Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
DerAdlerIstGelandet said:Yes most accidents in the 109 (all varients) were on the landing due to the narrow landing gear track.
KraziKanuK said:What caused the 109 accidents was the toe-in. If it was not set down square and the pilot had a moment of in-attension, the 109 would vere in the direction opposite to the wheel touching. A ground loop would follow with the forces being too great for the strut to bear, so breaking, if the ground loop was severe enough.
wmaxt said:As I noted earlier Aircraft testing bias is unavoidable to some extent BUT when testing an enemy aircraft it criticle that the test is as honest as possible to assure the data passed to field units is accurate. Incorrect data on enemy aircraft would get your buddies killed and would never be condoned.
wmaxt
wmaxt said:Soren,
I seem to remember the Finns did well with the Buffalo too!?
Everybody,
As I understand it the Bf-109 was a very good aircraft but I too have heard that it was more difficult than average to fly well and the controls tightened up more than average at high speeds. Passing this off as British dislike or propaganda just doesn't cut it.
As I noted earlier Aircraft testing bias is unavoidable to some extent BUT when testing an enemy aircraft it criticle that the test is as honest as possible to assure the data passed to field units is accurate. Incorrect data on enemy aircraft would get your buddies killed and would never be condoned.
Soren said:wmaxt said:Infact the the 109G was designed for elevator stick forces of up to 85kg !! (Much more than the Spit's stick design)
But remember the British practically didn't test their captured 109's at all, as they would stop any maneuver as soon as the slats popped out, which they did almost immediately in any hard maneuvering.
85kg? 172lbs?Thats more than the P-51 and above average too. That would tire a pilot out in just 3/4 manouvers.
As I said above the British testing may be even more approprate when applied to average or new low time German pilots in '44/'45, even if it didn't show the ultimate performance capabilities.
wmaxt
wmaxt said:85kg? 172lbs?Thats more than the P-51 and above average too. That would tire a pilot out in just 3/4 manouvers.
85kg? 172lbs?Thats more than the P-51 and above average too. That would tire a pilot out in just 3/4 manouvers.
Soren said:Look at this(Picture below).
For a 1/5 aileron deflection at 400mph the 109E needed 37lb stick force, the Spit-1 needed 57lb. This is a 54% higher stickforce for the Spit pilot. So to build up the same moment like in a 109, the spitfire stick must have been 54% longer, if so it probably would have reached out of the roof window.
KraziKanuK said:DerAdlerIstGelandet said:Yes most accidents in the 109 (all varients) were on the landing due to the narrow landing gear track.
You do know that the Spit had a narrower track than the 109?
What caused the 109 accidents was the toe-in. If it was not set down square and the pilot had a moment of in-attension, the 109 would vere in the direction opposite to the wheel touching. A ground loop would follow with the forces being too great for the strut to bear, so breaking, if the ground loop was severe enough.
Soren said:Look at this(Picture below).
For a 1/5 aileron deflection at 400mph the 109E needed 37lb stick force, the Spit-1 needed 57lb. This is a 54% higher stickforce for the Spit pilot. So to build up the same moment like in a 109, the spitfire stick must have been 54% longer, if so it probably would have reached out of the roof window.
FLYBOYJ said:Soren said:Look at this(Picture below).
For a 1/5 aileron deflection at 400mph the 109E needed 37lb stick force, the Spit-1 needed 57lb. This is a 54% higher stickforce for the Spit pilot. So to build up the same moment like in a 109, the spitfire stick must have been 54% longer, if so it probably would have reached out of the roof window.
This chart deals with aileron force (roll), lighter control forces around one axis. What about elevator and elevator trim position? In a turn the aileron banks the aircraft, the radius of the turn is controlled with elevator back pressure providing the power setting remains the same. Both the -109 and Spit had elevator trim which could greatly relieve back pressure. Are these values assumed with trim in the most favorable position?
The 85kg stick force for elevator is related to what then? 85kg is barely handleable by a weight lifter.
57lbs is still acceptable but very close to the practile limit.
We were talking elevator not aileron, the requirements are different.
The control stick is a lever, moving the pivot would make a large change in a very small move.
The 85kg you gave is for a later aircraft that had changed those perameters, what are the pertinent numbers?
We started with a comparison with the P-51, what's the corralation?
wmaxt
wmaxt said:85kg and 70kg are a lot and would tire a pilot very quickly. Or are you saying a force of an undetermined value will provide 85/70kg of force to the affected eppanage?
If so what's that value?
I think all we really have is the subjective observations of various pilots. Taken as a whole neither plane becomes totaly uncontrolable even near the airspeed limits of the airframes.
The bottom line is that so far the two planes are very close. Does anyone have some data to change that statement?
I agree 100%...All this is enough to prove that the 109 was the better "dogfighter", BUT, not the best overall fighter.