Relative Rolling Characteristics of WWII Fighters
- Thread starter GregP
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
- Thread starter
- #22
GregP
Major
As for side force while pulling g's, it isn't much affected if you have a good grip on the stick. The g-force is downward toward the floor, not sideways along the wings, and the ability to move sideways sin;t much impaired over the travel of the stick.
At least not when I was flying aerobatics it wasn't.
In a fighter you aren't snap-rolling and you aren't getting pushed sideways almost at all.
At least not when I was flying aerobatics it wasn't.
In a fighter you aren't snap-rolling and you aren't getting pushed sideways almost at all.
J.A.W.
Banned
Those Ratas are something to see...I was at Wanaka when they had a gaggle of them up, all rattling around..I got the impression that some of their dynamic characteristics were kinda Sopwith Camel-like, with that big radial mill having a fair degree of gyroscopic input...same with the I15...
Radials don't have gyroscopic effect like a rotary engine, the cylinders are stationary.
The Rata might be a close coupled aircraft like the Camel, with most of it's weight in one area, but therer's no spinning engine like a Camel on a I-16.
The Rata might be a close coupled aircraft like the Camel, with most of it's weight in one area, but therer's no spinning engine like a Camel on a I-16.
J.A.W.
Banned
Not a rotary, true, but still a fair weight of repicrocating/revolving metal tractoring a diminutive airframe, sure gave an impression, but true, likely mostly due the close-coupling..
The ergonomics of the cockpit have a profound effect. This meant that despite very similar forces needed to deflect the ailerons by the same amount in a Spitfire Mk 1 and Bf 109 E the Spitfire was more manoueverable (at high speed) because the Bf 109 pilot simply could not apply as much force to his control column as the Spitfire pilot could to his spade grip. This was more down to the posture and confinement of the pilots than the type of control device being manipulated and had a significant effect in combat flying.
Cheers
Steve
You have it backwards, the Spitfire required about 50% greater force for the same roll, but as you said the spade style grip meant that it was felt to be less, because of the much larger travel distance (and probably using different arm muscles).
In short it has nothing to do with ergonomics (in fact most cocpits of fighters were of rather similar size, dictated by engine size) but the fact the 109 like most fighters had a normal, short stick, which was limited in its sideways travel (I guess complete travel sideways was probably no more than 60 degrees, in addition because of the g-force resisting sitting stance, the legs are pretty close to the grip), while the Spitfire had a spade grip which rotated high, well above the legs (I guess complete travel sideways was about 120 degrees).
In short it has nothing to do with ergonomics (in fact most cocpits of fighters were of rather similar size, dictated by engine size) but the fact the 109 like most fighters had a normal, short stick, which was limited in its sideways travel (I guess complete travel sideways was probably no more than 60 degrees, in addition because of the g-force resisting sitting stance, the legs are pretty close to the grip), while the Spitfire had a spade grip which rotated high, well above the legs (I guess complete travel sideways was about 120 degrees).
J.A.W.
Banned
So what then of the P-38, with wheel instead of stick, wide span servoed ailerons?
It is ergonomics. The relatively prone position of the pilot in a Bf 109 and the cramped space mean he cannot apply the same leverage as a Spitfire pilot. Obviously the control design might be a factor (spade/yoke as opposed to stick) but that is not the major factor in this case.
I have sat in both a Bf 109 and a Spitfire and can assure you that the position of the pilot is quite different and that the Bf 109 is much,much smaller.The one I sat in also had a cannon breach to contend with,making movement even harder.
Cheers
Steve
I have sat in both a Bf 109 and a Spitfire and can assure you that the position of the pilot is quite different and that the Bf 109 is much,much smaller.The one I sat in also had a cannon breach to contend with,making movement even harder.
Cheers
Steve
In fact they are almost exactly the same size, but subjectiveness plays here a lot, the Spitfire's more normal seating position plays a lot in that - even if its impractical for air combat.
its quite simply a matter of setting up the controls, with spade/yoke you have the entire canopy width at your disposal for movement, with a stick control you only have a few centimeters of space between your legs. If you would put a spade/yoke in a 109 you would have the same leverage in a 109, but for some reason, designers did not seem to have preferred spade/yoke in fighters. Perhaps its just too weird for manouvering.
its quite simply a matter of setting up the controls, with spade/yoke you have the entire canopy width at your disposal for movement, with a stick control you only have a few centimeters of space between your legs. If you would put a spade/yoke in a 109 you would have the same leverage in a 109, but for some reason, designers did not seem to have preferred spade/yoke in fighters. Perhaps its just too weird for manouvering.
- Thread starter
- #32
GregP
Major
Hi Steve,
I've sat in a 109 cockpit many, many times. We are restoring an Hispano Ha.1112 and I started out on that project. The main difficulty in apply stick side force is due to a narrow cockpit and long control stick. It would have been more advantageous for the stick to be closer to lap level where you can apply some force ... but it is what it is. I believe that any manually-activated control surface system would be a tough nut to crack at 400+ mph due simply to the resistance of the air at that apeed and the size of the control surfaces. Anti-servo tabs help, but aren't the entire answer.
After WWII, the hydraulic flight control system virtually took over for military aircraft, and would have done wodners for most WWII fighters ... if it didn't result in broken airframes. It's a "what if" I'd not care to engage in since it never happened and nobody could be proven right or wrong. All I'm basing that on is that, during the war, a few fighters arrived home with a few more degrees dihedral than when they left. Some shed wings and tails in the heat of combat. If they had hydraulic control systems, the occurrences might well have been much greater. Combat was hard enough without giving the pilots an easy way to self-destruct the airframe.
I've sat in a 109 cockpit many, many times. We are restoring an Hispano Ha.1112 and I started out on that project. The main difficulty in apply stick side force is due to a narrow cockpit and long control stick. It would have been more advantageous for the stick to be closer to lap level where you can apply some force ... but it is what it is. I believe that any manually-activated control surface system would be a tough nut to crack at 400+ mph due simply to the resistance of the air at that apeed and the size of the control surfaces. Anti-servo tabs help, but aren't the entire answer.
After WWII, the hydraulic flight control system virtually took over for military aircraft, and would have done wodners for most WWII fighters ... if it didn't result in broken airframes. It's a "what if" I'd not care to engage in since it never happened and nobody could be proven right or wrong. All I'm basing that on is that, during the war, a few fighters arrived home with a few more degrees dihedral than when they left. Some shed wings and tails in the heat of combat. If they had hydraulic control systems, the occurrences might well have been much greater. Combat was hard enough without giving the pilots an easy way to self-destruct the airframe.
- Thread starter
- #34
GregP
Major
Yeah, and a person should not let a friend take a WWII fighter up without a parachute! Sort of like letting friends drive drunk. You don;t need them that often but, when you do, there is no substitute. The canopy is heavy on the ground but, when airborne, will fly off right now if jetisoned, as will most canopies since all the force is outward on all of them to the tune of many hundreds of pounds. I know I'm not telling anyone anything they didn't already know there ...
I personally didn't really like the idea of the Spitfire stick that breaks in the middle but, once you sit in it and try it, seem like a prretty good solution to the stick moving between the legs. I might prefer a normal stick at the top end, but the ring offers many hand holds and I didn't see it a as negative ... rather as a positive that was unexpectedly good. It would be nice to be able to move the gun button around to where you want it, but maybe that is already a possibility ... I didn't try to take it apart! After all, it was sitting in a flyable Spitfire!
Love these old fighters!
I personally didn't really like the idea of the Spitfire stick that breaks in the middle but, once you sit in it and try it, seem like a prretty good solution to the stick moving between the legs. I might prefer a normal stick at the top end, but the ring offers many hand holds and I didn't see it a as negative ... rather as a positive that was unexpectedly good. It would be nice to be able to move the gun button around to where you want it, but maybe that is already a possibility ... I didn't try to take it apart! After all, it was sitting in a flyable Spitfire!
Love these old fighters!
And of course the Bf 109 pre Erla haube canopy jettison lost the hood,armour (when fitted),rear section and antenna post in one go!
I've always suspected a few fragile annuals or strawberries are still being grown under various parts in our South Eastern counties today
Cheers
Steve
- Thread starter
- #36
GregP
Major
It isn't easy getting the canopy back on when you jetison it on the ground for maintenance, but we have done several times on our Ha.1112.
And you are right, jettisoned canopies mke nice greenhouses ... for both legal and illegal plants of various recreational or business-related purposes. I have never thought of an aircraft junkyard as a possible drug dealer, but you never know.
And you are right, jettisoned canopies mke nice greenhouses ... for both legal and illegal plants of various recreational or business-related purposes. I have never thought of an aircraft junkyard as a possible drug dealer, but you never know.
razor1uk
Staff Sergeant
*Ahem* ..allegedly..
I never new the skills of the/a junkyard to be higher the the sentients that dwell upon it, must be some good soil there then.
I always thought that losing the canopy, for'd radio mast and perhaps the radio cable/antenna could be costly in spares, although doing so lessened the bailing pilots chances of entanglement/impact - except unless they caught the fin or a tailplane that is, as Molders was supposed to have done.
I never new the skills of the/a junkyard to be higher the the sentients that dwell upon it, must be some good soil there then.
I always thought that losing the canopy, for'd radio mast and perhaps the radio cable/antenna could be costly in spares, although doing so lessened the bailing pilots chances of entanglement/impact - except unless they caught the fin or a tailplane that is, as Molders was supposed to have done.
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- #38
GregP
Major
If a person jettisons the canopy and steps out for a nylon letdown, how would that affect the spares situation? If the canopy et al stayed with the aircraft and it hit the ground at high speed, there isn't much useable left anyway. If you jettison on the ground, then you have to lift the kit off and it is in pristine shape to be used again later.
Can you clarify? Thanks.
Can you clarify? Thanks.
There is nothing worse than getting trapped in an overturned 109 with the canopy still attached. I would imagine the canopy would be jettisoned if there was a chance of over turning while trying to land a damaged 109.
There was trouble jettisoning the canopy of the early 109Gs (and maybe 109Fs) till some mods were done to fix the problem.
There was trouble jettisoning the canopy of the early 109Gs (and maybe 109Fs) till some mods were done to fix the problem.
- Thread starter
- #40
GregP
Major
Ah, hadn't even thought of that, but you are certainly correct ...
I am under the impression that turning a 109 over, tail over nose, is nearly impossible. I know you can brake very hard and not even come close to raising the tail, but hitting a ditch would do it. Perhaps landing without brakes?
I am under the impression that turning a 109 over, tail over nose, is nearly impossible. I know you can brake very hard and not even come close to raising the tail, but hitting a ditch would do it. Perhaps landing without brakes?
Users who are viewing this thread
Similar threads
