Flying the 109: Pilot Accounts

[Crumpp]

The more technical, objective, and detailed the report, the better. Opinion is just that, opinion and without the details of the aircraft, worthless.

For example, the RAE investigation into the flying qualities of the Bf-109 contradicts many of the "opinion" areas given in buzzsaw's accounts.

The visibility from the Bf-109 in the RAE report:

When in flight, the view forward and sideways is normal, being similar to the Hurricane; the windscreen framework members are sufficiently narrow, and do not catch the pilot's eye nor create blind spots. Sideways and rearwards the view is about the same as the Spitfire and Hurricane, but the cramped position of the pilot in the cockpit makes it difficult to look downward or upward to the rear, and the tailplane can only be seen with an effort.


The direct vision opening gives a large field of view and is completely draught free at all speeds. A high speed can thus be maintained in'bad weather conditions, whereas on the Humcane or Spitfire the pilot must slide back the hood and look round the edge of the windscreen to obtain a view-forward in rain or cloud, and can only do this by flying at fairly low speed. The direct vision opening also assists landing, as the high position of the nose obstructs the view forward during the hold off, and the opening is in the correct position to give a view of the ground. The direct vision opening obviously satisfies a very real need, for the early Me.109s were not fitted with this device. The windscreen panels are clear and free from distortion, and do not oil up in flight. The hood sliding panels are difficult to open, particularly at high speeds.

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

The direct vision opening is noted as being a particularly good feature.

It could be the pilot in buzzsaw's anecdotes flew an aircraft not equipped with armored glass versus the other that was equipped with it or some other technical detail.

Point is that without the details, we do not know and outside of passing interest, the information is useless for attempts to reproduce a simulation of the experience.

[Crumpp]

real world data on an aircraft's characteristics can be gathered

Absolutely, but that data has to be gathered by a trained test pilot under measureable and defineable conditions.

The idea of flight testing is eliminate the subjective and stick to the objective.

That is why the NACA developed defined and measureable flying qualities standard during the war in conjunction with the test pilots.

[*Buzzsaw*]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

the RAE investigation into the flying qualities of the Bf-109 contradicts many of the "opinion" areas given in buzzsaw's accounts.

The visibility from the Bf-109 in the RAE report:

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

The direct vision opening is noted as being a particularly good feature.
.

You obviously have not taken the time to properly read either the RAE report or the reports I have posted above. Either that or you don't understand the differences between models of the 109.

The RAE report is on a 109E3 not a 109E4, which is the subject of the two reports above which deal with 109E's. The 109E3 cockpit is much more open and has quite a bit less in the way of metal framing. The cockpit on the 109E4 is more similar to the 109G2, which is the subject of the other two reviews I have posted, than the 109E3.

I would suggest you go back and re-read the material and inform yourself before you make hastily considered comments.

By the way, the RAE report was the next item I was intending to post on this thread.

In fact, that report does contradict the other pilot accounts in certain areas, but its comments on the framing of the cockpit and views are not an example.

Some of the above reports are also contradictory, but that does not mean one cannot find value.

As I agreed, they are opinions. Relatively objective and informed opinions, but nevertheless, opinions.

I would suggest those who have a disagreement with the material posted, simply state their points simply, and once, and then allow the thread to continue without the necessity for ad infinitum back and forths which is just going to clutter up the material presented.

[lonewulf]

Originally Posted by *Buzzsaw*

These reports are a little different from the typical anecdotes which a lot of players quote.

They are written by trained pilots who have no axe to grind, who are extremely knowledgeable about aircraft in general, with a vast experience of flying aircraft types, as well as having good aeronautic theory backgrounds.

Yes, you need the hard facts as well, ie. the actual figures for wingloading, max CL, rollrates, etc. but these accounts also fill in the gaps which are often missed by the numbers.

I tend to agree with Doggles. I can't see how these sorts of reports, interesting as they are, would help us very much. I say that because the issues that tend to exercise us the most occur right on the edge of the performance curve. To obtain the required information for that sort of discussion, these aircraft would have to be flown right to their limits, and that's extremely unlikely for all the obvious reasons.