Best ETO fighter from 1939-1942

[claidemore]

I'd like to go back to the figures posted regarding clmax of the various planes.

With a bit of research, a dollar store calculator, and the Mustang III (sorry don't have a I or II manual) and Spit IX manuals I get the following numbers.

Spitfire Mk IX, standard wing, 7445 lbs, stall speed of 86mph and clmax of 1.62.

Mustang III @9300 lbs I get stall speed of 90 mph and clmax of 1.2

If I go with Sorens stall speed for 109G2 of 90mph, @3035 kg/6678 lbs I get a clmax of 1.86. I don't have an independant source for that stall speed.

For the FW 190 A3 @8564 lbs and a stall speed of 127 mph I get clMax of 1.06. (Stall speed might be lower than that, with a correspondingly higher cl number, but thats the best info I have.)

I have NOOO idea how to turn those numbers into min turn radius, or sustained turn times at various speeds.

A question about the slats, don't they open as you slow down to land? So wouldn't every pilot be familiar with them if they did more than one landing?

That being said, it does seem there is something amiss in the AFDU trials, which show the 190 as being nearly equal in turn to the Mustang III and Tempest, while the 109 was easily outturned by both. This doesn't line up with Soviet experience and comments about the two german planes, nor with generally held 'opinion'.

[Soren]

Originally Posted by pbfoot

I think saying someone bagged an opponent by outurning him is a little misleading , if both aircraft started manouvering at the same time from the same position and energy level would be the only was to base the abilities of both aircraft. then toss into the mix capabilities of the pilot and the maintainence of the aircraft

Very good point PB, which is exactly why after action reports shouldn't be taken as gospel.

As for the problem with the Emil's slats, they were overly sensitive to dirt and the design didn't work very well under G's, frequent jams occuring. This was rectified with the introduction of the F series, the design remaining the somewhat he the same but with numerous modifications. The G series introduced a new design which operated smoother and wasn't susceptible to dirt.

[Soren]

Claidemore,

I see you're beginning to see the point of it all, good.

As for the slats deploying at slow speed while landing, yes that's completely true, however this is under one G, at several G's the characteristics are different as the the whole a/c, including the slats, are under enormous stress.

[Soren]

Yet another piece of evidence to support the fact that the British test pilots didn't push the 109 to its limits is a German test report on the turn radius of the Bf-109E. The Germans achieved a far smaller turn radius in their tests than the British.

The report is here on Kurfürst's site: Kurfrst - Baubeschreibung fr das Flugzeugmuster Messerschmitt Me 109 mit DB 601.

[kool kitty89]

For the FW 190 A3 @8564 lbs and a stall speed of 127 mph I get clMax of 1.06. (Stall speed might be lower than that, with a correspondingly higher cl number, but thats the best info I have.)

That doesn't seem right to me either, the Fw 190 used a high lift arfoil (same as the F4U actually) so those figures would contradict that...


Also here's a US roll rate chart including the 190A-4 and P-51B:

[Soren]

The stall speed of the FW-190 A-8 was below 167 km/h as that was the landing speed, so probably around 160 km/h flaps & gear down and 170 km/h flaps & gear up.

The Clmax of the FW-190's wing was somewhere around 1.58 to 1.62.

The FW-190 features the NACA 23000 series airfoil (15% root & 9% Tips), an airfoil like Koolkitty points out which is known for its unusually high Clmax.

[claidemore]

Originally Posted by Soren

Yet another piece of evidence to support the fact that the British test pilots didn't push the 109 to its limits is a German test report on the turn radius of the Bf-109E. The Germans achieved a far smaller turn radius in their tests than the British.

The report is here on Kurfürst's site: Kurfrst - Baubeschreibung fr das Flugzeugmuster Messerschmitt Me 109 mit DB 601.

Lol. This is where you get yourself into trouble Soren.
It is POSSIBLE that the Brit pilots didn't push the 109, and there is evidence that indicates that may have been the case, but you can't really call it a FACT. Could just as easily been that the plane needed an oil change, or RAE gave it a poor paint job, or a combination of things. (thats more likely, there is seldom one cause to a problem, it's always compound)

I ain't ready to turn my coat yet, but I have come to see the 109 as a more capable turn fighter than I used to think. I'd still like to see some accurate numbers or graphs like the one HoHun gave us for the Wildcat vs Hurricane thread.

That 109E test you gave us shows 1050 ft radius, the RAE tests show 885 ft. Brits got a smaller turn circle? With flaps the 109 got 754 in the German test, while the RAE still has 696 for the Spit 1.

[kool kitty89]

Those figures on the 190 make more sence.

[Soren]

Regarding the Clmax of the Bf-109 F, G & K series wing, it is 1.70 as described in German documents:

Bf-109 Clmax & Cd0

[Soren]

Claidemore,

Read the report again:

Without use of flaps :
at 0 m - 170 m (557 feet)

With use of flaps :
at 0 m - 125 m (410 feet)

That's much lower than what the British achieved!

[Glider]

Originally Posted by Soren

My belief ??? Its what the man says himelf Juha, it has nothing to do with my belief!

Geeez..

What people say is something to be treated with care. I have seen all sorts of claims which simply don't make sense and were impossible. Pilots swear that the enemy hit the ground and blew up, but no planes were lost.
A personal favourite is the P47 pilot who straffed a PzIV and swore he saw the tank turn on its side.

I am not saying that he was lying or misleading in any way, I am sure he believes it to be true but at the end of the day he was awarded three Spitfire and we all know from the stats, that in all probability at least one of those were likely to have got away with it.

[claidemore]

For the FW 190A3, if we go with 106 mph stall, I get 1.52 clmax. It used a NACA 23015.3 wing.

With 1.7 cl for the 109s, that puts stall speed at 94 mph.

From that report:

Of particular interest are the figures given in the German specifications as the smallest turning radius of the 109E.

These are, at Sea Level and at 6000 m, with and without deploying flaps to aid turning :

Without use of flaps :
at 0 m - 170 m (557 feet), at 6000 m (20 000 feet) - 320 m (1050 feet).

With use of flaps :
at 0 m - 125 m (410 feet), at 6000 m (20 000 feet) - 230 m (754 feet).

I don't read german, so I'm going with Kurfursts summation above. He says radius, not circumferance here. Did he goof?

[kool kitty89]

I still thought that the Mustang had a lower lift airfoil than the Spitfire, the P-51 using an altered laminar flow (low lift, low drag) airfoil, while the Spitfire used a similar airfoil as the P-40. (which was similar to the P-39 and P-38's as well iirc)

claidemore's figures on the Spit IX and Mustang III seem to agree with this.

[Soren]

Just to give a little insight into the effects of slats & flaps on a Clark Y type airfoil here are the results from tests conducted by NACA:

[Glider]

Originally Posted by Soren

Claidemore,

Read the report again:

Without use of flaps :
at 0 m - 170 m (557 feet)

With use of flaps :
at 0 m - 125 m (410 feet)

That's much lower than what the British achieved!

Which brings us back to the reality of what happened compared with the theory of what should have happened.
If we believe the theory that the 109 accelerates faster, dives faster, goes faster, climbs faster and now turns faster, why didn't they slaughter the Spitfire?

In the past I have asked for examples of German fighter pilots who believed that the 109 could turn inside the Spitfire and you have never come up with any examples. Only the two aces who appear to have at best, limited experience in this.
Indeed earlier in this thread you and I were asked to quote our sources, I did, you didn't.

An aside I am lucky enough to have a copy of the picture Duel of Eagles signed by Galland and Bader. In his book on painting aircraft, Richard Taylor explains that setting the aircraft to the satisfaction of the two pilots wasn't easy. In the end it shows the Spitfire in a tight turn and the 109 unable to follow. This was agreed by both pilots as showing the aircraft in a real setting and Bader commented that, the 109 would never get me in this situation.