Best Messerschmitt Bf109 subtype

[pbfoot]

Originally Posted by Soren

Wrong, design flaw, way to sensitive to dirt and very unreliable in action under G's. This problem was first fixed with the F series.

Dirt is a maintainence problem

[Soren]

Yeah but unreliable operation during G loads is a design flaw.

[kool kitty89]

And design that is too sensitive to dirt: ie requires excessive maintemence to operate correctly is also flawed as it doen't work in a practical manner in real world conditions.

This apears to be the case here.

And according to Kfurst, the slats wre fixed twice on the 109F, the initial models using an improved mechanism of the same type as the Emil, and later a new mechenism using rollers was introduced which stayed for the rest of th design and was used on the Me 262.

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

109E and early F had the slats operated by wing arms, the late F and all G series had it deployed by bearings, probably hence the much smoother operation noted by Southwood on the G-2. Changes in the K also had the slats made out of steel.

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

I am not sure if they still present with the early F model - the mechanism was similiar, but the slat design was already different, as was the wing, ailerons were now of the Friese type etc.

Unfortunately, there are no 109F trials to shed light on the issue.

[pbfoot]

Originally Posted by kool kitty89

And design that is too sensitive to dirt: ie requires excessive maintemence to operate correctly is also flawed as it doen't work in a practical manner in real world conditions.

This apears to be the case here.

And according to Kfurst, the slats wre fixed twice on the 109F, the initial models using an improved mechanism of the same type as the Emil, and later a new mechenism using rollers was introduced which stayed for the rest of th design and was used on the Me 262.

compressed air should be enough to clean them out,

[Soren]

No pbfoot, the dirt can lodge itself in many places within the mechanism which probably needs to be lubricated to function as smoothly as possible, allowing dirt to stick very well. In Africa the Emil had VERY serious problems, and the LW took great care to cover up the slats while the a/c were on the ground, the dirt litterally came in everywhere.

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by Soren

Exactly, and its getting real tiring..

As stated by German, British and modern pilots, the two a/c were very close in all aspects of flight, esp. turn performance, and it was a matter of pilot experience in the end.

We have Mark Hanna, Skip Holm, Dave Chairwood, Walter Wolfrum, Erwin Leykauf, Heinrich Beauvais etc etc and aerodynamics confirming this.

Both a/c were excellent fighters IMO.

Er, your 'notion of aerodynamics' does not quite meet the standard of 'aerodynamics' knowledge. I suspect you are a fairly rapid learner of empirical and rudimentary knowledge with a technical background that I haven't quite figured out yet. When a guy (you) boldy states and re-states that a lift distribution in a model is Drag 'equivalent to boat tail or spitzer wake drag' it should raise flags to most people.

What say you post your degree (s) on-line and I'll post mine to compare at least the academic standards for comparison? If you have a BS (or equivalent) degree even in ME with a minor in Fluid Mechanics I'll apologise publically for thinking you are a bonehead. If you don't I would ask you to state your opinions of aerodynamic or 'physics' by starting every sentence with 'in my opinion...'??

Would that work for you?

[parsifal]

and the silence is deafening

[Soren]

I won't reply to pissing match posts, it's ridiculous.

What Bill seems unable to understand is that if you haven't used a computer pressure distribution program before then you can't expect to undertsand it right away.

Furthermore the only reason he keeps bringing this up is because he knows all I've said in this thread is 100% correct.

[kool kitty89]

And that thing about the Bubble canopy is sometimes correct, depending on the layout of the a/c and the overall change to the canopy and fusalage. Like with the 109, it was found that addition of a bubble canopy to that airframe would result in a performance drop. And in the case of the P-47, not only did the fusalage streamlining change, but the windshiels was blunt (flat sheet) opposed to the angled fram of the razorback.

And Soren, not to get into this, but you mentioned before that your areodynamic knoledge is self-taught right?

[Soren]

Originally Posted by kool kitty89

And Soren, not to get into this, but you mentioned before that your areodynamic knoledge is self-taught right?

Besides what you are taught at flight school, yes. I'm an educated engineer with a passion for aerodynamics, having studied it allot over the past decade.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Yet Bill is a school educated Aeronautical Engineer, and you claim he does not know what he is talking about?

Yeah okay...

[kool kitty89]

...

I think the first problem was the argument over the term "suction" soren used, which dodn't match the terminology Bill was using. (Soren reffering to lower pressure, as in the same context to the vacuum in the bullet anology -translating to a net drag-, Bill referring to the qualty airfow over wetted surfaces I think)

[Kurfürst]

Part I still can`t get is that why all this stuff about P-51 windshields is being discussed in the thread titled 'Best Bf 109 subtype'...

This board needs a bit of discipline when it comes to off topic arguements, I mean it is not bad to steer off a bit sometimes from the subject, but when it becomes a regular issue of hijacking threads, I must ask myself, that if some of us are so thrilled with the same subjects that we feel the unconquerable pressure to discuss it over and over again between ourselves, then, why not do it in its own dedicated thread, say in:

P-51 vs. Luftwaffa Thread MMII.
Spitfire vs. Messerschmitt in turns thread MMMDDCILV.
Soren vs. drgondog Thread XIII.
Hartmann didn`t even flew in combat, his claims are bogus CXXII.
I`m getting pissed off with off topic post and thread hijacking II.

[Soren]

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

Yet Bill is a school educated Aeronautical Engineer, and you claim he does not know what he is talking about?

Yeah okay...

I don't claim he doesn't always know what he's talking about, but he rightly keeps his mouth shut when he knows I'm 100% correct, like in this thread. Then ofcourse he has to post something, so to divert from the topic he begins the now so popular canopy suction debate..

Oh and about being a school educated Aeronautical engineer, well they have to read similar or the very same books I have Adler. The only advantage is they get to fool around with computer fluid programs, something I have to pay hundreds of dollars to do.

[kool kitty89]

The canopy discussion was interesting (the original discussions a couple threads ago) but even for the context of a 109 with bubble canopy it doesn't belong here. Maybe a dedicated thread. (for canopy design and effects, not exclusively for the Mustang)



So how does the G-10 compare to the K-4, Erich mentioned a couple times that the G-10 was a little faster (460 mph), but that doesn't seem to match up with most data.

Another interesting comparison would be range of the 109's. (particularly with 300L drop tank, accurate figures for which seem to be hard to find)

This site has some good range figures, but with drop tank. www.adlertag.de - Messerschmitt BF109 - Sprachenwahl