Leading Edge Slats on the Me-109

[NZtyphoon]

Originally Posted by *Buzzsaw*

Actually your comments are an exaggeration.

What the slats do is allow a pilot the confidence that if he pulls too much G and stalls his aircraft, the likelyhood of a violent spin is diminished and the knowledge he should be able to recover relatively easily.

The slats in themselves do not give any guarantee of a stall not occurring, they merely make the event, when it occurs, less violent.

The pilot still must be able to judge whether or not his aircraft is about to depart, and how many G's he is able to pull before departure may occur.

The slats opened prior to the stall, by RAF estimation, approx. 1/2 a G, and in pulling further G's and in order to avoid a stall, the pilot had to know the further signs of a stall approach, in the same way a Spitfire or Hurricane pilot was required to monitor his aircraft's behaviour.

In addition, the installation of the slats was not without penalty. As noted, the slats by deploying, increased the lift generated by the outer section of the wing, but they also generate more drag and reduce the speed of the aircraft. For earlier models of the 109, in particular the E, the chances of the slats deploying assymetrically in a turn was a factor, which was noted to cause aileron snatching and which could cause the aircraft to change direction without the pilot's intention.

From what I have read 109 pilots did have concerns about the slats banging open, causing a jolt because of aileron snatching and sometimes upsetting the pilot's aim. Fact is that all designs are a compromise in one way or t'other - like I keep saying slats were no better nor worse at aiding control than other aerodynamic aids. In the end it was the pilot's skills and experience that made a real difference; learning how to get the best out of the aircraft was a great survival technique.

[Crumpp]

Actually your comments are an exaggeration

Let's be specific and point exactly what you think I "exaggerated" otherwise your post is simple trolling and bait attempt to define me as being "red vs blue".

Buzzsaw, you state exactly the same thing I have without any change.

[Crumpp]

4.4. Stalling Tests

We find that under all conditions tested, the Bf-109 has:

no tendency to spin.

http://kurfurst.org/Tactical_trials/...ls/Morgan.html

[Robo.]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

no tendency to spin.

The in-game 109 has not any unusal tendency to spin - you will stall her of course when you do a mistake and lose control. That is a very good match with the 'us experienced pilots'. I would say that the problem lies in the spin recovery, e.g. once the a/c enters the spin, it is more difficult to recover than it should be.

[Crumpp]

you will stall her of course when you do a mistake and lose control

Again, they act like training wheels on a bicycle. In otherwords, it should be EXTREMELY difficult to spin the aircraft and very easy to recover.

once the a/c enters the spin

The advantage of the slats is in preventing spins. Find a report on the spin characteristics of the Bf-109.

There is an engineering reason there is not one.

[Robo.]

So are you saying that the 109 was unspinnable? Even if the pilot made a mistake?

I see the point that the a/c in game is now too difficult to recover and I agree it should be addressed.

[SlipBall]

Originally Posted by Robo.

So are you saying that the 109 was unspinnable? Even if the pilot made a mistake?

I see the point that the a/c in game is now too difficult to recover and I agree it should be addressed.

I find it easy to recover, trick being to act very fast with opposite rudder, & pitch throttle, to protect the engine

[NZtyphoon]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

Again, they act like training wheels on a bicycle. In otherwords, it should be EXTREMELY difficult to spin the aircraft and very easy to recover.



The advantage of the slats is in preventing spins. Find a report on the spin characteristics of the Bf-109.

There is an engineering reason there is not one.

Interesting in light of the fact that one of the reasons the 109 was chosen over the He 112 was because test pilot Hermann Wurster was able to demonstrate a series of spins, 21 to port, 17 to starboard, before a group of Luftwaffe officials. Clearly the 109 was easy to recover from spins - the E probably a little more difficult than a Jumo engined prototype - but the slats were not some miracle cure for spins.

[Crumpp]

Hey check it out......the slots resulted in far superior stall characteristics such that with the CG loaded fully aft, the airfract was spun in a tail heavy load safely!

Wow, that is good information. We I teach spins, the CG must be as far forward as possible for a very good reason.

Normally, a rearward CG spin is extremely dangerous and something to be avoided. To intentionally load the aircraft to its rearward limits and then spin it speaks volumes of the confidence in the slat operation.

Entry into a spin is much easier at any aircraft rearward CG limit but recovery is much more difficult if not impossible because the spin will flatten.

The aircraft showed no tendency to flatten the spin even at a rearward CG.

That pretty much says it all and proves the value of the LE slats.