Messerschmitt 109 - myths and facts - article now out

Discussions on all (non-biographical) aspects of the Luftwaffe air units and general discussions on the Luftwaffe.
gabriel pagliarani
Member
Posts: 1583
Joined: 01 Aug 2002 03:11
Location: ITALY

Post by gabriel pagliarani » 25 Mar 2005 11:12

Von Schadewald wrote:What was the idea and advantage, if any, of outward folding narrow landing gear?
How did the landing & take-off charcteristics and landing gear of the equally narrow Spitfire compare to the Bf109?
Physics, elementary cantilever rules. Watch the draft.

Uncle Joe
Banned
Posts: 510
Joined: 12 Oct 2004 20:09
Location: Finland

Post by Uncle Joe » 25 Mar 2005 11:15

That wing root mod would have been a good idea. As for Brown, do read his evaluation of the Corsair. It is another plane Brown disliked immediately, which goes against the majority of US pilots´ opinions on it. The truth is that Brown is biased.

Apart from landing the 109 was not particularly difficult to fly. Had the undercarriage been more capable of taking lateral loads, many problems would have been avoided. Of course there were several planes that were easier or much easier to land, but also ones as or more difficult to land. The P-40 was more difficult to land due to even greater directional instability on landing. Anyway, 109´s greatest problems lay elsewhere, such as insufficient torsional stiffness of the wing, insufficient stiffness of the rear fuselage to take elevator loads at high speeds (i.e. a major reason for high stick force per g at high speeds), insufficient internal volume to accept increased fuel and armaments etc. Even the supposed production friendliness may be more a myth than truth. Better read what Rüdiger Kosin wrote in his book "The German Fighter since 1915". Kosin´s background as wartime aircraft designer makes he far more qualified on this than most so called "historians" who understand nothing about engineering.

Uncle Joe
Banned
Posts: 510
Joined: 12 Oct 2004 20:09
Location: Finland

Post by Uncle Joe » 25 Mar 2005 11:25

gabriel pagliarani wrote:
Von Schadewald wrote:What was the idea and advantage, if any, of outward folding narrow landing gear?
How did the landing & take-off charcteristics and landing gear of the equally narrow Spitfire compare to the Bf109?
Physics, elementary cantilever rules. Watch the draft.
You must mean "moment arm" by the "cantilever" for the latter makes no sense in this context?

gabriel pagliarani
Member
Posts: 1583
Joined: 01 Aug 2002 03:11
Location: ITALY

Post by gabriel pagliarani » 25 Mar 2005 11:58

Uncle Joe wrote: ...You must mean "moment arm" by the "cantilever" for the latter makes no sense in this context?
Obviously. I tried to avoid a term evidently not familiar to all the guests. About the illogical comparison ( both fighters have the same kind of landing gear) you are right even if there is a logical sequence with the previous statement. In other words, if Von Schadewald is looking for differences between Bf109 and the Spit he could not watch at the very similar solutions adopted for their landing gear. 8) The gap is not there.

Paul Lakowski
Member
Posts: 1441
Joined: 30 Apr 2003 05:16
Location: Canada

Post by Paul Lakowski » 26 Mar 2005 00:13

Paul Lakowski wrote:
Thanks! OK so > 375 mph and Mk-108 + two 7.7mm LMGs and 35minutes endurance not counting the 300 l from the drop tank. I wonder what endurance that would be in econo cruise? I estimate about 2 hours and 15 minutes total.

I wonder if each wing could be stressed to take a small bomb of say 50kg region?
I was thinking about this some more. For the trainer it had a fuel tank of only 240L compared to 400L for the Normal Me-109. The endurance of the 400l tank was 600km @ normal cruise speed and 1000km at econo cruise [so I've read]. Thats an endurance of 1.5 hours for 400l and 0.6hrs for 240L at regular cruise speed.

These planes must burn a hugh amount of fuel during take off and climb to altitude, since the last 160 L would provide 0.9 hour endurance compared to 0.6 hour for the first 240 L! Thats ~ 7 L /minute fuel consumption at first part and ~ 3 L/minute for the second part ! Thats 135 minutes endurance at regular cruise speed while with econocruise that should be roughly 200 minutes [ ~ 3 hours & 20 minutes]? What speed would econo cruise be for a Me-109?

Uncle Joe
Banned
Posts: 510
Joined: 12 Oct 2004 20:09
Location: Finland

Post by Uncle Joe » 26 Mar 2005 02:48

Well, the DB 605 gulps some 480 litres per hour at take-off power. For comparison, an R-2800-32W (F4U-5) gulps no less than 350 US Gal/hour at TO setting. This means some 50% higher fuel flow per horsepower.

Tony Williams
Member
Posts: 1360
Joined: 18 Feb 2004 04:31
Location: UK

Post by Tony Williams » 26 Mar 2005 07:53

Uncle Joe wrote:That wing root mod would have been a good idea. As for Brown, do read his evaluation of the Corsair. It is another plane Brown disliked immediately, which goes against the majority of US pilots´ opinions on it. The truth is that Brown is biased.
Fair enough. But then, IIRC the Corsair was supposed to be a bit of a handful, especially on landing :)

Thinking about it some more, I suppose it's possible that Brown's vast experience meant that he could instantly compare any plane he flew with lots of others, and so criticise any aspect of their performance which he felt was below standard - he became hard to please. Whereas most pilots only knew what they were given to fly, so just accepted it without complaint.

It reminds me of the story of a pre-WW2 racing car - an Auto Union I think - which had a big engine at the rear and swing axle suspension - a combination lethal for handling. Most drivers were frightened of it, but one was highly successful. The reason? He'd never driven any other racing car so he didn't realise that there was anything wrong...

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion
forum

SiG I
Member
Posts: 605
Joined: 28 Jan 2005 18:37
Location: Romania, a rich country with hardworking people

Post by SiG I » 26 Mar 2005 11:54

Read this account of a WW2 American ace:
http://www.elknet.pl/acestory/anderson/anderson.htm
Acording to him, the Me109 was an inferior plane ant there wasn't anything even a good pilot could do about it. How do you comment on this? Does anyone have accounts of similar situations when German pilots did better?

User avatar
Topspeed
Member
Posts: 4785
Joined: 15 Jun 2004 15:19
Location: Finland

Post by Topspeed » 26 Mar 2005 17:36

Well you cannot argue with Bud Andersson.

P-51 D flew 700 km/h and 109 Gs 650 km/h. Turning radius of a Messerschmitt 109 was huge...and even more with the heavier and faster ( 720 km/h ) Me 109 K-4.

I think the laminar foil gave also an advantage in a dogfight for a Mustang; the speed did not get reduced that much as it did with a 109.

One vicious habit in 109 was the g-stall or highspeed stall, call it as you may. It is not good.


regards,

Topspeed

Uncle Joe
Banned
Posts: 510
Joined: 12 Oct 2004 20:09
Location: Finland

Post by Uncle Joe » 26 Mar 2005 17:45

Topspeed wrote:Well you cannot argue with Bud Andersson.

P-51 D flew 700 km/h and 109 Gs 650 km/h. Turning radius of a Messerschmitt 109 was huge...and even more with the heavier and faster ( 720 km/h ) Me 109 K-4.

I think the laminar foil gave also an advantage in a dogfight for a Mustang; the speed did not get reduced that much as it did with a 109.

One vicious habit in 109 was the g-stall or highspeed stall, call it as you may. It is not good.


regards,

Topspeed
Topspeed, you got this wrong and badly. First, laminar flow wings tend to have poorer lift and harsh accelerated stall. The P-51 displayed both. On the other hand, good accelerated stall of the 109 was one of its best characteristics.

And when quoting 109 Gs, be careful as the speed varied greatly within the series.

Huck
Member
Posts: 1188
Joined: 19 Jul 2004 12:52
Location: Detroit

Post by Huck » 26 Mar 2005 18:04

Topspeed wrote:Well you cannot argue with Bud Andersson.

P-51 D flew 700 km/h and 109 Gs 650 km/h. Turning radius of a Messerschmitt 109 was huge...and even more with the heavier and faster ( 720 km/h ) Me 109 K-4.

I think the laminar foil gave also an advantage in a dogfight for a Mustang; the speed did not get reduced that much as it did with a 109.

One vicious habit in 109 was the g-stall or highspeed stall, call it as you may. It is not good.


regards,

Topspeed
That article is one of the worst ever written in the history of aviation journalism. This guy, Bud, he cannot write a single paragraph without making a glaring mistake.
Throw this article into the garbage.

BTW, 109G-10 the contemporary of P-51D, had 690Km/h max speed. And laminar wing had much poorer stall characteristics than the usual profile. 109 on the other hand, had one of the gentlest stalls, because of the wing slats, which kept the ailerons efficient even after wing has stalled (just to make correction possible, of course).

User avatar
Topspeed
Member
Posts: 4785
Joined: 15 Jun 2004 15:19
Location: Finland

Post by Topspeed » 26 Mar 2005 18:08

None of you have any idea what a highspeed stall or a g-stall is ? Mustang did not g-stall never did.

weiss
Member
Posts: 142
Joined: 05 Nov 2004 07:09
Location: Savannah, GA

Post by weiss » 26 Mar 2005 18:17

...and the battle continues!

gabriel pagliarani
Member
Posts: 1583
Joined: 01 Aug 2002 03:11
Location: ITALY

Post by gabriel pagliarani » 26 Mar 2005 18:22

Uncle Joe wrote: .... First, laminar flow wings tend to have poorer lift and harsh accelerated stall. The P-51 displayed both. On the other hand, good accelerated stall of the 109 was one of its best characteristics....
Modern supercritical wings are all laminar-foil designed. A supercritical wing has the high speed stall the closer possible to Mach limit and Bf 109 had critical, not supercritical wings. High speed stall limit exactly as per low stall limit depends largely from NACA design and rear wing turbulence, only minimally from surface laminar flows.
Top, any wing has its own high speed stall limit, because every thing could be supersonic if throwed away with the necessary energy. Also an elephant might have an high speed stall limit, why not a mustang?

User avatar
Topspeed
Member
Posts: 4785
Joined: 15 Jun 2004 15:19
Location: Finland

Post by Topspeed » 26 Mar 2005 18:35

Mustang wings are known to bend before the g-stall occurs. In other words somewhere at 15-20 G:s. Where as 109 with a smaller wing added with lotsa dihedral cannot hack more than 11-12 Gs and a stall occured..miraculously a finnish fighter pilot lived to tell about this experience.

Return to “Luftwaffe air units and Luftwaffe in general”