Jump to content

Bremspropeller

Members
  • Content Count

    1188
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

808 Excellent

About Bremspropeller

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. So who was "properly trained" then? The RAF evaluators? The USAAF test pilots? The Luftwaffe or DVL test pilots like Heinrich Beauvais? The early Luftwaffe pilots that still managed to crash it every once in a while and that had a revelation, when they first flew american airplanes like the P-47 and P-51 or RAF birds like the Spitfire? Walter Hoecker who lost control of his 109 in the quote posted above would certainly qualify here: How many other fighters of the era did they fly to have a good base of comparison? Not one pilot that flew the 109 and had flown other fighters thought it was "just another airplane" - all would treat the airplane with a larger amount of respect than others.
  2. No, it comes with the fact of being experienced. Funny how the outstanding feature of the 109 is always that it was a handful to operate (in one anecdote or another) - no matter which pilot you ask or which book you read.
  3. Most pilots never flew another fighter and hence are no valiable source to ask. Incidentally, most pilots that had flown both preferred the 190 over the 109. Rall, on flying the P-51, was pretty much blown away by it. Eric Brown will tell you the 109 has rather iffy handling characteristics, as will most modern era pilots. Most of which have flown a couple of other warbirds before "stepping up" into the 109. The latter is a manifestation of how much the aircraft couldn't handle additional power, weight and performance. To quote the link provided by sevenless above: Competitiveness is not just manifested by how fast you can fly (for a short time anyway, since your gas tank wasn't adjusted much to take care of the increased fuel flow), but how well the aircraft handles for the average pilot and whether he can tap into that performance and make the book-numbers. If your aircraft is hard to handle for a novice pilot (which by the time were the realities the design has to be measured against), it doesn't stand up the test of time.
  4. It wasn't a big issue because you didn't need a lot of rudder in the first place and because the rudder forces were balanced for the airplane and it's common operational envelope. That is usually the case in military trainers. The marvellous SF 260 is similar. But that's not what the 109 looks like: The 109 had relatively light rudder-forces on take-off and climb, but heavy (and opposite) rudder-forces at higher than slow cruise speeds. In order to stay coordinated at high speeds you had to stomp the left foot in all the time and you had to drastically change rudder-forces and direction with airspeed during a fight. The 109 had been designed as a lighter airplane with a weaker engine for slower airspeeds. The airframe couldn't handle the increased weight, speeds and power. Instead of fixing the airplane (or building a better aircraft altogether), they crammed more and more stuff into the poor little 109. Mtt had never gotten the idea of what a service fighter ought to look like. They failed again with the 209 and then once again with the 309. They were hell-bent on building a fast airplane with little regard for anything besides that.
  5. Industry standards don't preclude implementing a better design. Sticking to a standard instead of building something better is a design-choice. Pre-trims are a bad design-choice. It takes ONE goofhead inadvertantly changing the tabs and your next dive might end as a smoking hole in the ground All-axis trim-tabs are the better, safer solution. Has the airfoil ever been changed to keep up with the increased engine-power? Have you ever flown a high-performance aircraft? You'd be surprised how quickly heavy stick and rudder-forces will wear you out. Keeping constant rudder-pressure to center the ball on climb (as in the 109) is a sh1tty design-solution. No matter how light the forces may be.
  6. It depends on the mission. The installation of a Rüstsatz isn't usually down to pilot's discretion. II./ JG 53 over Germany. I.JG 27 over Belgium/ Netherlands Both were obviously in Reichsverteidigung duties and the Rüstsätze gave them additional firepower against Viermots.
  7. Absturz wegen Icing in 3...2...1... Schade um die schöne Cessna 310L.
  8. Shortly before I died because of icing. I got under a relatively thin layer of stratus and had my de-icing boots on "auto". Then the freezing rain set in. The first thing I noticed was a drop in airspeed (not sure if due to the total drag or due to the pitot icing up - maybe both). Having had been killed in a King Air 350 before, I de-activated the A/P, firewalled the throttles, props and mixture. To no avail. I couldn't even hold -1500fpm. Shortly before I had to "land out", I lowered the flaps, but I stalled trying to flare/ breaking the descent and hit nose-first at 90 knots. Ouch! You can see ice building up on the boots (leading edge of the wing), vertical stabilizer, the nose, the prop-hubs and the tip-tanks... I was just about to turn around and intercept the localizer...
  9. 1) It does - for me. If somebody can't care about getting a supposedly "historical" or "accurate" movie right in terms of airplanes used, then they can't bet on my money. We're not living in the 1960s anymore and it doesn't take longer than 5s to figure out how many prop-blades an SBD does have. Half-arsed marketing approach. 2) Tora Tora Tora and BoB were superior movies because they had depth of character and not just a "pulled out of the bum" story and Michael Bay explosions. 3) Hopefully not. Battle of Midway is one of the lesser interesting PTO battles. There's no use in wasting resources into a campaign that is over after 5 missions in less than three days. I would certainly think twice about spending bucks there. /thread-drift: Those new collector airplanes do look nice. Hopefully purchasing those will help fund other airplanes/ theaters of operation. Like a strafer-nosed B-25 over New Guinea/ New Britain. Or a Ki-61, or an early P-38.
  10. The P-47 hadn't seen a doubling of gross-weight and a tripling of engine power by that time. The difference was that P-47s were designed to go hi alt from the get go and Griffon Spitfires did get a larger tail altogether, while 109 had to linger on with it's modified G-6 tail. Hi-alt flying is as much about lift as it is about stability. That's where the 109K-14 essentially loses out with it's uprated engine and another prop-blade (creating additional torque) to deal with. Also, the GM-1 airplanes - at high altitudes - handled poorly, like all other specialized hi-alt aircraft without the necessary design-alterations did. That is exactly why the Ta 152H and the 109H (including the various Me/ Bv 155-iterations and the other Mtt high-alt projects) hat stretched wings and, on the Ta 152H had lager tailfeathers (the vertical tail had already been enlarged, the horizontal tail was to be enlarged).
  11. I can match the P-51 almost nowhere. I can outturn a 51 down low. That's about it.
  12. SBD with a four-bladed prop. Gotta be a great movie if they can't even make a correct poster...
  13. Without an increase in wing-area (akin to the 109H), the K-14 would have handled like crap at hi altitudes.
×
×
  • Create New...