Re: Me Bf 109 Question for Gordon???

Keeping those jokes coming it seems.

<eunometic@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:3f8573d2-6a38-4f33-8d12-f8c41b292842@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Sep 22, 2:51 am, guy <guyswetten...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

I don't know abut the '109 but the prototype Hurricane had a
retractable tail wheel, however it was found that with it locked down
the spin characteristics were greatly improved - maybe a similar thing?

The improvement of the spin characteristics was the result of a
ventral spine fitted from the 61st production example onwards,
plus 7 inch extension downwards of the rudder. Without the
spine the lower half of the rudder was unable to contribute to
spin recovery.

The tailwheel was made fixed in production examples.

The Me 109 certainly received increases in vertical fin area (just as
the Spitfire did) with the latter tall wooden fins being quite stark.

As far as I am aware the Bf109 tail and rudder remained the same area
from the A to E models. The F model decreased the rudder area, the
G kept the F tail and in 1944 the G, as an option, and the K, as
standard, were fitted with larger tails. There was a steady increase in
installed power from the A to K models.

However the Me 109 had outstanding and very easy spin recovery
courtesy of the automatic slats and a relatively long tail momment
arm. The tail seems to have been enlarged so as to provide enough
authority to overcome the torque effects of the increasingly powerfull
engines especially during takeoff and landing.

The above is for the Eunometic 109, reduce the qualities to end
up with the Messerschmitt 109. There was no steady increase in
Bf109 tail area as an indicator.

Basically tail moment is the distance between the centres of lift for the
main wings and the tailplane. The bigger this is the smaller the tail
can be, but of course you pay for it in the weight and friction costs
of the extra fuselage. The other thing that comes into play is the
size of the tail.

The distance between the (mid) wings and tailplane of the P-51 is about
50% of the overall length, the Spitfire and Bf109 are closer to 60%.

The P-51 had a smaller tail plane and elevators than the Spitfire VIII,
the same rudder area as the broad chord rudder but about twice the
vertical fin area.

Though the 109 has a bit of a reputation for difficult takeoff and
landing characteristics (ameliorated by the extended tail yoke which
is seldom seen in survivor airframes) in the air it was another
matter.

Mainly because the extended tail yoke was not a majority fit,
and only appeared in 1944. The Messerschmitt reputation for
weak undercarriage was obvious in the Bf109, plus of course
the narrow track and the visibility problems.

Ah another Eunometic 109 versus Eunometic Spitfire moment
coming up.

Impending low speed and high speed stalls were annuciated by
buffet and when the stall came there was no tendancy to flip onto its
back like Spitfres, Mustangs and Fw 190.

Ah, the Eunometic 109 has better stalling characteristics than the
Messerschmitt one, the Eunometic allied types have worse than
the Supermarine and North American types.

Basically the Spitfire low speed stall was rated better than the
Bf109. So by the looks of it was the high speed one.

I will also quote Dudley Henriques,

"There was and is absolutely nothing inferior about the stall and spin
characteristics of the P51D. In discussing this issue, one has to be
quite specific about the use of power both pre-stall entry and post
stall.

The Mustang power OFF, stalls normally both at 1g and accelerated,
and the spin if allowed to develop is also quite normal through post
stall, incipient, fully developed auto-rotation and through recovery.

POWER ON however, is quite another story as relates to departure,
spin, and recovery. Fuel load in the fuselage tank if installed can
cause severe cg issues, and ANY power carried through post stall into
spin can result in a non recovery in some instances.

The main point I'm making here is that it isn't correct to say the 51
has inferior stall/spin characteristics without specifically stating
these differences.

I've done stalls of every kind in the Mustang, and power off spins as
well and I rate the airplane if flown correctly as normal in this area
in every respect.

Dudley Henriques"

A spin was easily
recovered. During the BoB RAF evaluation pilots noted that Spitfires
were being out turned by Bf 109 because inexperienced Spitfire pilots
didn't sense the limits of their aircraft and feared the consequences
of a stall: which in a Spitifire meant a likely flip to inversion. An
Bf 109 just mushed forward and you lowered the nose to recover.

In case people are wondering Eunometic is comparing the low speed
stall of the Bf109 to the high speed one of the Spitfire, high speed
stalls are where the worst behaviour occurs, and choosing the worst
of the high speed stall results as well.

And of course inexperienced pilots are the ones unsure about the
aircraft limits.

I'm of the school that attributes the reputation of the Spitfire for
superior manouverabillity more to the superior power advantages
provided by 100/130 octane fuel.

In case people are wondering the school is a small isolated one
closer to a 1 pupil version, than a major metropolitan version.

You had 1260hp Spitifres fighting
1100hp Bf 109E3 which is a 15% advantage.

Note this sort of advantage for the Bf109K versus P-51D is
wiped away when Eunometic does that comparison.

In case people are wondering the higher Octane rating gives
more horsepower at lower altitude.

Merlin II power, 100 Octane, 1,160 Hp at 9,000 feet, 1,030
HP at 16,250 feet.

In a test, using 100 octane at ground level Merlin II, 100 Octane
1,320 HP, engine life 10 hours, or 20 with stronger blocks.

The Merlin XII fitted to the Spitfire II, 100 Octane fuel, was
rated as 1,175 HP for take off, 1,050 HP at 13,000 feet.

The DB601A was rated at 1,175 HP at take off.

Eunometic needs to simply alter the facts.

Early in the battle the Bf109 had the advantage of constant
speed propellers, the RAF fighters caught up during the battle.

That's not to say the
sptifre wing didn't have superior turning characteristics, its simply
to say they were not significant without the extra power.

Firstly the power claims are wrong, secondly the rules are changed
when comparing the Spitfire I to the Bf109E versus the P-51D
versus the Bf109K.

Geoffrey Sinclair
Remove the nb for email.


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: P-51 Mustang Bad Tail-Swing vs Spitfire???
    ... So the idea is through all the versions of the Spitfire, ... By the way I have come to the conclusion "tail moment arm" is the ... to the accelerated stall and tends to be voiced by the modern pilots. ... Eunometicis choosing the worst result. ...
    (rec.aviation.military)
  • Re: P-51 Mustang Bad Tail-Swing vs Spitfire???
    ... So the idea is through all the versions of the Spitfire, ... to the accelerated stall and tends to be voiced by the modern pilots. ... The Wings used on the Spitfire was a quite old, by ww2 standards, ... must have had a long tail momment arm. ...
    (rec.aviation.military)
  • Re: P-51 Mustang Bad Tail-Swing vs Spitfire???
    ... Yet that problem is barely noticeable in the British Spitfire. ... A snap role could lead to tail breaking off. ... Elliptical wings have inferior stall ... Spitfire they increased the tail fin area of the Mk.XIII to compensate ...
    (rec.aviation.military)
  • Re: Aircraft Proposed for the Graf Zeppelin Carrier
    ... > The Me 109 aircraft already had a benign stall without any tendency to ... > dip or spin (unlike the spitfire) ...
    (rec.aviation.military)
  • Re: P-51 Mustang Bad Tail-Swing vs Spitfire???
    ... So the idea is through all the versions of the Spitfire, ... Spitfire had a long tail moment arm just like the P-51 did not have ... given the Spitfire wing was deliberately designed so the ...
    (rec.aviation.military)
Loading