Why did the Me 109 roll and turn so bad at speed?

[spicmart]

Why did the Spitfire (and other fighters) roll better than the Me 109 at high speed despite having a much larger wing with equally large cutouts for the radiators and landing gear which would compromise torsional stiffness?

and, for such a small plane, why did the Me 109 turn so bad at high speeds compared to equally big or bigger fighters?

 

[PAT303]

All planes had stiff controls at higher speeds at the start of the war because the speeds and maneuvers pilots achieved while fighting for their lives was nothing ever encountered during peacetime, it was up to the designers and engineers to identify, react and find solutions to address the ever hanging requirements a shooting war presents and some did it quicker than others, the Spitfire as an example got metal covered control surfaces then later reprofiled ailerons in a very short period of time, fighting over France and then the BoB quickly showed it's weaknesses, other aircraft had the control gearing and mechanical leverage adjusted, later still boosted controls, it all came down to engineering.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Seems agile to me.


View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ERo0lTyUvOk&pp=ygUGQmYgMTA5

 

[bf109xxl]

Why did the Spitfire (and other fighters) roll better than the Me 109 at high speed

Do you mean under "other fighters" also the Soviet ones (e.g., the LaGG-3)?

 

[Holtzauge]

I would not say the Bf-109 was particularly bad: IIRC then it was even a shade better at high speed than the Spitfire with fabric covered ailerons. But as I recall it the Spitfire got a bit better with the metal covered ailerons on the Mk V. But both had very weak wings when it came to torsional stiffness and the aileron reversal speed on both was quite low. But the British went on to develop ailerons with servo tabs and stiffened wings so by the end of the war their later fighters were quite decent in this respect. The Germans OTOH kept on slogging with basically the same setup until the end of the war with the G-models. The exception being that some Bf-109K's may have had a servo tab as well. Have seen it both in pictures and in the flight manual but have no idea if it was successful or just twisted the wing. But yes, in summary, the roll rate on the Bf-109 was mediocre at best.

 

[Shortround6]

Something that has been talked about the 109 (actual fact or myth?) is that due to it's small cockpit size the average pilot had trouble exerting enough force on the stick to roll well at high speeds. Trying to exert the "standard" 50lbs of side pressure on the stick was said to have been difficult. I have seen a few reports on British/American planes and at low speeds the force needed for the deflection the test called for was around 10lbs, went up into the 30s at higher speeds (or more?) in the test report (which may not have been max speed?).
Something to consider on the other end of the controls from the aileron/wing tip.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

The Black Crosses were not positioned correctly on the wings. Moving them slightly would have made it roll better than anything.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Something that has been talked about the 109 (actual fact or myth?) is that due to it's small cockpit size the average pilot had trouble exerting enough force on the stick to roll well at high speeds. Trying to exert the "standard" 50lbs of side pressure on the stick was said to have been difficult.

I suppose most people were a little shorter/narrower in the 1930-40s than today, but Germans aren't known for their small stature. And just look at how tight this space is.


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JGhMGQst4lo

I expect when the Luftwaffe captured its first P-47 Thunderbolt their pilots must have marveled at the space. But even other V-12 fighters like the Mustang, Spitfire and Hurricane seem to allow for more space.

 

[spicmart]

Do you mean under "other fighters" also the Soviet ones (e.g., the LaGG-3)?

Yes, La-5/7and Yak-3 were said to be able to roll with (or even exceed?) the Fw 190.

Their wings look triangular and compact.
One would assume good (better) torsional stiffness with this planform.
Maybe ask a structural engineer.

 

[bf109xxl]

Yes, La-5/7and Yak-3 were said to be able to roll with (or even exceed?) the Fw 190.

The La-5 had roll comparable to the FW 190 and somewhat better than Bf 109G. But I asked about the LaGG-3...
There is a hypothesis (not mine) that the Bf 109 versions F and onward had insufficient wing stiffness and suboptimal aileron design. I cannot evaluate the validity of this hypothesis by myself.

 

[Yew Staff]

It wasnt particular bad it wasnt particular good.
With 20mm underwing gondolas it was rated equal to the Mustang, so without probably a bit better (again this is a captured aircraft, so probably not flown to its full capacity and in best condition)

Me 109G-6 Tactical Trials

So nothing special in terms of roll rate in either way.

 

[Yew Staff]

Yes, La-5/7and Yak-3 were said to be able to roll with (or even exceed?) the Fw 190.

Who said this?

 

[bf109xxl]

Who said this?

Hans-Werner Lerche who tested both the La-5FN and the Yak-3 in Rechlin.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I suppose most people were a little shorter/narrower in the 1930-40s than today, but Germans aren't known for their small stature. And just look at how tight this space is.

I suspect people back then, including Germans were very much smaller than today. The authentic German uniforms (and American as well) in my personal collection almost appear child like when you compare them to uniforms of today.

 

[spicmart]

It wasnt particular bad it wasnt particular good.
With 20mm underwing gondolas it was rated equal to the Mustang, so without probably a bit better (again this is a captured aircraft, so probably not flown to its full capacity and in best condition)

Me 109G-6 Tactical Trials

So nothing special in terms of roll rate in either way.

The Mustang was rated quite good in roll rate. It got better with speed. There is a chart showing that.
The 109 rolled good when going slow or at medium speed but that would deteriorate quickly as it goes faster so
that it was not very manoeuverable then.
The K improved upon this but I'm curious about how much so.

 

[Yew Staff]

Any chance you have that tests at hand?
IIRC they where slighty better rolling than the 109 but vastly inferior to the 190, but my memory could serve me wrong

 

[Yew Staff]

Hans-Werner Lerche who tested both the La-5FN and the Yak-3 in Rechlin.

Any chance you have that tests at hand?
IIRC they where slighty better rolling than the 109 but vastly inferior to the 190, but my memory could serve me wrong

 

[Engineman]

The Mustang was rated quite good in roll rate. It got better with speed. There is a chart showing that.
The 109 rolled good when going slow or at medium speed but that would deteriorate quickly as it goes faster so
that it was not very manoeuverable then.
The K improved upon this but I'm curious about how much so.

The tactical Trials link in #11 describes the roll rate of the Mustang III as identical to the Bf 109 G-6. Maybe this is right or, is it just illustrating that even official trials are not perfect?

Eng

 

[spicmart]

The tactical Trials link in #11 describes the roll rate of the Mustang III as identical to the Bf 109 G-6. Maybe this is right or, is it just illustrating that even official trials are not perfect?

Eng

It doesn't mention the speed at which they roll differently.
What is remarkable is that the much larger Tempest and Spits outroll the 109 at every or higher speeds although they have to move much more area and mass.
So the 109 has to be quite worse from an engineering pov concerning roll rate.

Willy infamously put the main emphasis on high wing loading to achieve speed and lightweight construction.

 

[PAT303]

I suspect people back then, including Germans were very much smaller than today. The authentic German uniforms (and American as well) in my personal collection almost appear child like when you compare them to uniforms of today.

I blame fast food and online gaming.