Jump to content
HarleyDavidson

Spit MK XIV coming?

Recommended Posts

23 minutes ago, ZachariasX said:

Wow... at least on that type they wisened up. It looks rather improvised though. But I didn‘t know they ever installed such on a 109. I wonder where they put the trim knob in the cockpit.

 

Rudder trim wasn't required industry-wide in Germany for aircraft under 5 tons IIRC. Hence neither the 109 or 190 had it. Bigger Messerschmitt products had it. It wasn't a design choice or a sort of making it cheap - it was just how the industry standard was. Small aircraft were simply pre-trimmed to be balanced in cruise settings. The Flettner was simply added to reduce rudder forces of the bigger tail.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was easy to know who flew 109s. One lag was 'fatter' than the other.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A Griffon powered Spitfire is at the top of my wish list for sure.  Cash in hand!

 

Wishlist:

Griffon Spit

TA 152

Mosquito

B-17

Yak 9

 

English channel map?  Hurricane?

Pacific theater?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Bernardthefourth said:

A Griffon powered Spitfire is at the top of my wish list for sure.  Cash in hand!

 

Wishlist:

Griffon Spit

TA 152

Mosquito

B-17

Yak 9

 

English channel map?  Hurricane?

Pacific theater?

 

 

Not sure if you were aware but two of your items are already announced:

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/17/2019 at 1:57 PM, sevenless said:

 

Some inaccurate info there and he keep on spreading some old myths.

 

For example:

"On the P-51 a light off-set of the vertical fin was built into the design which generated an aerodynamic force which helped to balance out the torque. But even here any zero-yaw condition enhancements incorporated into the airframe are only true at one given airspeed and power setting- at a high power setting and low airspeed, as during a steep climb, the torque is greater than the correction. Conversely in a high speed dive aerodynamic forces are greater than the torque.

The average Bf 109 pilot enjoyed no such refinement as an off-set tail fin - with its small airframe and control surfaces the Bf 109 pilot had more to do in the cockpit than most."

 

In reality 109 indeed had airfoil shaped rudder since first models...

 

29206-jpg.409829

 

  "But, although the taller rudder as well as the Flettners made the 109 a more agile machine, the tall rudders were generally only introduced on the AS engined variants,"

 

Tall tails were on most 109 from late G6 on...etc.

 

Anyhow lack of rudder trim was never really big issue on 109's as the flights were not long (due to short range) and as we know, it was pre-trimmed for cruise speeds.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/17/2019 at 12:25 PM, VO101Kurfurst said:

Rudder trim wasn't required industry-wide in Germany for aircraft under 5 tons IIRC. Hence neither the 109 or 190 had it. Bigger Messerschmitt products had it. It wasn't a design choice or a sort of making it cheap - it was just how the industry standard was. Small aircraft were simply pre-trimmed to be balanced in cruise settings. The Flettner was simply added to reduce rudder forces of the bigger tail.

 

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.

 

39 minutes ago, DB605 said:

In reality 109 indeed had airfoil shaped rudder since first models...

 

Has the airfoil ever been changed to keep up with the increased engine-power?

 

39 minutes ago, DB605 said:

Anyhow lack of rudder trim was never really big issue on 109's as the flights were not long (due to short range) and as we know, it was pre-trimmed for cruise speeds.

 

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.

 

Edited by Bremspropeller
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Bremspropeller said:

 

 

 

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.

 

I have (Valmet RediGo, not comparable to ww2 fighters ofc), but only for a short time and it did not required lots of rudder :)

 

Climbs tooks only few minutes usually. It was not probably ideal solution, but also not as big issue as some people think it was.

Edited by DB605

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Edited by Bremspropeller

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Bremspropeller said:

 

 

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. 

 

Well, in my opinion it could handle increased power/weight surprisingly well. So well actually that it could stay competitive against all allied fighters till the very end. Thats quite remarkable for 1935 design.

 

And most of the pilots who flew them, didn't share your view about 'poor little 109'. 😉

Edited by DB605

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, DB605 said:

And most of the pilots who flew them, didn't share your view about 'poor little 109'

 

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:

Quote

"..It was on 25 August that I saw Hoeckner kill himself at Ziegenhain. His fighter powered off but flipped over at a height of around twenty metres and smashed into the ground. Those pilots that were already airborne and those just lifting off were completely stunned.... I almost met the same fate. The cockpits of our Me 109s were extremely cramped. With parachute, equipment and personal items it was sometimes difficult to get much leverage on the stick, wedged as it was in-between our knees. On one takeoff my machine veered off to starboard without me being able to do much about it - my knees got in the way of the stick movement. Fortunately I was already over the valley that ran along one side of the airfield. I was able to push the stick forward and pick up speed and managed to keep the aircraft under control by the skin of my teeth..." 

 

 

31 minutes ago, DB605 said:

Well, in my opinion it could handle increased power/weight surprisingly well. So well actually that it could stay competitive against all allied fighters till the very end. Thats quite remarkable for 1935 design.

 

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.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Damn Brems, you beat me to it. Was trying to type almost the same thing on my phone while out for breakfast.

 

Imagine if the FW 190 had unfettered access to the DB series engines, without the political roadblocks that Willey threw out there.

Edited by BlitzPig_EL
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, after reading most of the pilot memoirs/reports available (not just allied test pilots) i have quite different view about 109.

And yes, many of them have flown different types of fighters during/after the war.

 

With all of it's well known quirks it was not easy plane for novices for sure, but experienced pilots could beat pretty much anything with it. And that was not just about the speed.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, DB605 said:

but experienced pilots could beat pretty much anything with it. And that was not just about the speed.

 

No, it comes with the fact of being experienced.

 

10 minutes ago, DB605 said:

Well, after reading most of the pilot memoirs/reports available (not just allied test pilots) i have quite different view about 109.

And yes, many of them have flown different types of fighters during/after the war.

 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Bremspropeller said:

No, it comes with the fact of being experienced.

And the fact that 109 was still on par with others fighters in many ways.

 

11 minutes ago, Bremspropeller said:

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.

Not really, those who were trained properly to it, it was just like any other fighter of the era.

 

Edit. this arguing won't lead to anywhere and it's also off-topic so i'm going to leave it here.

Edited by DB605

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, DB605 said:

Not really, those who were trained properly to it, it was just like any other fighter of the era.

 

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:

 

Quote

Aged nearly 30, Walter Hoeckner had been flying the Bf 109 since 1940. On 25 June 1941 as Staffelkapitän of 6./JG 77, he had claimed no less than eight SB-2s during a freie Jagd sweep. At the time of his death he was a 68-victory Ritterkreuzträger, with sixteen of his victories notched up in the West, of which at least six were four-engined bombers. The Bf 109 was a particularly unforgiving aircraft, both for the novice and the seasoned ace. The tendency of the Bf 109 to swing badly on landing and take-off could of course be countered - but it required plenty of rudder. And if the tail was " lifted aggressively ", in the words of the late Mark Hanna (who also died at the controls of a Bf 109!), " the left swing tendency was difficult to stop and happens very quickly ". At altitude and high speed the Bf 109 tended to swing “like a pendulum combined with a rolling movement” to paraphrase an RAF translation of comments by test pilot Heinrich Beauvais;

".incompletely trimmed ailerons and rudder ruin the feel of the aircraft to uselessness. Therefore, the aircraft must be carefully flown in.. " At high speed, the Bf 109 was " like a brick..", requiring both hands to move the controls. Oscar Boesch commented;

" ..When turning the FW 190 as high speed, it only took one hand on the stick to control the aircraft. In the 109 it took two hands and a lot of strength to make a tight turn if you had some speed. This destroyed the feel for flying the aircraft...
."

 

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.

 

 

Edited by Bremspropeller

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the lines of the Griffon Spitfires more than the Merlin Spitfires, especially together with the bubble canopy.  Would be nice to have as a collector's release plane.  It's unfortunate that the only current game that has them is War Thunder, which has the XIV, 22, 24 and Seafire XVII and 47.  Gaijin's interpretation of whatever flight data they have results in an atrocious flight model - unstable and very tail heavy, difficult to fly with a flight stick and pedals. Spitfires in that game tend to want to point the nose everywhere but where you want to point it. But apparently since Spitfires "behave as expected" in their mouse control / instructor assisted arcade and realistic modes, they aren't considered a problem.  Contrast with their 109 flight models which exhibit very few negative traits.  One of the third party developers for DCS was planning to make a Mk XIV, but their contract with Eagle Dynamics wasn't renewed. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...