posted 06-19- 08:01 AM               

The funny thing about this discussion is the hard data and pilot's stories are complete opposites. I'm going to start by using the Spit MkI and 109E

Facts:
109E can out turn a spit I on instantaneous turns
109E has as good a roll rate as the Spit I

The Spit has the same dive speed as a 109E (huh?)
Funny, everything you hear is exactly the opposite. There's a valid reason for this, just continue reading.

In a Mk I vs Emil battle, the 109 had the turning advantage at most altitudes, but 90% or more of the time the Spit out turned the 109- confusing huh?

Here's the reason the 109 rarely did this in combat. The Emil had a VERY high wing loading for the wing size. This had caused several crashes where a 109 was thrown hard into a turn and the wing roots gave way
(OUCH). Although this was due to accumulative fatigue over time and the
German high command had started watching for it, A lot of 109 pilots refused to push the plane to it's max turning capabilities out of fear of losing a wing. So most Spits handily out turned the 109's because of
pilot issues. When they ran up against a 109 pilot that was wiling to push the 109 to it's limits they really had their hands full.

The Spit and 109 had the same dive rate? Yet you always read about 109's diving away from Spits in the BoB.

This was because of the carbeurator issue. The 109 rolls and starts to dive. If the Spit does the same thing, his engine cuts out and he's basically in a glide while the 109 is in a powered dive. Once the engine
on the Spit catches he stil has to accelerate to max dive speed while the
109 is pretty much already there. Bye bye Spit.

The 109 could, but didn't roll almost as good as the Spit. The problem was the leading edge slats would often deploy in a roll and kill the roll rate on the plane.

These slats also caused numerous problems in a tight turn when the inside wing approached stall speeds.

The problem in the game, is the slat problem and pilot reluctance can't be modeled (well it can for the AI by limiting the G's the pilot will pull).

Some solutions and more details will be offered later.

posted 06-19- 08:48 AM               

Werner

posted 06-19- 09:55 AM               

------------------

posted 06-19- 10:19 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Vmartini:
not sure how well this would work, but how about adjusting the wing roots so as they can only just take the turn,

---

posted 06-19- 10:49 AM               

Werner

posted 06-19- 10:51 AM               

Werner

posted 06-19- 02:50 PM               

The Emil may have had a higher instant turn rate. This is largely a function of max lift of the wing (as opposed to effeciency) and control authority, so it's a tough call.

But the Emil most definitely DID NOT outturn a Spit in sustained turns. This is largely a function of wing loading at the time because of the punny power loadings. The plane with the better wing loading wins, and that was the Spit.

Further, the story about the wings falling off the 109 appears to be a propaganda myth created by the British aero press. The only problems I am aware of in the 109 series was the flutter problems in the early F series.

It is possible that the german pilots held back, but it is unclear why. Some have suggested that they felt the popping of the slats was effectively a stall warning, although in reality you still had a long way to go.

And as to the dive issue, I believe the 109 simply accelerates better. I know of the carb issue, but I believe this problem even existed after that time.

I'd say that the big problems now are that the 109 turns too well, and we have no way to model the slats. A proper model of the slats would also include some randomness in their deployment.

posted 06-19- 03:23 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Maury Markowitz:
Interesting, but many points fail on the specifics.

The Emil may have had a higher instant turn rate. This is largely a function of max lift of the wing (as opposed to effeciency) and control authority, so it's a tough call.

But the Emil most definitely DID NOT outturn a Spit in sustained turns. Maury

---

Hi Maury,
As for instantaneous turns, I have the actual numbers in degrees per second for the E and the MkI, the G and the MkIX all the way up to 30,000ft. This was not an opinion, but a fact.

You are correct, at their respective speeds the Spit can always out turn a 109 in a sustained turn, but, depending on drag, loading, airfoil, etc, this are 2 differnt speeds. I haven't been able to dig up the speed at which the sustained turning numbers were arrived at- herein lies another issue.

Interesting about the 'propoganda' as I read a commentary by a Luftwaffe pilot explaining the problems with the "wing falling off" and the reluctance of newer pilots to push it in a turn.. Point is, once the Luftwaffe was aware of it, they had the maintenance crews take steps to prevent it. By this time the Luftwaffe pilots had developed a lack of trust on this issue- so the perceived problem and actual problem were different. Nevertheless it did affect their tactics.

There are numerous probelms with the 109 and the leading edge slats were responsible for accidents numerous times.

The first post may be lacking in specifics, but crimeny, wait until I get the rest of the info posted. My info is not only based on stories from Luftwaffe pilots, but reports from allied pilots test flying captured 109's.

------------------
"Da Jug"

FM question: Which end does the propeller thingy go on?
Fighter Squadron Central
ICQ: 121447410

posted 06-19- 11:24 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Maury Markowitz:
It is possible that the german pilots held back, but it is unclear why.

---

The 109 was designed so that the wings could easily be removed. When it was transported, the wings were taken off so that space could be used efficiently, etc.

Perhaps the German pilots felt uncomfortable about this...after all, if it could easily removed, and if wing flutter was often experienced, I'd imagine the average pilot would be concerned about pushing things too far lest they tear off a wing.

posted 06-19- 11:56 PM               

109 problems:
1939- 166 Emils are damaged in ground loop accidents caused by the landing gear configuration and the rotatable tail wheel. A tail wheel lock was installed in later versions of the 109, and retrofitted to most of the E versions in operation.

Many 109's are damaged either in training or in operation during landing- reason? The leading edge slats tend to snatch in and out when the pilot attempts to flare the plane out during landing. This results in damage to the undercarraige in some cases as one wing drops hard to the ground. In other cases the problem causes the wing to drop sharply enough that the wingtip hits the ground and the aircraft cartwheels.

The Germans develop a 2 seater trainer to work with pilots on this problem. Accidents are reduced, but not eliminated.

In an article posted prior to the end of WWII, captured 190A's and D's and 109G's are tested against several allied planes. Test pilots note the leading edge slats have a tendency to CONSISTANTLY deploy in a roll causing the roll rate on the 109 to drop off sharply and making it roll slower than the Mustang.

Comments are made that if this would not happen the 109G could almost keep up with a Spitfire in a roll and would definitely have better roll characteristics than a Mustang.

109's have NO rudder trim tabs (up through the G10, don't know about the K), requiring the pilot to keep constant rudder pressure and making it very easy to skid/slip the plane unintentionally in a turn.

These are some of the issues with the 109, and there are others I'll detail later.