No, you misquote. It states that there "is practically nothing to choose" between the Tempest V and the Me.109 in rate of roll below 350 IAS. Also, "The climb of the Me.109 is superior to that of the Tempest at all heights".
Eng
Why did the Me 109 roll and turn so bad at speed?
- Thread starter spicmart
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
No, you misquote. It states that there "is practically nothing to choose" between the Tempest V and the Me.109 in rate of roll below 350 IAS. Also, "The climb of the Me.109 is superior to that of the Tempest at all heights".
Eng
Unfortunately, only in Russian translation. The English translation (unofficial?) is available online, but the quality of the pdf-file is poor.
- Thread starter
- #23
I wrote/it says the Tempest outmanoeuvers/outrolls the much smaller 109 at higher speeds. ("Except when the aircraft are climbed steeply at low speed"). That is a pathetic display for such a small aircraft.
Probably plays a big part in it.
- Thread starter
- #25
Urbanke quoted a German pilot that the "La-5 could deter pursuit by diving away at an altitude of 800 m. 109 and 190 were not able to follow as they couldn't recover from this altitude".
That is enormous.
Why were the German fighters worse at dive recovery (see also Spitfire)?
Last edited:
You realise, of course, that 350 IAS is around 465 TAS @20,000'?
Maybe your pathetic comment displays your opinion?
Eng
- Thread starter
- #27
Hey, no need to be insulting...I wasn't going personal.
I might be wrong but it stands that "when this speed is exceeded the Tempest can out-manoeuvre the Me.109 by making a quick change of bank and direction".
Just my opinion, the trials in post #11 are certainly informative. However, some of the detail is very specific to certain parts of the envelope, and other comments are not specific at all.
Overall, if I was fighting over Germany in 1944 with the aircraft covered in that trial, I would chose the Spitfire XIV.
Eng
Overall, if I was fighting over Germany in 1944 with the aircraft covered in that trial, I would chose the Spitfire XIV.
Eng
Post #2 by PAT 303 reflects that the aerodynamics and engineering developed fast. As far as the Bf 109 F/G goes, they were 1939/40 aerodynamics. By 1943 they were behind the contemporary state of the art but were forced to continue. Of course, Willy Messerschmitt had moved-on to the Me 262 by then.
Eng
Eng
Clayton Magnet
Staff Sergeant
- 867
- Feb 16, 2013
Irrelevant to this discussion, but I think this is an error in the report cited above.
As far I know, no Bf109G-6 had a retractable, or partially retractable tail wheel. This function was deleted after the G-2, and not reinstated until the K series.
As far I know, no Bf109G-6 had a retractable, or partially retractable tail wheel. This function was deleted after the G-2, and not reinstated until the K series.
Well, the retractable tail wheel (with open aperture, no door) was actually deleted after the F model. However, some early G versions seem to have had the retractable function retro fitted, probably with F parts. Likewise, the reference to larger tail area is possibly more of a E to F version change, so It looks like a crib of an F report.
Edit, pics show TP814 was actually a tall-tail 109 G, so that was the extra area.
Eng
Last edited:
Clayton Magnet
Staff Sergeant
- 867
- Feb 16, 2013
I think the larger (wooden) tail was introduced with the G-6 (but not all G-6's), coinciding with the larger diameter 'AS' supercharger. Or perhaps with MW-50 introduction? The G series is a mess of field modifications and service kits
ThomasP
Senior Master Sergeant
The Bf109G-6 roll rate in the tests was being affected by the carriage of the underwing 20mm gondolas - the ailerons were not designed with them in mind. It is not surprising that the roll rate was mediocre? But this implies that the roll rate would be better than the Mustang III if you removed the 2x underwing 20mm (leaving 'only' 1x 20mm and 2x 13mm).
Yes, looking at pics of TP814 (412951) show it had the gondola cannon up to and including the final accident. Also it was NOT an AS engined version and, it did not have MW50.
Eng
additionally the the belly attachment to carry a drop tank/bomb, so when comparing the 109 in terms of climb speed and top speed this particular one is not the bog down standard fighter version
Clayton Magnet
Staff Sergeant
- 867
- Feb 16, 2013
While I think the conclusions drawn from the trial may be as accurate as can be expected under the circumstances, it would have also been wise for an Allied pilot to not lean too heavily on them. The G-6 specifically varied wildly in possible modifications and configurations, and the example as tested would have probably been one of the poorer performing.
A Bf109G-6 with the larger supercharger and MW-50 injection, flettner tabs fitted to the ailerons, Erla Haube canopy and without the underwing gondola's would be a different performing beast altogether, and basically indistinguishable from the variant in the trials (the wing pods would be fairly obvious though)
Holtzauge
Airman
The attached page is from a German wartime report by Ribnitz, ZWB FB 1951, and shows the result of roll trials with a Bf-109F2.
Sorry for the messy red text (done years ago) but it's supposed to show an extrapolation for a 50 lb stick force to make it comparable to the roll data in NACA report 868.
Note that the x-axis is in TAS not IAS, and also note that the maximum indicated roll rate in the figure is around 1.56 rad/s which is wrong: It's the bold dash-dot line that form the actual limit because of give in the aileron circuit which limited the max roll rate to circa 1.4 rad/s (about 80 deg/s) at around 510 km/h TAS (about 440 km/h IAS) at 3 km altitude.
So while adequate, not a very good result and there were plenty of other fighters that did better.
Sorry for the messy red text (done years ago) but it's supposed to show an extrapolation for a 50 lb stick force to make it comparable to the roll data in NACA report 868.
Note that the x-axis is in TAS not IAS, and also note that the maximum indicated roll rate in the figure is around 1.56 rad/s which is wrong: It's the bold dash-dot line that form the actual limit because of give in the aileron circuit which limited the max roll rate to circa 1.4 rad/s (about 80 deg/s) at around 510 km/h TAS (about 440 km/h IAS) at 3 km altitude.
So while adequate, not a very good result and there were plenty of other fighters that did better.
Shortround6
Major General
Found a few charts in "Flying to the Limit" by Peter Caygill. Consolidated and abbreviations by me.
.........................Buffalo...........................Mohawk....................Spitfire......................Hurricane
ASI.................TtB/Lb-F.........................TtB/Lb-F...................TtB/Lb-F.....................TtB/Lb-F
200...............1.7 / 10.5...........................2.3 / 8........................1.8 / 10.......................1.3 / 10
250...............1.7 / 14...............................2.3 / 14.....................1.8 / 18.......................1.4 / 15
300...............1.7 / 17...............................2.7 / 20.....................2.1 / 35 .......................1.5 / 21
350...............1.8 / 20...............................4.0 / 27.....................2.6 / 55 .......................1.6 / 38
390...............1.6 / 24...............................5.2 / 33.....................3.5 / 80 .......................1.9 / 34
TtB = time to bank 45 degrees (sec)
Lb-F = Max force (lb)
The tests were not conducted at the same time. The Mohawk (French Hawk 75) and the Spitfire were done Dec 29th 1939 and for the next two weeks. The Buffalo was done in Sept 1940. I am unable to find the Hurricane test date. The text goes into dogfighting the two American fighters vs the Spitfire.
I am having trouble reconciling the text with the Hawk 75 numbers. At about 400mph IAS the Hawk was could apply about 3/4 aileron (speed of getting there not noted) while the Spitfire could only manage about 1/5 aileron at the same speed. Obviously the amount of force needed has something to do with it. A different test showed the Hawk lost 16% of aileron effectiveness due to wing twist (speed not given) while the Spitfire lost 41% effectiveness due to wing twist. The Spitfires at this time had the fabric covered ailerons.
.........................Buffalo...........................Mohawk....................Spitfire......................Hurricane
ASI.................TtB/Lb-F.........................TtB/Lb-F...................TtB/Lb-F.....................TtB/Lb-F
200...............1.7 / 10.5...........................2.3 / 8........................1.8 / 10.......................1.3 / 10
250...............1.7 / 14...............................2.3 / 14.....................1.8 / 18.......................1.4 / 15
300...............1.7 / 17...............................2.7 / 20.....................2.1 / 35 .......................1.5 / 21
350...............1.8 / 20...............................4.0 / 27.....................2.6 / 55 .......................1.6 / 38
390...............1.6 / 24...............................5.2 / 33.....................3.5 / 80 .......................1.9 / 34
TtB = time to bank 45 degrees (sec)
Lb-F = Max force (lb)
The tests were not conducted at the same time. The Mohawk (French Hawk 75) and the Spitfire were done Dec 29th 1939 and for the next two weeks. The Buffalo was done in Sept 1940. I am unable to find the Hurricane test date. The text goes into dogfighting the two American fighters vs the Spitfire.
I am having trouble reconciling the text with the Hawk 75 numbers. At about 400mph IAS the Hawk was could apply about 3/4 aileron (speed of getting there not noted) while the Spitfire could only manage about 1/5 aileron at the same speed. Obviously the amount of force needed has something to do with it. A different test showed the Hawk lost 16% of aileron effectiveness due to wing twist (speed not given) while the Spitfire lost 41% effectiveness due to wing twist. The Spitfires at this time had the fabric covered ailerons.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
Or the fact that the world was locked.in a great depression and an abundanve of food was not available like today.
Look at the photos of Germans, Americans and Englishmen - they were all lean.
In regards to the original question:
Many aircraft types, which had excellent performance, suffered stiff controls at certain speeds.
The A6M, which was a fantastic fighter, started to lose it's aerleron control authority at higher speeds due to the compression of air flow over it's control surfaces.
This was common for all types of fighters until boosted control systems were introduced.
