![]() |
| | #301 | |
| Banned Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 795
| Quote:
| |
| | |
| | #302 | ||
| Banned Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 6,625
| Quote:
| ||
| | |
| | #303 |
| Der Crewchief ![]() Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Ansbach, Germany
Posts: 34,079
| All of m sources say they were all 9.92m from the F to the K. Here is what I have in all of my sources but this whole argument here should really be in another thread. Bf-109B Dimensions: Wing span: 9.97m Length: 8.51m Height: 2.59m Wing Surface Area: N/A Weights: Empty: 1580kg (3,483 lbs.) Maximum, Loaded: 2120kg (4,850 lbs.) Dimensions: Wing span: 32 ft. 4½ (9.97m) Length: 28 ft. 0.66 in. (8.51m) Height: 8 ft. 0½ in. (2.59m) Wing Surface Area: 174 sq. ft. Weights: Empty: 3522 lb. Maximum, Loaded: 5062 lb. Bf-109E Dimensions: Wing span: 32 ft. 4.5 in. (9.97m) Length: 28 ft. 8 in. (8.9m) Height: 8 ft. 10 in. (2.6m) Wing Surface Area: N/A Weights: Empty: 2018kg (4,440 lb.) Maximum, Loaded: 2509kg (5,520 lb.) Bf-109F Wing Span: 9.92m Lenght: 8.90m Height: 2.60m Wing Surface Area: 16.10 sq m. Wieghts: Empty: 2590kg (5698 lb) Loaded: 3117kg (6857lb) Me-109G Wingspan: 9.92m Length: 9.02m Height: 3.40m Wing Surface Area: 16.05 sq m. Weights: Empty: 2258kg (4,968 lbs.) Loaded: 3106kg (6,834 lbs.) Maximum Overloaded: 3207kg (7,055 lbs) Me-109K Wingspan: 9.92m Lenght: 9.02m Height: 3.40m Wing Surface Area: 16.05 sq. m Weights: Empty: 2700kg (5940lb) Loaded: 3386kg (7438lb)
__________________ ![]() fly boy:"isnt that the first jet bomber becasue i have flown one in a flight sim before and i know how it handles" |
| | |
| | #304 | |
| Banned Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 795
| Quote:
Not specs but dimensions related to slats, flaps, ailerons, chords, etc. | |
| | |
| | #305 | ||
| Banned Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 6,625
| Quote:
How about Wing area ? By looking Adler's sources above, something is obviously wrong with the Wing-span and Wing-Area spec's. (The E series didn't have a larger wing-surface-area than the F series and beyond) All the sources I have state the B-E seris had a wing-span of 9.87m, and the F-K series a wing-span of 9.92m. The B-E series had a Wing-Area of 16.17 sq.m, the F-K series N/A. Do you have any Wing-Area spec's on the F series and beyond Krazi ? | ||
| | |
| | #306 |
| Der Crewchief ![]() Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Ansbach, Germany
Posts: 34,079
| Well that is what all of my sources say about the wing area. All I know is that after the F the 109 got faster and performance wise was better but it got more sluggish and anyone who has flown the magnificant 109 will tell you that it at high speeds the controls would stiffen up a bit. At high alltitudes though she would give anything a run for there money.
__________________ ![]() fly boy:"isnt that the first jet bomber becasue i have flown one in a flight sim before and i know how it handles" |
| | |
| | #307 |
| Banned Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 795
| It says the area is 16.05m2. One thing to watch for is if the area is calculated using what is under the fuselage or not. ie span x mean chord. Some areas are given from the root chord out, naturally x2. |
| | |
| | #308 | ||
| Banned Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 6,625
| Quote:
Quote:
| ||
| | |
| | #309 | |||
| Der Crewchief ![]() Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Ansbach, Germany
Posts: 34,079
| Quote:
__________________ ![]() fly boy:"isnt that the first jet bomber becasue i have flown one in a flight sim before and i know how it handles" | |||
| | |
| | #310 | |
| Banned Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 6,625
| Quote:
| |
| | |
| | #311 | |
| Banned Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 795
| Quote:
square tip vs rounded tip The F-K had ~1"length more per half span but most of the tip was removed. | |
| | |
| | #312 |
| Der Crewchief ![]() Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Ansbach, Germany
Posts: 34,079
| That might explain it.
__________________ ![]() fly boy:"isnt that the first jet bomber becasue i have flown one in a flight sim before and i know how it handles" |
| | |
| | #313 | ||
| Guest
Posts: n/a
| (http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/vie...?p=61962#61962) Quote:
Quote:
=S= Lunatic | ||
|
| | #314 | |||
| Banned Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 6,625
| Quote:
Also didnt you forget this part: "No manoeuvrability trials were carried out against other aircraft" So NO tests against the Spit were carried out, thereby "Considderet" means absolutely NOTHING ! And a British pilot offcourse would prefere the a Spit, afterall it is a BRITISH plane ! | |||
| | |
| | #315 |
| Guest
Posts: n/a
| You cannot use one sentance out of a paragraph to claim the 109 was able to make competitve turns against other aircraft when the very next line clearly disputes such a claim. =S= Lunatic |
|
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
| |