Corsair vs. BF 109G,K or FW 190's (1 Viewer)

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Hi Bill ! 8)

Thoughtful questions - here is what I know and what I believe to be true

The Mustang III in the Test was the 8 March 1944 Test and a.) did not have the aileron seals that were first incorporated in the P51B-10, and b.) did have the 1650-3 Engine that not only had slightly less horsepower than the -7 at War Emergency settings (1600@67" vs 1720@67" but also less power at war emergency high blower at 23,000 (1330@67" vs 1505@19,300ft). Having said this the -3 had MORE hp at 25,800 feet [

The aileron seals significantly reduced control forces in turns and were incorporated in all D and H models. The power settings for the -7 were better than the -3 from SL to approximately 23,000 feet - thereafter the -3 was superior to the -7

Net the P-51D had a 7 1/2 percent increase in power with 110 fuel (the 150 added significan power and boost to this equation) with less than 3% increase in Gross and approx 8% weight over empty weight from B to D version.

I am still researching the wing of the D but believe there was a slight increase in thickness of the NACA airfoil to accomodate the upright guns. This is not yet established fact on my part. I KNOW the first laminar flow dimensions for P-51A were 15% thickness at CL Root Chord/11.4% at the tip I KNOW the D was 16.5%/11.5% respectively - but I don't know whether the B wing was A or B/C/D same except leading edge at fuselage.

That`s some pretty cool info in the wing profile. :idea:

Any specific figures from US etc. testing on the Merlin powered Mustang`s turn time, radius or something like that? I was looking for such data and while ago about USAAF fighters - it turned up nothing specific, unfortunately. :(

The third wild card in this discussion is the combination low drag in the overall airframe combined with incremental thrust obtained by the unique radiator design expelling hot air via the duct.

I don`t think we have much of a difference between the two fighters, actually. If we can believe the drag data, both fighters had very similiar, equiv. of ca. 4 sq. feet plate`s drag - the power/speed requirements underline this.. Same for the radiator design, it`s very similiar basically, even though the Mustang`s is a more aerodynamic execution. In the end, both planes reached about the same speed with the same power, so there`s not much in it.

Well if my figures are right for the 109G-6 it had a wing area of 16.02 M>2=172.44 feet>2 (?), an empty weight of 5908 pounds and gross of 7054 which would yield Wing loadings of 34.26 (empty) and 45.85 (max) versus the P-51D of 32.38 empty and 49.2 (max). The weight of a 51 over Berlin would be closer to 9600 for a max WL of 40.7 and less on the way back

The wing area is 16.05 m2 indeed, the weight of the G-6 is somewhat controversial. One GLC datasheet published in a secondary source tells it`s 3196 kg, but I presume it some special variant and a case of 'lost in translation'. It`s rather illogical given the G-2`s weight of 3037kg, from which the G-6 did not differ much (the 13mm MGs+ammo overall added 40 kg) - unless by 1944 considerable extra equipment in the order of 100kg was added, or we speak of a /U4 variant and again a case of LiT. In any case, datasheets give the weigth of the G-6 as 3100kg, a logical figure while another for the G-6/trop (containing some 50 kg of tropical equipment!) as 3148 kg.

The WL, while important, aren't by themselves the only factor, and the WL of a -14 and the K-4 were less than the G-6 empty and higher loaded... so some physics may lead you to look at the 51 having drained a lot of fuel and a 109 the same condition - then look at control forces between the two at high and medium speeds and altitudes to see a probable favorable condition for the 51 in that arena? (>15,000-20,000) but less than 32,000 in case of G-14?

I think it all boils down to variant. The G-14 (not the /AS model) is essentially a low-medium altitude variant, the K-4 is high altitude fighter with a lot more power at altitude. though, especially at high altitude, I don`t think control forces would mean anything - correct me if I am wrong, but high altitude flying technically slow-speed flight at low IAS numbers, with the added problem of most engines loosing power above rated altitude? And low-speed dogfight and controllability is something the 109 definietely excelled in.

At the end of the day one can judge based on personal anecdotes, published tests, ratios in combat, etc. but the questions of tests still lends more weight if they are fair.

Absolutely agree, in fact, I absolutely favour controlled tests over any anecdote..

I definitely agree.... but the alternative to the conclusions is yet another un-produced set of compariative date to refute the conclusions?
...
I submit that the Brits weren't trying to put a snow job on their bosses if they found serious deficiencies in the Mustang vs Fw190 0r me 109?

I don`t think it`s intentional, I think they tested what enemy equipment they had in more or less working order. OTOH, if you read the other AFDU 109G test, for example vs the Tempest, it says the pilots of the 109G are 'emberassed by the opening of the slats' in turns - ie. they weren`t pushing the unfamiliar aircraft to it`s true limits in turns. This is reinforced by the fact that if you look at the 190/109/51 result in turns, it says :

the 51 turns better then the 109
the 51 turns about as well as the 190
which means that logically the 190 should outturn the 109... and as per the 3 German tactical evaluations we know, the Soviet etc. testing, and even by simply common sense, this was not the case. All of it points towards the results are caused by British pilots not pressing the aircraft hard enough in turns, this is somewhat of a returning topos with British test, their test pilots backing off from turn ASA the slats are opening, leaving the party when it just gets started.

I suspect without proof that many parts, including engines may have been obtained from different sources - no proof by the way but there were quite a few 109s down in USSR, Africa, Italy, UK and being flown by Swiss. I Speculate that spares could be obtained and doubt there was any fuel issue or spark plugs etc deficiency to perform tests with a relaiable engine?

Maybe - do you have the complete original papers (not just the test themselves, but attached plane operation diaries, requests etc.) of these tactical trials? I am just working transcribing the papers regarding the 109F-2 tested in the UK, those papers shed light on lot of the background maintaince work and mechanical state of the aircraft, and also valuable pilot comments before they`re squeezed into (and perhaps, made a bit more PC..) the summary report.

As for the 109G-2/trop tested, I have some of the papers from the 1990s issued by modern authorities to declare the aircraft airworthy; these include the operational/mechanical history of Black Six, and it notes several of the original damages the aircraft sustained in air combat in late 1942 before it was captured, still present (splinter marks on airscrew, for example). So, I have reason to believe the aircraft was just patched to be airworthy. Similiarly, there`s a fraction of a German tact. trial on a P-51B somewhere, and it notes some supercharger troubles, 2nd stage simply not working IIRC.


What was the G-10 flown to UK in June/July timeframe?

G-10 ..? In June-July? Sorry I don`t get it. :?:

And, R6 with Gondola are kits aren't they? Should be easy enough to take off.

Yup, they`re kits like droptanks, however every single description and photo (inc. the test itself describing as3x20mm cannon, also shown on attached photos) of that particular plane I have seen shows them on (it landed with a droptank too, but I am sure that they took off for trials). The Brits may have not realized the gondolas being kits, given the G-6, they could have though this is some sort of new heavy 109G 'Mark'. Russians seem to have believed the same initially.

K- you will note that I have NEVER disputed better one on one performance in favor of 109 over P-51 at SL up to approximately 15,000 feet. Having said that, the P-51A should turn better, most aerodynamics being better than D and 800 pounds lighter

Perhaps it would be worthy to narrow it down to some typical variants..? Like, G-14 (normal altitude), G-14/AS (high altitude), P-51D all appearing around June-July 1944, perhaps throw in the basic G-6 still being very much around, playing the role of the small fish in this case, but the big wish when it met with say Spitfire Mk Vs, still being very much around..?

This adds an interesting layer to the discussion, and shows how much complex real life engagment have been, ie. the first (and intially, few) Mustang groups that arrived on the scene usually met with the older, standard G-6s of the '1943 generation'. Against these, the P-51B obviously enjoyed some significant advantages, most notably greater speed at all but especially high altitudes, given it`s high altitude engine, that would also give it advantage in all other flight conditions, ie. turning, at those high altitude regimes. Simply it had more power to work with, but the same wasn`t true when the new P-51s met the new 109Gs, with methanol boost and improved superchargers, and which had comparable power output at all altitudes.
 
Hi Bill ! 8)



That`s some pretty cool info in the wing profile. :idea:

Any specific figures from US etc. testing on the Merlin powered Mustang`s turn time, radius or something like that? I was looking for such data and while ago about USAAF fighters - it turned up nothing specific, unfortunately. :(

Same for me - I have yet to find a report that definitively tests a 360 circle time at different altitudes and speeds - the only one I have heard about is the USSR report and I have not seen it... Ditto the RAF reports in context of details.. ditto the F4U vs P-51B-5 report - just conclusions wityh no data..

The closest I have seen to what we are looking for is the RAF 'study' post war in which the turning circles are displayed as a Graphic contrast w/o specific data


I don`t think we have much of a difference between the two fighters, actually. If we can believe the drag data, both fighters had very similiar, equiv. of ca. 4 sq. feet plate`s drag - the power/speed requirements underline this.. Same for the radiator design, it`s very similiar basically, even though the Mustang`s is a more aerodynamic execution. In the end, both planes reached about the same speed with the same power, so there`s not much in it.

Every P-51 pilot that engaged 109s with skilled pilots flying it would agree. My father destroyed six in individual fights - 5 in hard climbing, diving turning - one a pure 6 O'clock chase. Of the 5, three were shot down with deflection shots resulting in out turning the 109.. all above 20,000 feet..two were chases that started at 25,000 and ended up with the 109 losing control and then crashing after the 109 dove out of the turn to try to evade, presumably after being hit rather than structural failure.

In the one example he did NOT out turn the 109, the one he was chasing was shot down after my father failed to close enogh to pull through after one 360 degree turn - and his wing man, further back pulled inside and shot it down. - this was around 15,000 feet (Peglar/Marshall Aug3). The same wingman found himself in a turning fight near the deck and despite 10 degrees of flaps could not escape -but his wingman did shoot him off his tail (Shultz/Peglar-Sept11)


I think it all boils down to variant. The G-14 (not the /AS model) is essentially a low-medium altitude variant, the K-4 is high altitude fighter with a lot more power at altitude. though, especially at high altitude, I don`t think control forces would mean anything - correct me if I am wrong, but high altitude flying technically slow-speed flight at low IAS numbers, with the added problem of most engines loosing power above rated altitude? And low-speed dogfight and controllability is something the 109 definietely excelled in.

Kurfurst, high speed flight above .6-.7 Mach introduced increasing compressibility and indeed did increase stick forces. IAS is a function of 'stagnant' pressure in pitot tube - not a function of true airspeed and Mach no except as calibrated by Temp/altitude.

This is why at say, 30,000 feet indicating 250 kts IAS in a dive, your true airspeed is closer to 450mph at .7 mach. The limit dive for a 51 at that altitude was 280kts IAS and closer to .76 mach.. and you would not be able to get elevator control until you were in the 15K altitude range - don't hold me to exact on these figures as I am pulling them off my P&W Aeronautical DVest pocket Handbook - which I haven't touched in 35 years

For true low altitude and low to relatively high airspeeds the IAS and TAS are close to the same reading




Absolutely agree, in fact, I absolutely favour controlled tests over any anecdote..

the 51 turns better then the 109
the 51 turns about as well as the 190
which means that logically the 190 should outturn the 109... and as per the 3 German tactical evaluations we know, the Soviet etc. testing, and even by simply common sense, this was not the case. All of it points towards the results are caused by British pilots not pressing the aircraft hard enough in turns, this is somewhat of a returning topos with British test, their test pilots backing off from turn ASA the slats are opening, leaving the party when it just gets started.

I often wonder if that conclusion is valid for one simple reason - slats weren't a mystery. One intial 'shock' to a skilled pilot doesn't imply fear or lack of confidence in a test pilot's ability particularly if intelligence sources from captured GAF pilots lead him into increasing the turns at altitude until one is comfortable and increasingly skilled in the use of the equipment?

Lerches for example was cautious but increasingly bold by his own account as he became familiar with the equipment.

I Just Don't Know.




Maybe - do you have the complete original papers (not just the test themselves, but attached plane operation diaries, requests etc.) of these tactical trials?

Unfortunately No

As for the 109G-2/trop tested, I have some of the papers from the 1990s issued by modern authorities to declare the aircraft airworthy; these include the operational/mechanical history of Black Six, and it notes several of the original damages the aircraft sustained in air combat in late 1942 before it was captured, still present (splinter marks on airscrew, for example). So, I have reason to believe the aircraft was just patched to be airworthy. Similiarly, there`s a fraction of a German tact. trial on a P-51B somewhere, and it notes some supercharger troubles, 2nd stage simply not working IIRC.




G-10 ..? In June-July? Sorry I don`t get it. :?:

Nah, I checked my poor memory against source..below from Tony Woods- it was two Me 109G6/U2 captured from JG301 when they mistakenly laned in UK

http://www.ww2.dk/misc/21.7.44.pdf

Perhaps it would be worthy to narrow it down to some typical variants..? Like, G-14 (normal altitude), G-14/AS (high altitude), P-51D all appearing around June-July 1944, perhaps throw in the basic G-6 still being very much around, playing the role of the small fish in this case, but the big wish when it met with say Spitfire Mk Vs, still being very much around..?

I just reviewed the OOB for Luftwaffe for Jan-Jun 1944 and it shows quite a few squadrons and TO&E increasingly equipping to 109G-6/AS for at least one Staffel per JG with a lot of plain old G-6 in March-Jun, plus a fewer G-5's and about the same number of 109G-6/R6's as the G-5's


This adds an interesting layer to the discussion, and shows how much complex real life engagment have been, ie. the first (and intially, few) Mustang groups that arrived on the scene usually met with the older, standard G-6s of the '1943 generation'. Against these, the P-51B obviously enjoyed some significant advantages, most notably greater speed at all but especially high altitudes, given it`s high altitude engine, that would also give it advantage in all other flight conditions, ie. turning, at those high altitude regimes. Simply it had more power to work with, but the same wasn`t true when the new P-51s met the new 109Gs, with methanol boost and improved superchargers, and which had comparable power output at all altitudes.

Crump may have developed some interesting energy charts for comparing the P-51 to Me 109 but even well developed theory taking into account energy available at initiation of ACM has soo many factors to apply to develop rate of energy loss in the ACM... it still should have definitive test data to validate conclusions.

These a/c (Me 109G-14 and K-4) were evenly matched to P-51D as standard equipment - the specialized 109K-4s gave a slight advantage in acceleration and maybe even climb at altitudes above 30,000 feet - but I can't find definitive data for climb rate or acceleration.. and while WL isn't the only indicator the 51 was like to have same or lower WL after burning fuel to get central Germany and still be lighter on the controls above 15,000 feet.


Regards,

Bill
 
Since this thread is supposed to be about a comparison between the Corsair and the FW190 and the BF109 I would like to bring up a few advantages a Corsair would have over both German AC. The various models of the Corsair would always have a range advantage over the two German fighters. Likewise the Corsair would always have an ammunition load greater than the German fighters. The Corsair would always have a ruggedness and reliability advantage over the BF109 because of the radial versus liquid cooled engine. It would always have the same engine advantage over the FW190D9. The Corsair would always have an advantage over the German AC as far as air frame strength is concerned. I believe those advantages are not arguable.
 
Since this thread is supposed to be about a comparison between the Corsair and the FW190 and the BF109 I would like to bring up a few advantages a Corsair would have over both German AC. The various models of the Corsair would always have a range advantage over the two German fighters. Likewise the Corsair would always have an ammunition load greater than the German fighters. The Corsair would always have a ruggedness and reliability advantage over the BF109 because of the radial versus liquid cooled engine. It would always have the same engine advantage over the FW190D9. The Corsair would always have an advantage over the German AC as far as air frame strength is concerned. I believe those advantages are not arguable.

And last but not least the Corsair basically was slightly better in turn and climb until high altitude over the 51..which is where we got off topic on the 109 and 190.
 
I don`t think it`s intentional, I think they tested what enemy equipment they had in more or less working order. OTOH, if you read the other AFDU 109G test, for example vs the Tempest, it says the pilots of the 109G are 'emberassed by the opening of the slats' in turns - ie. they weren`t pushing the unfamiliar aircraft to it`s true limits in turns. This is reinforced by the fact that if you look at the 190/109/51 result in turns, it says :

the 51 turns better then the 109
the 51 turns about as well as the 190
which means that logically the 190 should outturn the 109... and as per the 3 German tactical evaluations we know, the Soviet etc. testing, and even by simply common sense, this was not the case. All of it points towards the results are caused by British pilots not pressing the aircraft hard enough in turns, this is somewhat of a returning topos with British test, their test pilots backing off from turn ASA the slats are opening, leaving the party when it just gets started.

Exactly Kurfürst, and it was the same for new LW pilots. The British test-pilots weren't used to automatic LE slats, infact they had flown no aircraft featuring it, hence their concerned reaction to the deployment of the slats which would sometimes give a slight notch and a loud bang. I remember reading Handley Page mention he wasn't even contacted during the war by the RAF, despite being the only one in Britain knowledgable about this device. The reason why a few seasoned 109 pilots, including Rall, were reluctant to push past slat deployment was past bad experience with doing so in the 109E which suffered from it slats jamming in turns, one deployed while the other stayed in, pulling the aircraft into a dangerous spin, one which nearly cut Rall's carreer short.

And this is not just reinforced by the German comparative tests as Kurfürst mentions but also comfirmed multiple times by LW Aces explaining the reason why green pilots were afraid of going past slats deployment:


Erwin Leykauf, German fighter pilot, 33 victories
"The Bf 109s also had leading edge slats. When the 109 was flown, advertently or inadvertently, too slow, the slats shot forward out of the wing, sometimes with a loud bang which could be heard above the noise of the engine. Many times the slats coming out frightenened young pilots when they flew the Bf 109 for the first time in combat. One often flew near the stalling speed in combat, not only when flying straight and level but especially when turning and climbing. Sometimes the slats would suddenly fly out with a bang as if one had been hit, especially when one had throttled back to bank steeply. Indeed many fresh young pilots thought they were pulling very tight turns even when the slats were still closed against the wing. For us, the more experienced pilots, real manoeuvring only started when the slats were out. For this reason it is possible to find pilots from that period (1940) who will tell you that the Spitfire turned better than the Bf 109. That is not true. I myself had many dogfights with Spitfires and I could always out-turn them.
One had to enter the turn correctly, then open up the engine. It was a matter of feel. When one noticed the speed becoming critical - the aircraft vibrated - one had to ease up a bit, then pull back again, so that in plan the best turn would have looked like an egg or a horizontal ellipse rather than a circle. In this way one could out-turn the Spitfire - and I shot down six of them doing it."


Walter Wolfrum, German fighter ace. 137 victories.
"Unexperienced pilots hesitated to turn tight, bacause the plane shook violently when the slats deployed. I realised, though, that because of the slats the plane's stalling characteristics were much better than in comparable Allied planes that I got to fly. Even though you may doubt it, I knew the Bf-109 could manouver better in turnfight than LaGG, Yak or even Spitfire."


And then ofcourse comes the fact that aerodynamics supports the above as-well, and I'll get to that in my next post.
 
I don't know why people get so hung up on turning circle times. Even a P-47 could out turn a 109 doing a flat turn. Not sure what the maneuver (yo-yo turn?) was called but the P-47 would trade altitude gain for speed loss while turning.

Only about 1/3 of the G-14s produced were of the /AS type. The first appearing in Aug 1944 with some 398 being produced. In July and Aug 1944 some 1527 regular G-14s were produced. Total neabau G-14 was 2689 compared to 1377 G-14/ASs.

American naval fighters (F6F (?) in FAA service off Norway and USN (F6F) off southern France) and came away victorious. Some say the F6F was not as good as the F4U.
 
I don't know why people get so hung up on turning circle times. Even a P-47 could out turn a 109 doing a flat turn. Not sure what the maneuver (yo-yo turn?) was called but the P-47 would trade altitude gain for speed loss while turning.

Only about 1/3 of the G-14s produced were of the /AS type. The first appearing in Aug 1944 with some 398 being produced. In July and Aug 1944 some 1527 regular G-14s were produced. Total neabau G-14 was 2689 compared to 1377 G-14/ASs.

American naval fighters (F6F (?) in FAA service off Norway and USN (F6F) off southern France) and came away victorious. Some say the F6F was not as good as the F4U.

Al - I don't know about being hung up on the question - more like if a claim is made regarding one performance profile compared between two ships - how do you debate it.

Dan is right, you use what you have, take advantage of any favorable situation, and try to escape the bad one.

At the end of the day the ultimate determinant is which fighter generally prevailed in the fights - but with all of the a/c we have been debating the general performance is close enough that the victor had positive tactical situation and pilot skill.

Regards,

Bill
 
Does we know how the F4U´s airframe was composed off? What material at which thickness was used as skin for:

-underbelly(fuselage)
-underbelly (engine)
-wingroots lower side
-wings upperside
-wingtips
-tail leading edge
-tail
-fuselage

I know that the F4U had lot´s of armour installed. Does soemone know where exactly?
Even if this tends to appear secondary, I think it has some relevance here with the 20mm mine rounds in mind, the germans used. The F4U commonly is understood to be one of the ruggest single engined A/C to see widespread service and with the datas above I could make some approximations free from personal opinions as how sensible the airframe would be to different scenarios of battle damage.

Thanks in advance,
delc
 
The armor on the F4U consisted of: a .109 inch hardened aluminum alloy plate above the gas tank in front of the pilot, a large piece of armor plate weighing 53 pounds directly behind the pilot, bullet resistant plexiglass in front of the pilot, a removeable quarter inch steel plate could be placed beneath the pilot's seat. The gas tank and gas lines were self sealing. The wing internal tanks in the F4U1 were not protected but those tanks were deleted later in the war. Also early Corsairs had an additional piece of armor in front of the oil tank in the engine compartment. I have a complete description of the structural details but can't type that much except to say that the wing center section comprised mainly one huge casting that contributed much to the Corsair's robustness.
 
"The British test-pilots weren't used to automatic LE slats, infact they had flown no aircraft featuring it, "

Soren, are you sure on that, for example very early Westland Whirlwinds had LE slats.
 
"The British test-pilots weren't used to automatic LE slats, infact they had flown no aircraft featuring it, "

Soren, are you sure on that, for example very early Westland Whirlwinds had LE slats.

Yep - that's like saying a pilot had difficulty flying an aircraft because the landing gear handle was on the left side of the cockpit instead of the right....
 
"The British test-pilots weren't used to automatic LE slats, infact they had flown no aircraft featuring it, "

Soren, are you sure on that, for example very early Westland Whirlwinds had LE slats.
All Whirlwinds had le slats but had them locked closed after an accident.

The Swordfish had le slats on its upper wing.
 
I have heard this claim about the 109 slats only being used by the experienced pilots because new pilots were scared or nervous of the slats deployment.

My question is this. The Germans were many things in the war but they were not stupid. It would be very easy to train the new pilots to 'fly' through the deployment of the slats. They even had the Me108 to use as the perfect trainer, even with the Me109, a couple of follow my leader flights would suffice.
So why didn't they unless the benefits are less than thought?

Another thought
Its also worth remembering that the 109 was at its best in a slow turning fight and the slat deployment is the result of a slow speed combat, something no experienced P51 pilot would follow. Therefore the main difference could well be the old favourite, an experienced pilot in a 109 will always have an advantage over an inexperienced pilot in a P51
 
Does we know how the F4U´s airframe was composed off? What material at which thickness was used as skin for:

-underbelly(fuselage)
-underbelly (engine)
-wingroots lower side
-wings upperside
-wingtips
-tail leading edge
-tail
-fuselage

I know that the F4U had lot´s of armour installed. Does soemone know where exactly?
Even if this tends to appear secondary, I think it has some relevance here with the 20mm mine rounds in mind, the germans used. The F4U commonly is understood to be one of the ruggest single engined A/C to see widespread service and with the datas above I could make some approximations free from personal opinions as how sensible the airframe would be to different scenarios of battle damage.

Thanks in advance,
delc

Delc - unless someone has detailed drawings for each assy or installation on the F4U you would be hard pressed to get what you need.

In general the thickness of the aluminum skin would depend on the following criteria:

1.) Am I trying to take bending loads and transfer them to shear in the panels to redistribute the loads
2.) Do I want flush or button rivets for the application - this would have considerable influence on edge distance and thickness of rivets between the two.
3.) What are the buckling considerations.

I have read that certain aircraft like a Me 109 which had to be more innovative in wing design to accomodate a main spar at 40+ percent chord versus 25+ % for most a/c had to create more of a 'torque box effect'..

one way of creating a stronger torque box is to increase the thickness of the skin (top and bottom) to not only enhance rigitidy of the box but also effectively increase the top and bottom 'cap area' for the spars..

I suspect w/o proof that most of the F4U was .032 to .040 2024 for surface skin and that the spars were designed to take bending loads in the wing more or less independent of additional torque box effects - and suspect you could use those thicknesses to calculate blast effects
 
My reference says that the wing leading edge torque boxes had metal skins of .091 inches thickness. The fuselage made use of large metal skin sheets and employed spot welding to a great extent. The largest skin sheet was pre formed and measured 43 by 102 inches. Fuselage skins were up to .072 inches thick. Interestingly the left and right horizontal stabilizers were identical and were interchangeble.
 
My reference says that the wing leading edge torque boxes had metal skins of .091 inches thickness. The fuselage made use of large metal skin sheets and employed spot welding to a great extent. The largest skin sheet was pre formed and measured 43 by 102 inches. Fuselage skins were up to .072 inches thick. Interestingly the left and right horizontal stabilizers were identical and were interchangeble.

I don't doubt your info, but would comment that keeping skin below .050 as much as possible is as much about weight of rivets as anything else. Thicker skins are generally for heavy bending applications

Leading edge torque box would probably be limited to .091 just for sheer ability to form an airfoil nose section w/o cracking.

Does your source state the type of 'skin' being welded (ie. steel or 6064 aluminum?
 
LoL, guys just because the whirlwind had slats doesn't mean the test pilots were used to or trusted them, esp. considering the fact that one crashed because of slat malfunction (Like 109E) and all production a/c after that had the slats shut against the wing in flight - just one more reason for British test pilots to be vary about the LE slats on the 109. And then ofcourse its not even sure that the test pilot flying the 109 ever flew a Whirlwind.

"While Handley-Page slats were fitted to the outer wings, the production aircraft flew with them locked shut, since at least one crash of the test aircraft was attributable to slat failure."

There's also a reason why experienced LW aces and test-pilots mention the same concern about slat deployment amongst fresh LW pilots.

Later in the war new LW pilots were taught not to be afraid of the slats deploying and that the fun was only beginning when they deployed, which is why you wont find any pilots from this point on saying they had any trouble against the Spitfire in maneuvering flight. Infact you've even got a British Spitfire pilot [Pierre Closterman] admitting that the Spitfire was inferior in turn performance compared to the Bf-109 at slow speed.

Yep - that's like saying a pilot had difficulty flying an aircraft because the landing gear handle was on the left side of the cockpit instead of the right....

You've got to be kidding me FLYBOYJ.. Automatic LE slats were not a std. addition on WW2 a/c, esp. not British a/c, comparing this device to placing a handle on the right instead of the left is just plain ridiculous.

Claiming that British test pilots had no reason for concern and weren't is also just plain ridiculous, esp. considering the comments actually made by British pilots and also esp. when considering that Westland had the slats shut in flight because they were afraid of the slats jamming, expressing the exact same concern as any test pilot would, infact it was most surely a test pilots who had adviced Westland to have them shut in flight in the first place.



"The 109 being embarrased by the opening of its slots" This doesn't exactly indicate that the pilot was pushing past slat deployment, infact the only thing it clearly points to is that he wasn't even attempting to do so and abandoned the maneuver entirely.
 
Bill, the skin of the fuselage was aluminum that was spot welded. The skin on the torque boxes refers to the wing center section and they seem to be aluminum, but not specified and the wing outer panels seem to have had the same skin on the leading edge. The wing tips were plastic and the British ones were different from the American.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back