Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
pp.142-144The Author...was design office group director and engineer pilot in the experimental flight section of the Ernst Heinkel aircraft company at Rostock-Marienehe. At the turn of the year 1936/37 same activity at the Arado aircraft works in Brandenburg on the Havel. From 1941 to the end of the war was director of the aerodynamic design division. From October 1945 to May 1946 wrote a report for the Royal Air Force. From May to October 1946 resided in the British Interrogation Centre in Wimbledon. November 1946 to July 1950 worked in France — Decize (Nievre) — in the Oestrich group on jet engine development. July 1950 accepted an offer from Fokker in Amsterdam. Design of a supersonic fighter. When the firm withdrew from the project, accepted an offer from the U.S. Air Force to work in America on the continuation of a development process in Germany interrupted by the war. From January 1952 to July 1955 worked in Wright Air Development Center in Dayton, Ohio. In July 1955 accepted an offer from the Northrop Corporation, Los Angeles, California. Worked as Research Scientist, director of the design office, project director and finally, until December 1968, as Technical Assistant, Vice President Engineering.
...
From this comparison it is clear that the Fw 190 should have been the inferior aircraft, but it had two clear advantages: superior roll manoeuvrability and acceleration in a dive, which gave the pilot the chance to get into a firing position from an unfavourable situation, or to escape from the enemy if he was surprised. The Fw 190 gained a reputation for quite outstanding roll response. In contrast to the Bf 109, whose excessive aileron control forces at high speed were a constant source of complaint, the Fw 190's aileron force compensation was excellent. Both aircraft were fitted with ailerons whose leading edge was forward of the pivot axis. On the Bf 109 this part had a circular arc-shaped profile which was designed to keep the gap between aileron and wing as narrow as possible. The Fw 190 featured Frise ailerons, in which the aileron leading edge is extended to form a sharp edge. On the up-going aileron this part projects below the wing, and air pressure reduces the load produced by the top surface of the aileron. The Fw 190's wing also possessed great torsional rigidity. When an aileron is deflected, the wing tends to twist in the opposite direction. This tendency increases as speed rises, until the aileron reversal speed is reached, i.e. force is required to move the aileron, but its deflection has no effect. With stressed-skin construction the wing skin has to be strong enough to absorb the bending forces, and if this is the case the skin has an abundance of strength for the torsional loads, i.e. torsional stiffness is high. In contrast, the traditional Messerschmitt single-spar wing, as used on the 109, had plenty of strength in the bending plan, but relatively low strength in torsion. Torsional stiffness was further reduced by the large cut-outs and apertures in the wing skin for radiator, undercarriage and weapons installation.
The wingtip adopted for the 109F (and also for the Bf 110), was different from the previous version, but the change was not intentional. As an experiment a 109E wing was built with the span reduced by one metre. This machine, the Bf 109 V24, was tested and the wing found to be too small. Rounded wingtips were added to bring the wingspan up to around 10 m again, but the ailerons were not extended, and now ended at 87 per cent of the semi-span. The overall result was a further decline in aileron effectiveness. The illustrations show the fundamental differences in the wings of the two aircraft. The top and bottom shells of the Fw 190 wing were constructed separately, and connected by two widely spaced webs. The forces acting on the wing skins were transferred to a massive spar at the wing root, located at about one third of the chord. The spar was continuous from one side to the other, and formed the main attachment between wing and fuselage. The aft web extended as far as the fuselage side, where it was connected to a reinforced bulkhead. Full ribs were employed at the highly loaded points, where the undercarriage and weapon mountings were attached, with half-ribs used for the remainder.
The essential load-bearing element of the Bf 109 wing was a stout spar, at 45 per cent of the wing chord. It was located so far aft in order to accommodate the wheels. The upper wing skin was uninterrupted, and was stiffened with widely spaced ribs and longitudinal profile strips. A large proportion of the undersurface was covered with removable hatches, located between strong full ribs. The problem of transferring the forces around the various apertures called for some imaginative engineering, and was a daring piece of work. A powerful spar bridge was an integral part of the fuselage, and the two wing panels were attached to the fuselage sides at three points: the top and bottom spar flanges were connected to the spar bridge, while the third attachment point was part of the undercarriage spring strut fitting. The same fitting also held one end of the engine support strut; thus three substantial loads were transferred into the fuselage via a single component, albeit fairly complex and rather difficult to make.
Diet is a definite difference.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.
Even shorter according What was the average height of a German soldier in WW2?Diet is a definite difference.
Average male height for German males by year of birth : 1900 - 169cm (just over 5' 6 1/2 "), 1940 - 175cm (whisker under 5' 9"), 1980 - 181cm (5' 11 1/4").
An average height Luftwaffe pilot born in 1920 would stand at 173.3 or just over 5' 8".
At 21 I was 6'1'' and weighed 96kg-212lbs, I am eye level with the top frame of a Spit 21 windscreen, if I was in the BoB I'd be a Homer Simpson.I had an occupational physical when I was 21 where they did a BMI (Body Mass Index) check. At the time I was 5' 6" and weighed 176 lbs.
The Bf 109 G series started off with a retractable tail wheel. When they went to the B-4, the tail wheel tire got bigger and could not be retracted into the same space, so they stopped retracting it.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
The Bf 109 series started off with a retractable tail wheel. When they went to the B-4, the tail wheel tire got bigger and could not be retracted into the same space, so they stopped retracting it.
The Bf 1009 B-2 DID have a retractable tail wheel, AFAIK.
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.
Hans-Werner Lerche who tested both the La-5FN and the Yak-3 in Rechlin.
It's astounding that the Spitfire with its large, "weakly built" wing and relatively small ailerons rolled relatively quick, especially the clipped wing variant. Quicker than the small winged 109.This chart from NACA report 868 has probably been posted a few times before on this forum but it could be good to have in this thread as well since it shows some of the Bf-109's main competitors.
In the figure for the Bf-109F2 I posted earlier the apex for the roll rate was 80 deg/s at 440 km/h IAS so that is about 273 mph IAS. Looking at the figure below we can see that that is below what the P-47, P-51, P-40 and Spitfire managed. In addition, it's quite clear that the American fighters do much better at higher speeds.
View attachment 78300300
I think you are misunderstanding the issue. It takes little effort with a 2-3 foot long lever called a "key" to roll a perfectly round 10 ton pipe along a perfectly flat bench, I did it all the time at work. A WW2 warplane suspended by wires as in a museum but with the wings unattached will spin on its longitudinal axis with very little effort at all. At high speed the potential ability of ailerons to generate a rotational force is huge, but there are problems that aero engineers can explain and I cant. To exert a force the aileron needs to be fixed to a wing that doesnt move at all, but the wing does deflect, eventually it deflects so much that the resultant force is the opposite to what you want, this is called aileron reversal. before that point there is less and less resultant force giving the pilot the sensation that the controls are locked. You cannot see or estimate such aerodynamic properties with your eyes, there was nothing inn the Spitfire that was "weakly built" in that respect, a few may have been better but that doesnt mean weakness, those wig tips slowed rate of roll but added to rate of climb and climbing to intercept was the Spitfires "day job".It's astounding that the Spitfire with its large, "weakly built" wing and relatively small ailerons rolled relatively quick, especially the clipped wing variant. Quicker than the small winged 109.
Most sturdier-built, and by that heavier, planes roll quicker at high speed where their structure takes the higher load forces better.
Bf 109G-2. My mistake, not yours.Hi!
Am I reading this right? B-2, B-4?
Cheers
Eng
You mean "it's complicated"? I was looking for a one word answer.The Spitfire had at least 3 different roll rates. Spitfire experts maybe able to come with more.
You have the original wing and fabric ailerons (and original control set up?)
You have the metal covered ailerons. The fabric ones ballooned and made a mockery of the expected deflection angles.
You have the clipped wings.
What I don't know is any changes to pullies or leverage or changes to shape of the ailerons nose or ???
Leaving the whole Spitfire 21 wing out of it.
You have been here for more than a week, you know you won't get one word answers from meYou mean "it's complicated"? I was looking for a one word answer.
Well, this is the situation.The Bf 109 G series started off with a retractable tail wheel. When they went to the B-4, the tail wheel tire got bigger and could not be retracted into the same space, so they stopped retracting it.
Edit corrected to G-2: The Bf 1009 G-2 DID have a retractable tail wheel, AFAIK.
It's astounding that the Spitfire with its large, "weakly built" wing and relatively small ailerons rolled relatively quick, especially the clipped wing variant. Quicker than the small winged 109.
Most sturdier-built, and by that heavier, planes roll quicker at high speed where their structure takes the higher load forces better.
The Spitfire had at least 3 different roll rates. Spitfire experts maybe able to come with more.
You have the original wing and fabric ailerons (and original control set up?)
You have the metal covered ailerons. The fabric ones ballooned and made a mockery of the expected deflection angles.
You have the clipped wings.
What I don't know is any changes to pullies or leverage or changes to shape of the ailerons nose or ???
Leaving the whole Spitfire 21 wing out of it.