed at lower speed the effect on CL would not make up for a significant part of the lower wing loading of the Spitfire - but note that we are talking at 'lower' speeds.
4. Relative to G loads I think you are confusing sustained Gs with transient (or instantaneous) Gs. You are correct that most pilots (without G-suits) cannot sustain high G-loads generally over about 5G, and even then only for a short amount of time, without blacking out. However most pilots can take higher transient Gs for very short periods of time (for a few seconds) without blacking out (though they will often grey out). In WWII the ability of the pilot to sustain Gs higher than 3-5 did not matter too much as there were no aircraft in WWII that could sustain more than about 3.5 Gs in a level turn. Even if the Bf109 or Spitfire pilot went into a higher G turn at high speeds while losing altitude the aircraft did not have enough power to sustain the higher Gs for very long. It was very rare for a pilot to pull more than 5 Gs for more than a few seconds during pull out from a dive or while descending in a turn from higher speeds.
Incidentally, starting in mid-1942 the British started installing accelerometers on a few aircraft of different types that engaged in combat duties - this included fighters and bombers. The aircraft that pulled the highest Gs (that were recorded and returned home) was the Spitfire - at over 10 Gs instantaneous, thought the Hurricane Mk II may have beat this by a significant margin (there were a couple of instances where it is thought that the Hurricane pulled over 13 Gs, but the accelerometer pegged out at 10 G). The instrumentation installed also recorded the speed of the aircraft, and when combined with the pilot's accounts of the action, provided a general indication of the conditions under which the high G maneuvers took place.
Just so we are clear, there were no aircraft that could sustain anywhere near 8 G for more than a few seconds while trading speed and/or height for turn rate, and that includes in a descending turn.
Having said the above, the Bf109 had a seat that was tilted back at ~30° from vertical, while the seat in the Spitfire was only tilted back about 5° (I think). When the AFDU/A&AEE investigated the effects they found that the Bf109 pilot had approximately a 1/2 to 1 G advantage before blackout over the Spitfire pilot - due to the difference in height of the pilot's legs relative to the heart. The British countered this fairly quickly by retrofitting their Hurricane and Spitfire airframes with dual-position rudder pedals to raise the legs. They considered this reduced the Bf109 pilot's advantage by about 1/2 G for any given condition of maneuvering flight.
5. re your statements:
Physics/Aerodynamics says that you will only stall if you exceed whatever the limiting AOA is, and the AOA required to pull 8 Gs at higher speed is well below what the limiting AOA was at lower speeds. The minimum speed at which the Spitfire VB (~6700 lbs GFW with a Vstall of 81 mph IAS with no flaps) could manage an 8 G instantaneous turn for 1-2 seconds was ~250 mph IAS, so if the aircraft started out at 300 mph it would be able to sustain the 8 G turn for however long it took to lose ~50 mph in speed.
The Bf109G(-6?) could not pull an instantaneous 8 Gs at less than ~300 mph because the base stall speed (~105 mph IAS without slats or flaps) required that much speed to generate an instantaneous 8 Gs before the slats deployed. Dynamic pressures kept the slats from deploying until a given maximum velocity and/or minimum AOA combination were in effect. Until the slats deployed the wing loading and wing section airfoil of the Bf109 controlled the minimum speed at which it could enter an 8 G turn, and at 300 mph IAS it initially had to operate with a CL that did not include the effect of the slats.
As is indicated by the accelerometer tests performed by the AFDU/A&AEE there is no reason to believe that the Spitfire could not pull 8 G at 300 mph IAS without stalling and falling gently to the ground.
Just some comparative numbers:
Model________TOGW____ WL
______________ (lbs)_____(lb/ft2)____NOTE
Bf109E-1______5670_____32.2_____wing span was 34.6 ft, wing area was 176 ft2, aspect ratio was 6.79
Bf109E-3______5750_____32.9_____ "
Bf109E-4______5875_____33.4_____ "
Bf109F-4______6395_____37.0_____wing span was 32.6 ft, wing area was 173 ft2, aspect ratio was 6.14
Bf109G-2_____ 6600_____38.2_____ "
Bf109G-6_____ 6940_____40.1_____ "
Spit Mk IA_____6050_____25.0_____wing span was 36.8 ft, wing area was 242 ft2, aspect ratio was 5.6
Spit Mk IB_____6400_____26.5_____ "
Spit Mk II______6172_____25.5_____ "
Spit Mk VB____ 6525_____27.0_____ "
Spit Mk VC____ 6965_____28.8_____ "
Spit Mk IX_____ 7450_____30.8_____ "
1. The Bf 109 did not have Fowler flaps, or Fairey-Youngman flaps. The Bf 109G had plain trailing edge flaps with lower surfaces behind the radiators where the radiator trailing edge cooling flaps also acted like a flap and could maybe be considered similar in effect to Junkers flaps, plus the ailerons acted like flaperons at approach and landing speeds. The flaps were not normally deployed at over 10° for maneuver as they increased the drag significantly, and the flaperon aspect had no appreciable positive effect during maneuver combat that I have read of, though they gave better control at landing speeds.
2. The effects of aspect ratio (AR) are not what you appear to think they are? Everything else being equal the wing with the higher AR will have lower drag (generally it is about equal to the cube root of the difference in AR), and the wing with the higher AR will stall at lower speeds - IF the wing planform and airfoil/wing section are basically the same (ie both are straight, both are straight-tapered, both are semi-elliptical, etc). However, given the same conditions as in the previous parts of of this paragraph, the higher AR wing will also stall at lower angles of attack than the lower AR wing.
3. As you have pointed out, leading edge slats or slots will significantly increase the CL of a given wing. I have not run across any specific authoritative information on the real world effect of the Bf109's slats relative to effective CL, but there is no reason i can think of that when deployed at lower speed the effect on CL would not make up for a significant part of the lower wing loading of the Spitfire - but note that we are talking at 'lower' speeds.
4. Relative to G loads I think you are confusing sustained Gs with transient (or instantaneous) Gs. You are correct that most pilots (without G-suits) cannot sustain high G-loads generally over about 5G, and even then only for a short amount of time, without blacking out. However most pilots can take higher transient Gs for very short periods of time (for a few seconds) without blacking out (though they will often grey out). In WWII the ability of the pilot to sustain Gs higher than 3-5 did not matter too much as there were no aircraft in WWII that could sustain more than about 3.5 Gs in a level turn. Even if the Bf109 or Spitfire pilot went into a higher G turn at high speeds while losing altitude the aircraft did not have enough power to sustain the higher Gs for very long. It was very rare for a pilot to pull more than 5 Gs for more than a few seconds during pull out from a dive or while descending in a turn from higher speeds.
Incidentally, starting in mid-1942 the British started installing accelerometers on a few aircraft of different types that engaged in combat duties - this included fighters and bombers. The aircraft that pulled the highest Gs (that were recorded and returned home) was the Spitfire - at over 10 Gs instantaneous, thought the Hurricane Mk II may have beat this by a significant margin (there were a couple of instances where it is thought that the Hurricane pulled over 13 Gs, but the accelerometer pegged out at 10 G). The instrumentation installed also recorded the speed of the aircraft, and when combined with the pilot's accounts of the action, provided a general indication of the conditions under which the high G maneuvers took place.
Just so we are clear, there were no aircraft that could sustain anywhere near 8 G for more than a few seconds while trading speed and/or height for turn rate, and that includes in a descending turn.
Having said the above, the Bf109 had a seat that was tilted back at ~30° from vertical, while the seat in the Spitfire was only tilted back about 5° (I think). When the AFDU/A&AEE investigated the effects they found that the Bf109 pilot had approximately a 1/2 to 1 G advantage before blackout over the Spitfire pilot - due to the difference in height of the pilot's legs relative to the heart. The British countered this fairly quickly by retrofitting their Hurricane and Spitfire airframes with dual-position rudder pedals to raise the legs. They considered this reduced the Bf109 pilot's advantage by about 1/2 G for any given condition of maneuvering flight.
5. re your statements:
I am not quite sure what you are trying to say here. If I take it as written it makes no sense in terms of physiology or physics/aerodynamics.
Physics/Aerodynamics says that you will only stall if you exceed whatever the limiting AOA is, and the AOA required to pull 8 Gs at higher speed is well below what the limiting AOA was at lower speeds. The minimum speed at which the Spitfire VB (~6700 lbs GFW with a Vstall of 81 mph IAS with no flaps) could manage an 8 G instantaneous turn for 1-2 seconds was ~250 mph IAS, so if the aircraft started out at 300 mph it would be able to sustain the 8 G turn for however long it took to lose ~50 mph in speed.
The Bf109G(-6?) could not pull an instantaneous 8 Gs at less than ~300 mph because the base stall speed (~105 mph IAS without slats or flaps) required that much speed to generate an instantaneous 8 Gs before the slats deployed. Dynamic pressures kept the slats from deploying until a given maximum velocity and/or minimum AOA combination were in effect. Until the slats deployed the wing loading and wing section airfoil of the Bf109 controlled the minimum speed at which it could enter an 8 G turn, and at 300 mph IAS it initially had to operate with a CL that did not include the effect of the slats.
As is indicated by the accelerometer tests performed by the AFDU/A&AEE there is no reason to believe that the Spitfire could not pull 8 G at 300 mph IAS without stalling and falling gently to the ground.
Just some comparative numbers:
Model________TOGW____ WL
______________ (lbs)_____(lb/ft2)____NOTE
Bf109E-1______5670_____32.2_____wing span was 34.6 ft, wing area was 176 ft2, aspect ratio was 6.79
Bf109E-3______5750_____32.9_____ "
Bf109E-4______5875_____33.4_____ "
Bf109F-4______6395_____37.0_____wing span was 32.6 ft, wing area was 173 ft2, aspect ratio was 6.14
Bf109G-2_____ 6600_____38.2_____ "
Bf109G-6_____ 6940_____40.1_____ "
Spit Mk IA_____6050_____25.0_____wing span was 36.8 ft, wing area was 242 ft2, aspect ratio was 5.6
Spit Mk IB_____6400_____26.5_____ "
Spit Mk II______6172_____25.5_____ "
Spit Mk VB____ 6525_____27.0_____ "
Spit Mk VC____ 6965_____28.8_____ "
Spit Mk IX_____ 7450_____30.8_____ "
Last edited:
Shortround6
Major General
I really like you explanation as a whole but I think this part needs a little more explanation.
Leading edge slats/slots will significantly increase the CL of a given wing IF the leading edge slats/slots cover the entire span of the wing.
For partial span slats/slots the increase in CL only affects the area of the wing behind the slats/slots and a little bit to either side, depends on the wind flow over the wing.
For the 109 and just estimating by eyeball that means the slats affect about 30-40% of the wing area. Better information certainly welcome.
Real world effects are mostly concerned with the 109 having aileron control at high angles of attack (high stall speed) and not doing a one wing stall and flipping out of the turn.
If the 109 pilot pushes the envelope his outer wings and ailerons are still 'flying' but the larger inner wing has stalled and the pilot/plane are no longer turning at high "G"s. He his mushing out of the turn and needs to be in imminent crash recovery mode.
I am not disagreeing with what you said. I do think that many people seem to think the 109 slats can do things they could not and give the 109 the benefits of full span slats.
The slats also give no benefit until the angle of attack increases more than it is already which really increases the drag.
Frank Stewart
Airman
- 44
- Aug 12, 2016
Fowler flaps need a cowling for the actuator(s). This is enclosed in the Fuselage and NACCELLES. Search THE INTERNET FOR PICTURS OF p-38S WITH THE FLAPS DEPLOYED. Dratts, bit on the butt by the dreaded Caps Lock Monster, AGAIN. This brings up a very interesting point, in that at very low speeds, the P-38 could easily turn inside of any, or ALL monoplanes in the war by using differential throttle setting on the engines to "Horse" it around much sharper than any single engined plane and that the fowler flaps were "Blown" buy the engine prop thrust! Lowering the stall speed more than a little.
Me-109 Aspect Ratio = 6.1374! Spitfire Mk-V Aspect Ratio = 5.6038! Or 91.3% as good. The Mk-V is widely regarded as the very best Spitfire ever made WRT it's Flying Qualities! This is a critical factor in how much lift is produced by each unit of Wing Area! So, if you want a more certain number of total lift, divide the weight of the plane into the wing area, then MULTIPLY BY THE DIFFERENCE IN ASPECT RATIO. In the 109s case you are multiplying by the reciprocal of .913, OR 1.0952! Then for an even more illuminating exercise, run the numbers for the TA-152H! But this still does not take into effect the thinness of the Spit's wing. The thin wing has a lower CoL. The CoL, or Coefficient of Lift in proportion to the AoA, or Angle of Attack, is the single most important factor in determining the total lift of any wing! More AoA more Lift! LESs equal more AoA! PS. I thought it was the "Square Root" of the difference????
Now you have the more important part of the Puzzle! Because the LE Slats allowed the plane to use considerably MORE AoA, or Angle of Attack on the wing before Stalling, typically depending on pilot skill and experience, 25-26 degrees, the 109 could shoot much farther across the circle of turn, considerably farther than a Spitfire! ( AoA Limited to <15 Degrees, again depending on pilot skill and experience! A side effect of the thin wing. Later than the BoB, the 109 was given a CL mounted, Higher Velocity Cannon which more closely matched the Trajectory of the 7.92 MM Cowl mounted LMGs, in that all of the Guns could be Zeroed for a Point-Blank Range of 600 Meters, or 1968.5' Compared to the Spits effective PBR of 180 to 250 YARDS at most depending on the model! That is 440' to 750', or about one quarter to one third as far!!! Point Blank Range = That Range at which the trajectory never goes above or below the height of the target's Fuselage. On the other hand, the Spit's wing mounted guns had to be centered on the Line of Sight through the gun sight from way out on the wings and the fact that the individual gun mountings were so flimsy that the guns vibrated very badly in the mount giving a "Dispersion" or "Scatter of shots" of 1.1 Meters at 100 Meters range. Which limited the maximum effective range. By the way, the RAF thought this was a very good thing because it would help the "average" pilot get more hits! I am not kidding on this last! In fact, they also recommended that each pair of guns, left and right, be Zeroed for a slightly different range, thus giving a beaten "Zone in Range" where an enemy plane would get hit by at least some bullets! As opposed to all of the bullets, IF they were aimed correctly!
Reginald Mitchel made some very hard choices when designing the plane in order to make it faster. Many of which turned out to be wrong in the long run. He sacrificed so much to make it fast, that many other factors were considerably lower than its contemporaries.
Last edited:
Shortround6
Major General
Need more popcorn, very large bowl, with butter.
Extra large drink please!
Extra large drink please!
Frank Stewart
Airman
- 44
- Aug 12, 2016
WOW, great rebuttal in detail! To start;
1. I never said that it did. My answer was in response to some other post regarding the P-38 which alone in WW-II fighters, did! That other post said that "Fowler flaps require fairings to work" and I pointed out that it was possible to mount those tracks inside the fuselage and nacelles. As to the 109's flaps they were significantly different than the Spitties "Split" flaps. They gave more lift and caused less drag. All dog fights that are not won in the first two seconds degenerate into slow and low turning fights where the combination of factors that you mention will have significant effects.
2. You are right on all that you state, but forgot to include the effects of the Leading-Edge Slats!
3. As stated, at 300 MPH, a real-world number where combat maneuvering might take place, LESs give the ME-109 a measured advantage in turn load and thus rate. 8.1 to 7.9 "Gs"! This is predominately a factor of the LESs! Now that there are more than a few flyable 109s around, they have been tested extensively and been found to be more than a match in a dog fight for any Spitfire.
However, dog fighting was NOT the 109s main attribute! According to my Landlord in Heidelburg, who by the way shot down well over 120 EAs >90% of all shoot downs were against targets who did not know they were under attack. With our larger and easier to spot planes, we and the RAF mind you, all thought that number was closer to >80%!
4. You are absolutely right in all of this PP! However, after you watch enough gun camera film you will soon realize that it is that split second when the bullet stream is dragged over the target that the kill is made. Not all of the lower load maneuvering combined.
5. I guess that we are either reading different books, or flying different planes. My Land lord stated quite equivocally that he could out turn a Spit at any speed over 200 MPH and that if you were not flying "On the Slats" you were not fighting.
If the RAF tested the spit so thoroughly, why did they state that it could pull 7.9 Gs at 300 MPH? read Len Deighton's book!
I see that you have admitted that the 109 had a superior AR from your well-done chart!
ThomasP
Senior Master Sergeant
Hey Frank Stewart,
re
My apologies, I misunderstand which post you were referring to in the above quote.
re
My apologies, I misunderstand which post you were referring to in the above quote.
Frank Stewart
Airman
- 44
- Aug 12, 2016
The 109s LES cover that part of the wing outside of the prop wash and thus are not required to cover more of the length of the wing. The Prop wash changes the AoA of the center span of the wing. Yes, all that you write is true, except most of does not apply. In normal combat the slats are completely insignificant! But where they do apply is that ~10% of the time when an expert can shoot down a maneuvering target by momentarily pulling a much higher than normal "G" load. (To "Drag" the tracer stream across the target!)
Frank Stewart
Airman
- 44
- Aug 12, 2016
It's OK. Do not sweat the small stuff, it's not worth it.Hey Frank Stewart,
re
My apologies, I misunderstand which post you were referring to in the above quote.
Frank Stewart
Airman
- 44
- Aug 12, 2016
I just hit the radar oven and a bag of Orvil Redenbacher's best just dinged.
Users who are viewing this thread
Similar threads
