Re: Ostfront or fancy projects: German aircraft designers in 1944-1945

"Eunometic" <eunometic@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1148829214.890678.241860@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Geoffrey Sinclair wrote:
"Eunometic" <eunometic@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1146406960.891608.92030@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

(snip)

Well, allied troops walked into the offices in February / March 1945.
Bell X-5, which was for all practical considerations a faithfull copy
of the Messerschmitt P.1101, exceded Mach 1.08 in level flight. Thus
validating the original P.1101.

Ah yes the great Luftwaffe 1946 dreams, take a German design that
never flew, look for a successful design that did that looks similar
and claim it was the same design.

This is yet another case of the disingenuous, obfusification you use to
delude yourself into believing that you actually make valid points.

It seems Eunometic is back after 4 weeks of doing something not
very enjoyable and needs to vent something.

Lets see now the claim is the X-5

"for all practical considerations a faithfull copy of the Messerschmitt
P.1101,
exceeded Mach 1.08 in level flight. Thus validating the original P.1101."

Except it was not "faithful" and did not exceed mach 1.


It's a well known fact, easily ascertained from numerous web pages
and publications, that attempts were made to fit the J-35 to the P.1101
airframe to substitute for the Jumo 004 and HeS 011 that it had been
designed for. The J-35 engine was too large to fit in the P.1101
airframe and the airframe had been in anycase been too damaged by poor
handling to consider repair to an airworthy state. It's simply a
historical fact that the P.1101 served as the basis for the X-5 design.
Messerschmitt engineers were even pulled in from Germany to work on
it. The American personalities, German personalities and the sequence
of the events and their motivations are well recorded. The X-5s 64A
series profiles even had similar sections and profiles to the Me 262
series used on the P.1101.

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/news/FactSheets/FS-081-DFRC.html

from the web page,

"proposed in July 1948 that a modified and enlarged version of the P.1101
be built. Unlike the original aircraft, the proposed Bell aircraft could
change
its sweep angle in flight, rather than being set on the ground before
takeoff. "

and

"A pair of X-5s were built, serial numbers 50-1838 and 50-1839. They were
similar in shape to the P.1101 design, "

This is apparently good enough for "faithfull copy" to be declared using the
above web site as reference.

To quote Smith and Kay on the US research into the P1101.

"This resulted in the Bell X-5 research aircraft, which, although
superficially similar to the P1101 was an entirely new aircraft."

Based on? Yes. Faithful copy? No.

No doubt a NASA Dryden center web page is just another selective
unbalanced presentation to (your) reality. That's a classic of
Sinclair; if one doesn't like something he immediately cries and cry
that the whole thing is bias.

You see Eunometic has a problem with reality, when it comes to
Aerodynamics the Germans normally have to invent it first or improve
on it, everyone else copies the Germans.

By the way if the X-5 is supposed to have validated the P1101 the
web site notes,

"Crossfield noted later, "The X-5 was not a comfortable airplane to fly.
It had a low-slung engine. So there was a misalignment of the drag
axis, and the principal axis, and the thrust axis, and all of that. So it
could get into some interesting maneuvers and motions, and that
sort of thing." Its biggest problem, he added was that "...it was a
terrible airplane in a spin. It took a long time to get that airplane out of
a spin."

Minor things like the way the X-5 could adjust sweep in the air
versus the P1101 only on the ground. The X-5 had an extra 1,000
pounds of loaded weight, even more if you remove the P1101's
armament. The X-5 had around another 4 feet of wingspan at
minimum sweep. It achieved a top speed of 650 mph, though
other figures have it at over 700 mph.

http://history.nasa.gov/monograph31.pdf

Goes for mach 0.98, 705 mph.

In you presumptuous overconfidence and technical ignorance you clearly
don't know that Mach reference at around 30,000 ft is 660mph which
is less than the 750mph at sea level. You do know that aircraft,
shockwave stabillity issues aside, are faster at higher altitudes? Yet
another inconvenient fact for you to evade.

I do know the difference, hence the quoted top speed as a mach number
and in mph.

It was not going supersonic according to the NASA report.

There are NACA reports on the X-5s behaviour at supersonic speed still
available for download of the technical server.

Which so far are not presented.

As an example the X-5 could not land if the wing sweep was greater
than 40 degrees, presumably the P1101 could land safely at 45
degrees sweep.

The P.1101 was expected to go supersonic by the Germans.

Meantime Smith and Kay note performance estimates of 550 mph
at sea level and 609 mph at around 23,000 feet.

609 mph is ofcurse a higher speed than the North American XP-86.

Time to change the subject, rather than admit the supersonic claim is wrong.

Instead find a reason to claim superiority over an American design that
flew, the P1101 of course never flew.

Kay is easily one of the more reliable sources due to his engineering
background. I have several of his books but they are by no means
complete sources of information and I can list minor errata or cases
of incomplete information that change some contexts entirely. I do not
have this book you write of but you don't reveal the complete story
either because Kays book is not comprehensive enough for the topic of
Messeschmitts swept wing development or because you don't report it
correctly.

Eunometic announces Eunometic is right.

By the way notice how far away we are from supersonic, we are into a whole
lot of stuff that may or may not be correct all about German designs that
never flew.

P.1101 was to be both a testbed (erprobungs) for aerodynamic research
for other Messerschmitt aircraft such as the P.1111, P.1110 as well as
a prototype (versuchs) for a P.1112 production fighter in itself.
While the P.1101 was preceding the data from it was being fed into
P.1112 which were being engineered closely behined.

This is interesting, a design that had not flown was being used to
design another aircraft.

By the way the P1111 was a tail less design, and the P1110 was also
very different from the P1101.

To this end the P.1101 aircraft had not only ground adjustable sweep
but easily INTERCHANGEABLE wings. FOUR wings were under construction
though only one was complete and fitted by the time the P.1101 was
captured. Diehederal angle was also adjustable between +2 and -3
degrees at several increments. In many ways the P.1101 was more
flexible and practicable testbed than the X-5 which was built to
explore extreme sweeps of nearly 70 degrees.

So in other words the X-5 was not a "faithful copy" of the P1101, thanks
for clearing that up.

Wing #1 A wing based on the outboard section of the Me 262 wing with
13% of chord slats. This is the wing the P1101 V1 was found with and
it is more or less the configuration that X-5 had.

Wing #2 A second wing with the same profile but with 20% of chord slats
was under construction should the 13% of chord slats prove
unsatisfactory.

Both the above wings were research wings but they were based on that of
the Me 262 outer wing.

And of course the P1101 never flew so the wings are rather irrelevant.

Should the P.1101 13% slats provided inadaquete low speed handling and
landing characteristics at desired sweep angle then the 20% of chord
slat wing could be quickly bolted on. This is Something the X-5 was
apparently not designed to do since a backup series of wings profile
and slat configurations was not prepared for the electrically
translated wings.

So with the extended slats there would be an improvement in slow speed
handling and practicable wing sweep.

Yes at the end of this comes the announcement of the superiority of the
German design, the one the Americans are supposed to have produced
a "faithfull copy".

3 & 4 The "A wing". This wing reversed the usual twist of the wing
and had an inner thickness/chord ratio of 8% and an outer T/C of 12%.
This is known as 'aerodynamic twist'. The outer wing had a much
higher stalling angle and therefore resistence to spanwise flow induced
premature tip stall and thus it could operate at higher sweep angles..
It also featured various slat depths. The twist also created vortices
that prevent or limit spanwise flow buildup.

It was the "A wing" which was intended for the production P.1101
because it had better low speed characteristics than the Me 262 based
wing and was expected to allow operation at higher sweep angles.. The
reference for this is Radinger and Schicks "Secret Messerschmitt
Projects."

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/aircraft/research/x5/
AIRFOIL SECTIONS:
Wing Root NACA 64A011 ie 11% thick with max thickness near 40%
Wing Tip NACA 64A08.28 ie 8.28% with max thickness (pressure) at 40%

Me 262 airfoil sections
Root NACA 00011-0.825-35 11% with max thickness at 35%
Tip NACA 00009-1.1-40 9% with max thickness at 40%

P.1101 V1 as captured.
Root NACA 00011.41-1.1-40
Tip NACA 00009-1.1-40

P.1101 production version Feb 2 1945.
Root NACA 0008-1,2-40
Tip NACA 0012-1,0-40

Yes lots of information, none about the supersonics though and all
showing how faithless the US copy was.

At 40 and 45 degrees sweep the airflow is subsonic on the aircrafts
wings.

As long as the aircraft is a reasonable speed below mach 1.

Nope.

If a swept wing is placed behind the shock wave cone with a greater
sweep angle than the shockwave then the air flowing at right angles
over that wing will be subsonic, even though the aircraft is flying
faster than the speed of sound. Therefore, a subsonic airfoil, with
round leading edges can be used without creating a bow wave.

Ah now we move to air moving across the wing to along the wing.

And the speed difference is hardly surprising.

What do you think a shockwave does? The proviso to this is that the
swept wing not be so rounded such that it creates its own shockwave
within those subsonic conditions.

Robert Jones had a problem selling swept wings due to the inabillity of
some to believe this.

Good for him for continuing then.

The 1300kg thrust HeS 011A engine probably would have been a
little weak as opposed to the X-5s J-35 but it would have worked in
a shallow dive.

Ah right a 2,900 pound thrust versus a 4,900 pound thrust is a little
weaker.

Here again we are confronted with your inconsistent, incongruent and
self contradictory 'logic'. On the one hand you argue that the
Bell X-5 was a bigger heavier aircraft with a more powerful engine
without considering that the proportionately smaller P.1101 wouldn't
have needed quite as much thrust.

Ah so it was not a "faithful copy" then.

The X-5 came in at around 10,000 pounds maximum weight and the
P1101 around 9,000 pounds.

so around 10% heavier with 70% more thrust.

What I like is the claim an engine with 60% of the thrust is
"a little weaker".

The latter HeS 011B (1500kg)and HeS011C (1700kg) would have
provided the required thrust as would the supplementary rocket
engines that were to be integrated into the airframe.

So we graduate to 3,300 then 3,800 pounds of thrust. Which would
still be too little, then we add rockets to finally make the preferred
speed.

Indeed the X-1 and the A4 and Douglass Skyrocket broke the sound
barrier with them.

The quote about the F-4 proving you can make a brick fly with enough
thrust comes to mind.

Of course whether the X-5 or P1101 could use rockets in such a way
is unknown, but assumptions will be made of course.

Supplementary rocket boosting was seen as an unbeatable way of boosting
performance and still is.

For the few minutes of rocket fuel carried.

Compared to developing independent turbo-pumps it was relatively easy
to engage turbojet engine driven accessories gearbox to pumps via
solenoid clutches to deliver the rocket fuel to the rocket chamber.

So tell us which designs did this?

And yes, there is still the need to carry the oxidant.

Such an arrangement easily outperformed any possible afterburner and
provided the climb rate and takeoff performance required for
interception duties. It was an arrangement particularly suited to
German conditions where a fast climb rate was required to escape allied
straffing and penetrate fighter screens. It wasn't untill the
century series fighters was developed that the climb rate of the Me 163
was matched.

For the 8 minutes of fuel it carried the Me163 is rated the fastest climb
around. Trouble was it was not a really practicable design given the
range.

(snip)

Spitfire was originally designed with a square or rather oblong
wing.
This shape of wing is effectively just as efficient as an elliptical
wing especially if the greater structural weight is taken into
account.
The pre Spitfire 224 couldn't meet its performance specs and still
carry 8 machine guns as these wouldn't fit into the wings and would
thus produced additional drag.

The Type 224 was built to Air Ministry Specification F7/30 which
called
for 4 guns and a fixed undercarriage. The winner of this specn was
the Gloster Gladiator. The 8 gun stuff you quote is nonsense

OK, I refer to the Supermarine type 300 not the earlier 224 but the
same reasoning applies. The evolution of the 300 shows that the
elliptical planform arose out of the need to find space for the extra
guns. The elliptical planform allowed a greater chord thus allowing
both greater chord, greater depth and equal or lower thickness chord
ratios.

Not quite, the extra guns decided the issue, elliptical wings had been
in previous Supermarine designs and were being considered for the
type 300.

Yet the type 224 didn't use elliptical wings. Yet none of these
other Supermarine designs were 'built'. yet the type 300 started
out as a straight edged planform, yet the type 300 wasn't even on the
drawing board when the He 70 demonstrated its elliptical wings and
world record performance.

When Supermarine submitted their internal specification No.425a for the
Type 300 on 1934 July 26 to the Airministry it had an ordinary non
elliptical 'tapered' planform.

By Early 1933, over one and a half years before the Spifire
transitioned from a tapered planform to an ellitpical planform
somewhere between july and september the He 70 had publically broken
several world records; it would have outrun a type 224.

The He70 world record flights were in April and May, with a top speed of
234 mph. The type 224 top speed was 228 mph. The He70 had 630 HP
on board the type 224 had 600 HP.

The He70 would have out run the type 224 is the usual exaggeration.

It was the He 70 which demonstrated world record performance and
'steeled' the courage of others considering the elliptical wing.

Yes get ready for the Germans did it first monologue and
everyone followed.

No doubt Mitchell had been contemplating elliptical wings but its
possible didn't or couldn't actually precede with one until he or
the others he needed to persuaded were convinced by the proof the He 70
offered.

Ah I see, you have no idea where Mitchell drew his ideas from but hey,
when in doubt assume the Germans did it for him.

That is why I said "inspired somewhat" by the He 70". Note the
'somewhat' and note the 'inspired' if you dare or continue to
blow yourself out of the water by misrepresenting me or exaggerating my
arguments.

Eunometic admits Eunometic has no idea of Mitchell's
thought processes.

Eunometic then decides he must have been inspired by the He70.

No "It is possible", rather it was "inspired somewhat".

Amazing isn't it, the less the evidence the more the Germans did it,
first or better.

The German aircraft industry needs this sort of help like the proverbial
extra hole in the head. It was good enough in its own right, without this
junk being added.

Inspired somewhat by the success of the
Heinkel He 70 which used an elliptical planform and was evaluated at
Farnbrough the spitfire ended up with an elliptical wing in order to
fit
the 8 machine guns specified. This elliptical planform allowed an
increased chord and lower aspect ratio in the inner portion of the
wings without sacrificing performance. The result was not only the
extra width to fit the 8 machine guns but an incidental reduction of
thickness/chord ratio and therefore delays in compressibility.

Not exactly - the development of the type 300 which would become
the Spitfire was begun before the result of the F7/30 Specn contest
was known based on feedback from the RAF and lead to the issue
of RAF Specn F10/35. Haker took a quite different path by using a
thicker wing in which the guns could be easily mounted. Mitchell
was adamant that the thinnest possible wing would be adopted
which in turn lead to the elliptical planform.

The initial Type 300 had a normal straight edged tapered planform that
was subsequently modified to be an elliptical planform.
I think we can agree on that.

Try Supermarine's changes to the type 224 had the straight edged wings,
meantime they were trying out other designs in 1934. The first type
300 submission to the RAF was in July 1934, with 4 machine guns, and
a straight leading edge to the wing, then in September 1934 the
elliptical
wing was adopted along with 8 machine guns.

Its amazing how you can restate what I've just written as if you've
made some sort of correction.

Amazing you can imagine what I wrote was a repeat.

The RAF who in essence approved of the Type 300 then supported
change from the straight edged planform to an elliptical planform.

No, the RAF acceptance of the type 300 dates to after the elliptical
wing was chosen.

Formal acceptance is a formality.

In other words it does not fit the preferred time line of the moment.

Supermarine were working with the RAF
via the RAE A&AEE well before this date since both Sir Hugh Dowding
of the RAF and Sir Robert MacLean of Vickers were keen to ensure that
the designers were free from to many official specifications
Specifications are often a mere formality and are written to suit a
particular product that has been already decided upon to suit the
bureaucratic requirements of procurement.

I presume for some reason all this is about trying to jettison the
requirement the Spitfire was built to, hence the generic put down
of specifications.

(snip)

Fell free to prove that either Mitchell or any of his design team
had ever seen an He-70 before design started on the type 300

This is too easy

Eunometic has found a web site Eunometic likes, in other words
it is wrong and credits the Germans.

You mean I've found a web site that contradicts your delusions and
doesn't fit in with your reality.

So far the web sites quoted by Eunometic do not back Eunometic.

Your reaction; a fit and the usual ejection of huge volumes of Sinclair
squid ink.

Eunometic is having a bad day.

Not only did they examine the He 70, Reginald Mitchell was in
correspondence with Ernst Heinkel requesting information about its
breakthrough design.
http://www.flug-revue.rotor.com/FRHeft/FRH9902/FR9902g.htm

Mitchell did not examine the He70 as the claimed excerpt shows,
otherwise he would have known the He70 had wood covered wings
but a metal covered fuselage.

What mattered was the aerodynamic facts not the material underneath the
paint.

Yes folks, the web site has an error, a major one about what Mitchell did
and saw, this needs to be quickly obscured.

The He 70 had
1 Smooth Wooden wings.
2 Elliptical Wings.
3 They worked and worked well.
4 It was preceded by other elliptical Gunter Brothers designes (gliders
and light planes)

Ah so there was more than just the He70 design in the air with elliptical
wings, more examples to possibly choose from?

And the He70 did not arrive in Britain before the Spitfire flew
as claimed in the web site.

So quibble as to whether Mitchell examined the He 70 "Closely"
enough to see its underlying spars.

The problem is much more important than that, given the claims about
what Mitchell actually did and reality.

Mitchell was aware of both of these facts well before type 300 had been
drawn. His letter to Heinkel which clearly is designed as a schmoozie
appeal to Heinkel's ego, was an attempt at discovering how the high
quality surface finish had been achieved on an elliptical wing. The
He 70 of course used wooden wings but the latter He 112 figher (which
also flew before Spitfire) and He 111 used metal wings.

Yes folks, Eunometic does not know Mitchell's thought processes but
does pass judgement on them.

Note the web site claims the He70 was in Britain in time to
influence the Spitfire design, when in fact it came after the first
Spitfire flight.

That rather makes its claims suspect.

Metal is lighter at the cost of being very difficult to manufacture for
especially in the case of elliptical wings due to the absolute need for
presses and expensive tooling setups to cope with the 3 dimensional
curves. Due to the relative thinness of the wings he was thinking
of Mitchell needed to know how this could be achieved in metal. (as it
was on the He 111) he was no doubt not so foolish as to be so proud
that he would ignore entirely Heinkels experience and know how. The
prototype all metal He 112's elliptical wings were very dimpled due
to the non use of presses and tooling in the prototype.

So now we have Mitchell asking what was the wing material, which
we know to be wood. And Eunometic announcing metal, which was
the Spitfire specification, is much harder, and Heinkel could not tell him
about the metal.

"During constructions great emphasis was placed on reducing air
resistance. Extremely smooth surfaces were created. Rivets were not
going to mar the performance of this aircraft.
In achieving this, Supermarine engineers took on board results, made
available by the German designer Ernst Heinkel. While the Aérosalon
1932 took place in Paris, Mitchell wrote a letter to Heinkel with the
following question: "Was the skin of the aircraft exhibited in Paris
made of metal or was plywood used to cover the fuselage?" He also
showed an interest in British research about the He 70 with new English
aircraft engines: "We found to our consternation that despite its vast
dimensions your plane is markedly faster than our fighters."

The He70 first flew in December 1932, with a fixed undercarriage.

The He70 display was at the Paris Aerosalon of November 1933,
after the He70 prototypes had set various speed records in early 1933.

So there is a one year error yet this doesn't change the essential
points. The He 70 was on display well before the type 300 existed as
an elliptical winged paper plane since the type 300 didn't become
elliptical till september 1934 and was tapered (in specification)
before july 24th.

The other rather major error in the page is the arrival time of the He70
in Britain. The other point is the web site appears to be the only source
a web search gives for the letter.

By the way the Supermarine report on the He70 dates from the 1934
Paris aero salon. The He70 was presumably shown more than once.

The Supermarine report was very favourable.

The first Spitfire design *** using an elliptical wing was number
11 dated 11 September 1934. It was in fact a greater curve than
the final design.

Oh yes, since the letter states "we found" it implies it was written
after 1932, and after some British testing or else it was not the He70
in question, rather something like the mixed construction He59 which
first flew in early 1932.

Your tactic is to claim that because Mitchell didn't have an personal
opportunity for a close inspection that he also didn't have usefull
information about the aircraft.

No my point is to note the web site has a real problem with its structure,
given the letter implies UK testing of the He70, which did not happen
until 1935 occurring before the Spitfire first flew.

The mere fact that the He 70 it flew well and flew very fast is enough
to confirm the efficacy of elliptical wings and provide additional
confidence and arguments.

Eunometic then goes further and tries to link the Spitfire to the
German designs. No mention of the way a monoplane design
with retractable undercarriage helped speed for example, which
was the He70 configuration.

Think of it this way, the Germans needed to import a number of UK
aero engines in the 1930's thanks to falling slightly behind in this
area. Imagine someone spending all their time then telling us all
subsequent German engines came from these British ideas and
techniques.

By the way put a drawing of the He70 beside that if the Spitfire, the
He70 wingspan was 48 feet 6.5 inches with 393 square feet of
wing area. The Spitfire span was 36 feet 10.5 inches with 242
square feet of area.

After adjusting for scale note how much more curve there is in the
leading edge of the He70. Remember the Spitfire needed the extra
area in the outer wings for the extra armament.

Similar for the He112.

Check out the elliptical wings and tail on the early He111, like the
A to E models, first He111 flight in February 1935.

The F model introduced the wing design with the straight
leading edge.

And after this exchange a Rolls-Royce Representative did get in touch
with Heinkel in Warnemünde. He suggested the Germans to purchase
an He 70 in order to fit her with the new 810 h.p. Rolls-Royce engine
Kestrel V and offer her globally. There simply would be no faster plane
on earth.
Heinkel was not averse to this proposal and suggested a deal: a He 70
in exchange for the licensing rights of the Kestrel V. The London
Ministry of Aviation was soon in agreement, however the new rulers in
Berlin were not prepared to give their consent to this idea. This is
why Rolls Royce bought a Heinkel He 70, which reached a speed of
420km/h with the Kestrel engine.

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/g6nhy.uk/rolls.htm

"By the end of the first year, 1935 it was evident that with introduction
of new and more powerful engine coming along,the slow biplanes with
fixed undercarriage an the open cockpits,aircraft were becoming an
embarrassment so Rolls Royce started to look around for a more suitable
aircraft. To do this they had to go to Germany, where they found the
ideal
aircraft in the Heinkel He70. This was a very robust passenger carrying
all metal aircraft which the German firm carried out the conversion. The
aircraft was then flown back to Hucknall by Capt Sheperd on the 27th
March 1936."


The Spitfire first flew on 5 March 1936.

So the He 70 was on public display and commercially available for over
2.5 years, well before the design process for type 300 began and Rolls
Royce engineers and presumably the test pilot Capt Sheppard had been
crawling over the aircraft for some months to fit the Kesterel and its
cooling system prior to taking ownership of the aircraft and flying it
to the UK.

Ah yes, we have a problem here, the He70 did not arrive before the
Spitfire was first flown. Contradicting the favoured web site.

So now invent a presumably, crawling over the aircraft for months was he?

Presumably it is at least 6 months, given the date of the drawings of the
Spitfire wings.

With a direct line to Supermarine even though he was from Rolls Royce?

Lots of presumables here. No evidence.

The aircraft was checked over thoroughly by the Royal Aircraft
Establishment in Farnborough. And this is when Supermarine became
interested. The elliptical wing shape of the He-70 convinced even
Mitchell."

Rather hard to be interested if the checking out happened after the
Spitfire had flown. The He 70 arrived in England too late.

This nonsensical argument here is that Supermarine and Mitchell were
presumably so stupid they could gain value from the He 70 only by
inspecting it on English soil.

Anything but actually deal with the fact the web site's dates are wrong and
its conclusions are based on the wrong dates.

Going to address that? The claim is the British inspected their version of
the He70 after which the Spitfire was built.. This is the nonsense.

So you need to find another source to advance the claims for German
inspiration of the Spitfire.

Mitchell also traveled to Germany after his cancer operation to combine
the business of keeping track of German aviation development with the
convalescence ordered by his doctors.

Presumably this is the first operation in 1933, the second in July 1934,
or the third in March 1937? It was after the second operation Mitchell
did his tour of Germany. Meantime the wing design team were doing
the elliptical wing designs.

Elliptical lifting theory arose from the work of Prandl (as early as
1919).

Presumably yet again only the German contribution is being noted.

Cry me a river if you can't accept that a German could come up with
this.

No I just note yet again Eunometic highlights the German contributions.

You were also completely dismissive of Theodore von Karman until
you found out he was a part Hungarian Austrian Jew who ran the NACA
research program. (and designed the Junkers J1 wing)

Wrong. A clue about this is the failure to provide the text
showing it.

Prandl is considered the father of modern aerodynamics. There is no
quibble about this anywhere. Prandl's findings showed that for a
given span lift induced drag is minimised with an elliptical
distribution of lift and therefore an elliptical wing planform is
beneficial.

Yes he is a German hence the great advertisement.

This had been theory for a long time. It was not a discovery,
independent or otherwise, of Mitchell or the Gunter Brothers at
Heinkel.

So presumably Prandl will become the inspiration if Heinkel drops out.

Incidently due to Prandl's thick wing sections took over from the
supersonic like thin wings of WW1 fighter (on German aircraft only) as
a result of this and the ensuing superior performance the Fokker DVIII
had to be specifically surrendered as part of the Versailes treaty.

Yes folks, the Germans go off and become superior again.

Must be tough being that perfect. Or having to put up with
people trying to tell you that you are that perfect.

The Goettingen wing sections were used on the Sunderland, Stirling and
a wide variety of aircraft until the work of the NACA developed greater
prominence. Lanchester is also attributed the lifting theory but he
didn't do the elliptical optimisation and was ignored by his
countrymen.

Ah so there were others then?

Now for some basic facts, Mitchell used the elliptical wing shape in
his 6 engine flying boat design for the RAF submitted in July 1929
for specification 20/28.

Every man and his dog was producing elliptical wing sketches after
Prandl came up with the theory in 1919.. But that's generally all
they did; they didn't build them.

So no builds. Then Heinkel starts in a rather large way, the
He70, the He111, the He112 and the He116.

By the way check out pictures of the He116, a 4 engined aircraft,
a 72 foot elliptical wing span is quite impressive.

Prandl had developed and published the theory. It was the Gunther
Brothers who actually had one designed and built and proven.

So why not credit them with inspiring Mitchell? You have as
much evidence for this as the He70 story.

The high speed Spitfire wing section was
adopted in 1934 after B Shenstone's visit to the US where he
returned with the NACA 2200 airfoils details, his report dated May
1934.

The use of the NACA 4 digit airfoil and the date they were adopted is
irrelevant. They were simply well tested airfoils.

We are discussing the Spitfire wing but apparently its specifications
and dates of adoption are irrelevant.

If you want to write fiction that is.

In effect the new wing was the flying boat wing, including the spar
arrangement, the NACA airfoil, plus the wing incidence and dihedral
of the F7/30, the "original" type 224 Spitfire which had flown in
February 1934.

The F5/34 eight gun fighter specification had been issued after a
conference in July 1934 and discussions took place in July and
August about applying the 8 gun armament to the new monoplanes
under development, the Hurricane and Spitfire. The requirement for
8 guns settled the design of the Spitfire wing. Note the RAF had
apparently informally told Supermarine about the armament
requirement in April 1934.

See the book Spitfire by Morgan and Shacklady.

So, by your own dubiously presented numbers the sequence is:

Ah I see, no ideas whether the dates I have are right but when in doubt
assume they are wrong, if I claim German ancestry does that mean
when in doubt assume I am right?

A 1932 December Heinkel He 70 first flight
B 1932 (early say March) Heinkel He 70 breaks 8 world records.
C November 1933 the He 70 is on public display at the Aerosalon in
Paris.

Yes, but apparently Supermarine had to wait until next year's show
to receive a report.

(Presumably the aircraft is in commercial service by this time or
Publicity photos are available)

The type entered passenger service on 15 June 1934.

This was the depression, things were moving slowly.

The Luftwaffe started using He70s in 1934 as well.

E Feburary 1934 Type 224 flys and is found a disappointment. It is
apparently slower than the He 70.

Yes, the cooling system was a problem but the top speeds of the two
types were comparable.

F July 1934 the 8 gun specification is issued but clearly not
'compulsory'.

Given the way the air ministry were moving it was clear it was
effectively compulsory.

G July 26 1934 Supermatine Specification No.425a is issued for a
Tapered Planform Type 300.

16 July for Mitchells specification 425 ready to be presented to
the Air Ministry. Four machine guns, 2 in the fuselage and 2 in
the wing roots. It looks nothing much like the Spitfire.

By September 1934 the broad wing was present, but not
the curves.

H September 1934 Type 300 accepts an elliptical planform.

Not quite the designs were drawn up given the RAF interest in the
heavier armament.

J Heinkel He 112 flys with elliptical wings

The He112 was supposed to be a secret Luftwaffe fighter design.

It also flew for the first time in September 1935.

Rather hard to influence the design of the Spitfire.

K The Spitfire first flew on 5 March 1936.

Sometime after all of this the work begins on the type 300. Plenty of
time to take note of and be 'influenced' by the success of the
elliptical configuration of the He 70.

The type 300 was the Spitfire prototype and mark I. The mark II was
the type 329 as far as Supermarine were concerned.

So the plenty of time comes from what, assuming there was another
"Spitfire" around?

Simple really, Eunometic assumes, which means Germans are
right others are wrong or just copying.

And far from settling the argument over the elliptical wing the July
'8 gun' discusions did not immediately influence the Type 300 whose
design started out with a conventional tapered planform. Apart from
your accounts most accounts have the Air Ministry rejecting the
conventional planform in 1935 due to the unsatisfactory gun
arrangement.

The trouble was the formal acceptance of the wing design was
in December 1934. The armament was still 4 machine guns
but the point of the wing was to have room for 8.

The Me 262's
compressibility problems came from its pilots canopy. .

And thick wing, tail design etc etc

The Me 262 wing was considerably THINNER than that of the Spitfire at
all points so thus is 'Bollocks' as you so imprudently and
frequently say.

Irrelevant to flight in the Supersonic regime, the Me-262 wing
is TOO THICK for transonic flight - what part of this don't you
understand ?

No, it isn't too thick. Thickness of Me 262 wing is 11% and 9% (ie
average of 10%)

Simple enough, the limiting mach number for the Me262 was around
mach 0.86, the Spitfire around mach 0.82.

For a simpleton maybe.

Eunometic volunteers.

Wings sections aren't necessarily the
limitation. The Me 262 wing in itself is based on a modified NACA 5
digit series. It has a sharper leading edge, has the point of maximum
thickness further back than conventional subsonic wings (at 40% chord)
as befits a supersonic wing. The symetry ensures that pitch changes
due to mach tuck are more subdued and more easily compensated for with
tail trim. All supersonic aircraft suffer from mach tuck. The secret
is to to have the right combination of limited pressure shift on the
wing with sufficient trim authority. (the Me 262 had an all moving
electric tailplane for trim just like the Bell XS-1 )

Ah yes the latest claim, the Me262 had conventional elevators, as
did the original XS-1. The XS-1 replaced it with the all flying tail for
the supersonic flights.

So tell us all what exactly you are referring to this time. Given all
those pictures of Me262s with conventional tails.

The Me 262 issues came from issues such as the nacells, bulbous canopy
and component placement, tolerances etc.

And yet again the German design is advanced with claims made about it
for things it never did.

Bell X-1-1 is NACA 65-110 is a 10% wing section. This is hardly any
difference at all. In fact the Me 262 wing is thinner from the mid
section onwards.

So what exactly is the X-1-1, the X-1 (or XS-1), the X-1A, the X-1B,
the X-1C, the X-1D or the X-1E?

(snip)

The Me 262 wing, on a suitable aircraft, would be suitable for
supersonic flight. Put the Me 262 wing on the Bell X-1-1 and the
plane would more likely than not go supersonic without undesirable
pitch changes.

Since Eunometric's ideas and aerodynamics keep being shown to be
wrong.

You buffoon. You are generally incorrect or more rather delusional on
almost all technical points you attempt to make.

I like it when people bother to point out where Eunometic departs
from engineering reality.

Note rather than present the evidence here, we go off to another point,
Eunometic trawling the archives to find an error of mine.

This is becoming very funny.

For instance you do not realise that for a propeller powered aircraft
that power demand goes up with the cube of velocity while for a jet the
thrust demand only goes up by the square. Here you are Message-ID:
<440fd628$0$14555$5a62ac22@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
smugly prancing about like Basil Fawlty thinking that you have scored a
point.

Message-ID:
<440fd628$0$14555$5a62ac22@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Eunometic Wrote> The Ar 234C needed only a 1.03^2 = 6% increases in
thrust, something
Eunometic Wrote> that could occur due to good atmospheric conditions or
well tuned
Eunometic Wrote> engines.

Sinclair Wrote> 1.03 cubed comes to 1.09.
Sinclair Wrote> Now to move 20 mph faster than 530 mph is an increase
of around 3.8%
Sinclair Wrote> To move 43 mph faster than 507 mph is an extra 8.5%.

The exchange from my records,

Can you see how individual Arado 234s in the right
conditions might actually get there? It would take a 1.27^3 = 95%
increase in power for the XP-55 Ascender to achieve that or an
substantial increase in altitude with the same power.

1.27 cubed comes to 2.05.

The Ar 234C needed only a 1.03^2 = 6% increases in thrust, something
that could occur due to good atmospheric conditions or well tuned
engines.

1.03 cubed comes to 1.09.

Now to move 20 mph faster than 530 mph is an increase of around 3.8%
To move 43 mph faster than 507 mph is an extra 8.5%.

Want to explain the above calculations?

There was no reply at the time, apparently it was being kept in reserve
for when needed, like now.

I think being cautious about the above claim is a good idea.
Yet again the idea seems to be a German design is credited with great
things that it never did.

Sour grapes are in your nature.

Eunometic writes silly histories about wonder Germans and wonders
why so many people are laughing.

The entire German swept wing program was heading towards a supersonic
attempt the P.1101 apart from being a prototype for a fighter was also
a test bed for the "A wing" and the P.1112 which had achieved
wooden mockup stage.

And they did not make it, reliable high thrust engines were needed
as well, along with time and lots of experiments with real aircraft.

It is clear that ALL of the basic technical details required for
supersonic flight had been developed.

In Eunometic's opinion. Others disagree, for example the all flying tail.

Wing sweep, aerodymanic twist, slats, leading edge flaps, fences,
crescent wings

Live with it.

And there is a major gap between the laboratories and the few minor
tests the Germans were able to do and the reality of sustained, reliable
supersonic flight.

The Germans contributed to it, as did others.

Live with it.

(snip)

The perfection of slats was
a German specialty most particularly a Messerschmitt specialty
despite
their Handley Page origins.

And yet the Me-109 had worse low speed handling characteristics
than the Spitfire or Hurricane !

The Me 109 had BETTER low speed handling than the Spitfire. The
Spifire despite its pre stall buffet warning of incipient stall had a
nasty spin that came quickly and had a tendency to dip a wing and spin.
The Me 109 stall was mild and gentle with no tendency to spin with
straightforward recovery. You confuse good handling with a tighter
turning circle.

No, actually Keith is reporting things accurately and Eunometic is
doing the fiction writing.

It is you who are weaving in the Spitfire stall when manouvering and
when it is in landing configuration as it suits you.

No I made it clear what I was doing.

The Me 109 had its slats re-engineered from the 109F onward to
eliminate slat snatching.

And Eric Brown reports the problem in the Bf109G.

Even then the recently restored Me 109E-4 revealed no airleron
snatching.

At 90 mph in landing configuration, care to mention that part?

For example, on the Spitfire, "Although a wing could be raised when
close to the stall, eventually there was a tendency for the aircraft to
take over, and although this was rather disconcerting for the pilot at
no time did a spin result." Straight stall was normal with no snatch.
With its effective elevator control it was not necessary to pull the
stick right back to achieve a stall. When the aircraft was in a fully
developed stall glide it wallowed from side to side and there was
some elevator snatch, lowering the flaps and undercarriage fixed this.

1 the Me 109 had a mild stall. Nothing has changed.

note the whole point is to claim the Bf109 had a better stall and
low speed handling.

2 If the spifire was manouvering hard its tendancy to drop a wing lead
to a tendancy to spin.

Note by the way we are now moving from comparing like with like, we
are now using a Spitfire under hard manoeuvring.

Yes folks, the Bf109 being treated gently versus the Spitfire being
treated harshly is apparently the only way the Bf109 can look good.

Sad isn't it. Messerschmitt deserves better, despite his company
employing slave labour.

If you wanted a Spitfire to behave badly you put it into a spin from
a stalled turn.

With the Bf109 it had a tendency to suddenly drop the left wing by
about 10 degrees just above the stall, leading to a left hand spiral.
There was also aileron buffet. "If the stick was pulled further back
at the stall, the ailerons and rudder were still slightly effective, but
the aileron buffeting and lateral unsteadiness was of such violent
proportions that a sustained stalled glide was impossible." Like
the Spitfire the normal stall didØ not result in a spin.

So what is the difference between the 109 'droping a wing' and a
Spitfire 'raising a wing'. Essentially nothing.

You see here I am comparing the two in standard stalls.

Eunometic uses the standard Bf109 stall versus the worst he
can find or imply for a Spitfire.

Simple really. Apparently Eunometic believes the Bf109 is that
bad it needs this sort of comparison.

The RAE report concluded the flying qualities of the Bf109E were
generally inferior to the Hurricane I and Spitfire I at all speeds and
in all conditions of flight.

"Generally". As I pointed out the 109F slats and wing were
re-engineered to eliminate the problem while the G series was
re-engineered with slats on rails instead of swing arms. The Spitfire
'generally' had inferior flying qualities to the Hurricane.

Having been caught with an inferior design Eunometic reaches
for another, and does not for example bother to compare the
contemporary Spitfire.

Oh yes, Eric Brown reported the slats problems in the Bf109G.

By the way no contradiction of the all speeds and all conditions points
of the RAF report.

As noted by many pilots the Spitfire was usually easier to handle than
the Bf109.

The Me 109 did have a nasty habit of ground looping when its tail
touched down. This was predominantly caused by the airflow separating
over one wing first due to the circulation of the propeller slipstream
when in the tail sitting position which was at around 13 degrees. In
the Me 109K and some Me 109G-10 the tail wheel yoke was extended so
that the ground sitting angle was reduced to 11.5 degrees. This got
rid of most of the problem.
There was still an issue caused by a swing upon takeoff and landing
caused by gyroscopic precesion that was accentuated by an unfortunate
placement of the undercarriage but this was secondary to the above.

It was noted when the Bf109 took off in a cross wind it tended to
weather ***. And without a rudder trim some right rudder needed
to be held at take off and left rudder at high speed.

Latter 109's had a fletner tab on the rudder.

By the way now we are in 1944, the new larger tail fitted to more and
more Bf109s as the year went on but not all.

Relying on early
"Hurricane Era" Me 109E1 assesments based on a Beaten up French
aircraft is pointless or shall we refer to fabric aileroned Spifires?

Amazingly I compare contemporaries and Eunometic runs to 1944 for
the new better Bf109.

By the way the RAF tested a Bf109E-3, ex JG54, RAF serial AE479.

And of course beaten up is added in the hope it can be used to
downgrade the test results.

No Spitfire etc was ever put back in the air after a minor crash it
seems, nor Bf109, with anything like normal performance.

Both problems probably would have been eliminated by a contra rotating
prop.

And there was how much chance of that happening?

Incidently the Fw 190 had a better and milder stall than the Spitfire
with plenty of aileron shake as a pre stall warning in landing
condition.

No, the Fw190 stall came on suddenly with little warning with the
port wing dropping so much the aircraft nearly inverted.

Bull

My information is quite correct.

In landing configuration or modest manouvering the Fw 190s impending
stall was announced by aileron shudder: if the warnings were ignored
the aircraft would produce a very mild stall that was easy to handle.

Now we go off to the Fw190 stall in landing configuration which was
the way to obtain a milder stall, but the Spitfire still came in ahead.

Unless we have another one of those comparisons above, landing
configuration versus harsh handling.

The Fw 190 also had well harmonised controls: it was light and easy to
handle and manouver with no adverse yaw.

No one is disputing it had god controls.

The Fw 190 like the Spitfire had about 2 degrees of washout at the
tips: however it also had twin spars and thus the wing was torsionaly
much stiffer and the Fw 190 had a much higher roll rate.

And its stall characteristics were inferior to the Spitfire.

Its roll characteristics were superior, at least until the Spitfire XXI of
1944, if I was to use the Eunometic tactic of ranging through time
to find "better".

Silly, isn't it?

In landing condition, gear and flaps down, there was much more
warning.

The Spitfire stall was much better signalled and milder.

Quote from Mark Hanna who recently flew Spanish 109G.

You know we are discussing the Fw190 and we receive the Bf109G
report. Sort of shows the problem with the Fw190 claim.

The roll rate is very good and very positive below about 400 km/h, and
the amount of effort needed to produce the relevant nose movement seems
exactly right.

And all pilots agree at such low speeds (250 mph) the controls
worked quite well. The trouble started above that as far as effort
to make control movements were concerned

As the stall is reached, the leading-edge slats
deploy-together, if the ball is in the middle; slightly asymmetrically,
if you have any slip on. The aircraft delights in being pulled into
hard maneuvering turns at these slower speeds. As the slats pop out,
you feel a slight "notching" on the stick, and you can pull more until
the whole airframe is buffeting quite hard. A little more and you will
drop a wing, but you have to be crass to do it unintentionally.

- Unquote

Fine, now go look at the reports on stalling characteristics for the
Bf109. By the way "these slower speeds" can refer to stalling or
400 km/hr. The way to reconcile the two sets of reports is to
assume the 400 km/hr and the stall in a tight turn.

The F and later 109's did not suffer from the aileron snatch problem
when the slats opened, unlike the 109E models. The wing and aileron
design on the later 109's was specifically modified during the
re-design to eliminate this problem. Some late model K and G had a
shaft to eliminate differential slat operation as well.

So the wing was redesigned to eliminate the problem but the slats
were later designed to eliminate a problem you say was eliminated
by the wing redesign?

And again note the reports of aileron snatching in the Bf109G.

It was only under harsh manouvering that the Fw 190 had an
aggressive stall (again it did provide some aileron shudder as a
warning).

Try little warning and a tendency to spin.

No the Fw 190 had one loop with a straightforward and rather easy
recovery.

No.

I know this is silly, but who exactly is being quoted below?

"Since February the pilots of I and II Gruppen had been rotating back
to the Homeland in small batches for conversion on to the Fw 190A. The
'Forke', or 'Pitchfork', as we christened it, was a much more robust
bruiser of a fighter than the Me 109G. It was powered by a 1,700 hp BMW
radial engine and was armed with two 20-mm cannon in the wing-roots,
plus two fuselage-mounted 12.7-mm machine guns. It possessed a sturdy,
wide-track undercarriage and, despite its more
powerful engine, displayed none of the Me 109's tendencies to swing on
take-off. Set high on the fuselage, the cockpit offered excellent
visibility to the rear. Unlike the Me 109, the canopy was not hinged at
the side, but rearward-sliding. Normally operated by hand-crank, it
could be jettisoned by explosive cartridge in cases of emergency.

The Fw 190's performance and flying characteristics were equally
impressive. In a dive it could exceed 700 km/h. (IAS). It was highly
responsive around all axes, could be reefed into a tight turn, and gave
its pilot ample warning of a stall by sharp, jerky aileron movements.

In the landing configuration, correct. There was much less warning
in the non landing configuration.

If these were ignored, the machine would automatically go into a flick
half roll, losing height and turning through 180 degrees in less time
than it takes to describe here. This manoeuvre was virtually impossible
for another pilot to follow. If you were in a dogfight, and had
sufficient altitude, it was a sure way of getting an opponent off your
tail. This 'built-in' escape tactic was the saving of many a Forke
pilot who found himself in extremis. "

As noted by the RAF pilot whose job it was to fly an Fw190 around
to show it off, including putting on displays for AA guns and
mock dogfights,

When landing, "If you held off too high the stall, when it came, was very
sudden and it would literally fall out of your hands." The Spitfire was
docile in comparison. Also "Some of the mock combats seemed
very realistic to me. It was during one of those that the 190 showed its
teeth when, without warning, it flicked off a tight turn into an inverted
spin. Recovery was straightforward but it took about 3-4,000 feet of
altitude."

"We saw Heino and his Schwarm wade straight into the leading squadron
of
bombers with all guns blazing. Suddenly there was a huge fireball in
the sky.
One of the enemy had exploded. Then it was our turn. We had not been
able
to get back up to the bombers' altitude in time. With my wingmen
tucked in close on either side of me we attacked the formation from
below, pouring our fire into their silver bellies.

As we broke through above them we became aware of condensation
trails lancing down towards us. In bunches of four, these could only be
the bombers' top cover fighter escorts. Within seconds I had four, then
eight, and finally twelve Mustangs sitting on my tail. But while I was
flying close above the stream they were unable to open fire on me for
fear of hitting their own bombers. This dubious sanctuary did not last
long. The high combined closing speed which had protected us during
our frontal assault on the bombers now worked against me and I soon
found myself hurtling past the last squadron in the formation and out
into clear sky beyond.

I immediately began to yo-yo; turning steeply, diving and climbing,
cJimbing and diving. My pursuers didn't seem to know what to make of
my Russian front aerobatics. They clung on grimly behind me, but
couldn't hold me in their sights long enough to get in an effective
burst. I spied a welcome bank of cumulus ahead of me and slightly below.
After three more complete circles I was directly above one of the
larger clouds.

I YANKED THE STICK TO THE LEFT BACK INTO MY BELLY AND TROD HARD ON FULL
RIGHT RUDDER. MY MACHINE SPUN DOWN INTO THE CLOUD.
IN MY TEMPORARY HAVEN I LET GO OF THE CONTROLS. THE TRUSTY FORKE AT
ONCE RIGHTED ITSELF AND I SHOT OUT FROM THE BOTTOM OF THE CLOUD INTO
SUNLIGHT AGAIN. Where were the Mustangs? I looked up and saw them
circling the cloud-top above me. I put my nose down and got out of
there fast."

Fw 190 spin recovery was so easy it was practised as a standard escape
tactic.

By the way Clive Caldwell, RAAF, when in real trouble, put everything into
one corner, losing control is a rather last resort tactic for obvious
reasons.

As the above report shows.

Spin in the P-51D under conbat conditions was not an escape but a death
sentence.

The P-51 is a non German aircraft, therefore it is bad. The actual
characteristics are of course better than Eunometic wants them to be.

But then that is the point, use the Spitfire stall behaviour from
"harsh manoeuvring" and the Fw190 stall in landing configuration
to compare the two, rather than like with like.

However unlike the equaly harsh P-51 stall the Fw 190
recovered in only one loop instead of 5 or 6.

I presume this is one turn of a spin.

The P-51 stall had little warning and no tendency to spin.
Interestingly the P-51 stall in landing condition was worse,
with the right wing and nose dropping, it could, on occasion,
end up in a spin. And it will be no surprise to note 5 or 6 turns
was the normal maximum P-51 spin, not the automatic result from
a stall in landing configuration.

You really need to differentiate between stalling in the landing
configuration or stalling in hard manouvering.

I noted the above were standard stall and landing stall.

http://home.nycap.rr.com/airwarrior/P51.html

This is an aircraft that must stay fast to be effective. The P-51 has
vicious departure behavior, difficult spin recovery, and a terrible low
speed turn rate. The Mustang also resists half loops at speeds below
225 knots. Mustangs have a nasty tendency to enter accelerated stalls
and uncontrolled spins with little warning. In addition to the standard
stick forward/opposite rudder technique to recover from an uncontrolled
spin, you'll also have to reduce throttle sharply.

This is the end of the above quote, from one of the air war games sites
it seems.

Meantime when rating the Mustang during WWII the 25 pilots polled
decided good stall recovery 17, fair 7 and poor 1.

Power on spins were considered dangerous.

By the way is it worthwhile mentioning here Hans Werner Lerche,
a Luftwaffe test pilot who had his P-51 trick when flying a captured
version, take off with only a little fuel, retract the undercarriage and
flaps immediately and fly a full circle close to the ground, to show
"Its agility"? He notes handling characteristics deteriorated as the
fuel tanks were filled, including being able to stall it in a steep turn
even at full throttle.

The Fw 190 like the Spitfire and Mustang had about 2 degrees washout
towards the tip.

Spitfire washout at the tip? You mean the wings were designed so
the inner wing stalled first, allowing aileron control for a little longer.

The Spitfire wing incidence is +2 degrees at the root and minus 0.5
degrees at the tip. The reports are the system worked better in the
Spitfire, giving more stall warning.

However the twin spars of the Fw 190 that gave it
such torsionally stiff wings and a supreme roll rate also had a side
effect: under harsh manouvering the wing tips would twist into reduced
washout and this would promote a more sudden stall. (It was however no
without warning). As soon as the stall occurred the stresses would be
instantly relieved that the aeroplanes otherwise excellent
characteristics would ensure a quick recovery.

Simply put the Fw190 had less stall warning than the Spitfire, this was
noted by those who flew both types.

But yet again we are not comparing like with like, the P-51 normal
stall was better than the Fw190, but the P-51 stall in landing

The P-51's stall under manouvering was followed by a devastating spin
that involved the nose pointing up 180 degrees followed by nose down
180 degrees tyrpically several times. It was the subject of several
NACA reports. Its poor spin characteristics relate to fundemental
aerodynamic properties (probably the center of pressure of the flat
fueselage) not aeroelastic properties that were relieved after the
spin. The P-51 strength from the P51C onward related to its enormous
speed and excellent roll rate (only at speed) due to internal
aerodynamic balance tabs and nothing else sich as turn rate. It's
speed is related not to its laminar flow wing but the inherent
resistence to compressabillity of that wing which while not ensuring
lower cruise drag did provide lower high speed drag at speeds above
400mph this combined with its great thickness and thus fuel carry
capacity and the way the aerodymanic aileron balance panels worked so
well at speed.

Don't stall or spin in a P-51 unless you have 10000 feet to recover.

As usual an exaggeration.

configuration was worse. The Spitfire being better than both in
both conditions, including giving more warning.

The Stall was so aggressive but so easy to recover from that it
was a standard manouver used by Fw 190 pilots to escape as no
other aircraft could follow it.

As opposed to being in a stalled condition near a number of enemy
aircraft. Nice idea. Try lots of Fw190 pilots ended up in the
condition because the stall came on them too quickly.

Note.
1 The Fw-190 stall was well announced by aileron buffet.

No.

2 The stall in the 190 was aggressive unlike in the 109 or Sptifire

Yes.

3 Recovery was however easy to accomplish in ½ spin.

If the Eunometic approved sites are to be believed, see the RAF
report.

4 The process was predictable and tactically very usefull and often
used.

No, predictable was the problem and tactically useful in the example
given is last desperate way to escape.

The P-51D, whatever its stall warning was, did not recover well at all.
It was downright dangerous in effect.

Yes we know it is an American aircraft, therefore Eunometic will
discount it.

Those slats had a habit of automatically
deploying in tight turns which didn't do much for the pilots gunnery

The only reference to this is a British report based on one captured
aircraft. I've never heard of it being a problem to real combat
pilots flying aircraft in good condition. Later Me 109s had a shaft
interconnection between port and starboard slats to suppress
differential slat operation.

You would think the fact a modification was made would be a clue
there was a problem.

The slats improved handling.

At a cost when they deployedØ asymmetrically.

They didn't deply asymetrically unless they needed to; at least from
the F series onwards.

Tell that to the test pilot on the Bf109G.

Things like them tripping in slipstreams.

Experimental Me 109s that used washout instead of outboard leading
edge slats to eliminate premature tip stall had worse handling than
slated aircraft.

The slats are supposed to help at low speed, that is why they were
used.

They were used to reduce wing area, wing weight and therefore induced
drag. They worked at all speeds.

Ah the slats did not work at all speeds, the wing was smaller because
of the slats.

No doubt you'll claim this was pure luck

Eunometic claims luck when the allies do it and skill when the
Germans do it. The other claim is the Germans improve other
people's inventions, but other people simply copy German
inventions. This is done with "evidence" like the careful
selection of stall stories above.

You can check out the book Flying to the Limit by Peter Caygill
for reports on the performance of 19 WWII single engined fighters,
7 British, 2 German and 10 American. America's Hundred Thousand
alsoØ covers P-51 handling.

Mark Hanna comment on 109..
"I like it as an aeroplane, and with familiarity I think it will give
most of the allied fighters I have flown a hard time, particularly in a
close, hard turning, slow speed dog-fight. It will definitely
out-maneuver a P-51 in this type of flight, the roll rate and slow
speed characteristics being much better. "

So far we jump to the best part of the Bf109 envelope, the slow speed
part, when compared to the P-51.

Only Two German fighters? For the Me 109 there was the Me 109E, 109F,
109G-6. 109G-10, 109G-14 and 109K which all had quite different
handling characteistics . For the G series the handling varied
depending on when they were made and whether they were made by
Messerschmitt, WNF or Erla. As well as the type of engine DB603 A, AS,
AM, ASM, D. The E and F/G had radically different wings and slats, the
G had different slats again. (on rails instead of arms).

My but we have someone desperate to discredit a book.

The Bf109 E and G are discussed. Along with the Fw190A and
passing reference to the effects the bomb racks on handling in
the Fw190G. The RAF had a steady supply of Fw190s, the most
impressive catch was on 16/17 April 1943 no less than 3 Fw190As
became lost and landed at Manston.

So let me understand this correctly Eunometic is trying to tell us
all about how good the Bf109 handling was and then tells us it
varied according to manufacturer even time of building. For the
same model?

I trust the various Spitfires will in future be carefully designated
given the difference between a mark I and an F.47.

For the Fw 190 the A and D had different handling characteristic: the D
series had a tighter turning circle due to greater power at altitude.
Likewise the Me 109 variants. In general only the Spifire had a
significantly better turning circle than any of the German aircraft
apart from the P-38.

David Ledicner "World War 2 Figher Aerodynamics"

Ah yes, Eunometic has been trying to run the line before that the Bf109
could out turn the Spitfire, here the quote about the Fw190D model is
important so that claim is ignored.

I hope, given this enthusiasm for exact model numbers, Eunometic
will be quoting the mark of Spitfire etc being discussed.

By the way what does this show about the low speed handling and
stalls?

Even the A series could vary radically it could outrun a P-51 at sea
level

http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=2021

The Merlin P-51 was rated at between 350 to 370 mph at sea level, clean

The Fw190A-8 was rated at 355 mph at sea level, clean

Apparently one Fw190, out ran some Mustangs at "on the deck"
over land is the claim, in December 1944. Using MW50 boost.
Given the above it is possible, or at least being able to stay at
range.

The ad for a picture of the encounter does not back the claim of out
running, only shooting down 1 Mustang and escaping. It would be
one of around 5 the USAAF lost that day.

The claim is good for the Germans, therefore Eunometic approves
and publicises it.

Geoffrey Sinclair
Remove the nb for email.


.

Quantcast