Official Fulqrum Publishing forum - Leading Edge Slats on the Me-109

Page 3 of 3

Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

Official Fulqrum Publishing forum (http://forum.fulqrumpublishing.com/index.php)

- FM/DM threads (http://forum.fulqrumpublishing.com/forumdisplay.php?f=196)

- - Leading Edge Slats on the Me-109 (http://forum.fulqrumpublishing.com/showthread.php?t=35549)

VO101_MMaister

12-11-2012 10:49 AM

You are amazing guys... How the hell did you end up on the spit`s high speed stall characteristic in a thread about the leading edge slats of the 109?????

There are no spinproof airplanes, there ones which are hard to put in a spin. The wing is stalled when the airflow become turbulent over the whole upper wing area and so it looses its lifting effect. The slats ensure a laminar flow over the outer wing around the ailerons at low speed so you have some more control before the wing stall. No magic here. It can postpone the stall but it won`t eliminate it.

The spin is when only one of the wing is stalled due to the assyimetrical flow. The slats could open independently, so they could prevent a spin by opening only on the wing which was just about the stall. But again it was only postponing the spin in this case and gave you more control.

On the other hand the slats could make a fuss, when only one of them opened due to some mechanical failure, and it resulted an assymetrical lift and so an unpredicted spin at low speed. Also they raised the drag when they were open, what meant quicker de-accceleration.

I have never flown an aircraft with slats, so no practical experience here, but as I understand Crumpp did, and he gave a quite good description about the acting of such an airplane.

I also feel that the 109 in the game is a bit sensitive, but hey, I can`t tell if it is right or not. Can you? I have never flown one, and I have never read a review of the current flight modell by a real life 109 jockey. Have you? There are quantitive specs what can be measured and checked in numbers and graphs. And then there are the sensations. It is quite hard to translate a pilot`s story into an accurate flight model. In these stories you can only get what that particular guy felt in that particular situation, and then how he can recall it after maybe 60-70 years. Well it is not bomb proof for sure. Now translate it into a computer game for guys who are flying in an office chair, and they pull as hard as they want without feeling the punishment of the real G-forces or the physical exhausting of an aerial battle. So we can have a depute on it for 1000 years and we never gonna agree.

Crumpp

12-11-2012 12:42 PM

Quote:

As to how to replicate the buffet in the game

Start another thread, it is pretty easy to simulate correctly the effect.

Quote:

Crumpp completely ignores the 95% of positive report on the Spitfire but emphasises the negative 5%

Nothing to do with any emotional attachment one way or the other to the Spitfire. I like the airplane.

With certain posters on these boards though there is no reason to repeat the strengths of the design as that is all they emphasize.

Therefore anybody who seeks the historical balance is stuck in the position of repeating what has has already been pointed out AND adding in the overlooked qualities OR just stating the overlooked qualities that achieved that balance!

Crumpp

12-11-2012 01:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VO101_MMaister (Post 486565)

You are amazing guys... How the hell did you end up on the spit`s high speed stall characteristic in a thread about the leading edge slats of the 109?????

There are no spinproof airplanes, there ones which are hard to put in a spin. The wing is stalled when the airflow become turbulent over the whole upper wing area and so it looses its lifting effect. The slats ensure a laminar flow over the outer wing around the ailerons at low speed so you have some more control before the wing stall. No magic here. It can postpone the stall but it won`t eliminate it.

The spin is when only one of the wing is stalled due to the assyimetrical flow. The slats could open independently, so they could prevent a spin by opening only on the wing which was just about the stall. But again it was only postponing the spin in this case and gave you more control.

On the other hand the slats could make a fuss, when only one of them opened due to some mechanical failure, and it resulted an assymetrical lift and so an unpredicted spin at low speed. Also they raised the drag when they were open, what meant quicker de-accceleration.

I have never flown an aircraft with slats, so no practical experience here, but as I understand Crumpp did, and he gave a quite good description about the acting of such an airplane.

I also feel that the 109 in the game is a bit sensitive, but hey, I can`t tell if it is right or not. Can you? I have never flown one, and I have never read a review of the current flight modell by a real life 109 jockey. Have you? There are quantitive specs what can be measured and checked in numbers and graphs. And then there are the sensations. It is quite hard to translate a pilot`s story into an accurate flight model. In these stories you can only get what that particular guy felt in that particular situation, and then how he can recall it after maybe 60-70 years. Well it is not bomb proof for sure. Now translate it into a computer game for guys who are flying in an office chair, and they pull as hard as they want without feeling the punishment of the real G-forces or the physical exhausting of an aerial battle. So we can have a depute on it for 1000 years and we never gonna agree.

Good post. Your right, the thread is getting off track and needs to get back on.

The behaviors of the Bf-109 are fairly well documented and we have some measured data. There is enough there to construct a reasonable facimile. Unfortunately the RAE did not have a standard or the measuring equipment developed by the NACA until later.

Also other reports and the Operating Notes give some really good clues about the stability and control of the Bf-109. For example, the Bf-109 (in a trimmed condition) was limited by design to about 5G's. This keeps the pilot safe and allows maximum attainable manuverability with gusting. You can see this in the turn performance evaluation by the RLM/Mtt of the Bf-109E.

5600/140 = 40 lbs MINIMUM control force required on the elevator at 1G and we require a stick force per G greater than 8lbs/g.

I would think CloD FM is sophisticated enough to use sections. If that is the case, simulating the slats effect on stall behaviors should be a matter of doing exactly what the designers did.

Adjust the coefficient of moment of the elevator accordingly with the outboard wing sections and stalled main portion wing sections.

At the forward CG point where our elevator requires the most moment, the airplane should not spin. As the CG moves rearward, the ability to enter a spin is increased until at its most rearward position a spin entry is possible with deliberate effort.

Reading the synopsis of the Mtt spin trials the Bf-109 at rearward CG reminds me of a C-172 spin qualities at the Cessna forward CG. You must enter a power on stall and give a vigorous rudder input to the direction you want to spin. The break is crisp as the rudder feel is noticeably sloppy near the break but solid until that vicinity. The airplanes settles into more of a corkscrewing dive than a developed spin. The PARE can be pretty sloppy in a 172, letting go of the controls will effect recovery many times. Reducing power and stepping on the high wing results in immediate recovery. You can just about ignore the A and E in PARE in a C172 as long as they are not extreme.

ACE-OF-ACES

12-11-2012 01:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by robtek (Post 486516)

Now there you have to bring some proof that the assymetric action of the flaps, which was intended, was causing spins.

First you 'flip' and said 'with such arguments I am soo far out'.. Now you 'flop' and want me to provide proof of such arguments that are too far out?

Why bother, Ill just give you a few more min to 'flip' back and poo poo it again.

Quote:

Originally Posted by robtek (Post 486516)

And the points you've brought are as usual black and white with no room for intermediate.

Agreed..

But I can not take all the credit for these points.. I was simply pointing out what pilots who have flown the 109 had to say about the uneven slat activation.

Crumpp

12-11-2012 02:08 PM

Quote:

Stalling the 109
Me 109 E:
"The airplane was equipped with a 60 foot trailing static head and a swiveling pitot head. Although, as may be imagined, operation of a trailing static from a single-seater with a rather cramped cockpit is a difficult job, the pilot brought back the following results:
Lowering the ailerons and flaps thus increases CL max of 0.5. This is roughly the value which would be expected from the installation. Behaviour at the stall. The airplane was put through the full official tests. The results may be summarized by saying that the stalling behaviour, flaps up and down, is excellent. Both rudder and ailerons are effective right down to the stall, which is very gentle, the wing only falling about 10 degrees and the nose falling with it. There is no tendency to spin. With flaps up the ailerons snatch while the slats are opening, and there is a buffeting on the ailerons as the stall is approached.. Withs flaps down there is no aileron snatch as the slats open, and no pre-stall aileron buffeting. There is no warning of the stall, flaps down. From the safety viewpoint this is the sold adverse stalling feature; it is largely off-set by the innocuous behaviour at the stall and by the very high degree of fore and aft stability on the approach glide.
It is important to bear in mind that minimum radii of turn are obtained by going as near to the stall as possible. In this respect the Bf.109E scores by its excellent control near the stall and innocuous behaviour at the stall, giving the pilot confidence to get the last ounce out of his airplanes turning performance."- RAF Royal Aircraft Establishment (RAE) Farnborough handling trials,Bf.109E Wn: 1304. M.B. Morgan and R. Smelt of the RAE, 1944.

Me 109 E-4:
"I was amazed at how docile the aircraft was and how difficult it was to depart, particularly from manoeuvre - in a level turn there was lots of warning from a wide buffet margin and the aircraft would not depart unless it was out of balance. Once departted the aircraft was recovered easily by centralizing the controls."
- Charlie Brown, RAF Flying Instructor, test flight of restored Me 109 E-4 WN 3579. Source: Warbirds Journal issue 50.

Me 109 G:
"- How the Messerschmitt reacted to hard pull? Did she stall?
There is the general opinion that you could not make her stall by pulling but she could 'slip'."
- Kyösti Karhila, Finnish fighter ace. 32 victories. Source: Interview by Finnish Virtual Pilots Association.

Quote:

Me 109 E:
"I was particularly interested in the operation of the slats, the action of which gave rise to aileron snatching in any high-G manoeuvres such as loops or tigh turns so I did a series of stalls to check their functioning more accurately. The stall with the aircraft clean, with half fuel load and the engine throttled right back occurred at 105 MPH (168 km/h). This was preceded by elevator buffet and opening the slats about 20 mph (30 km/h) above the stall, these being accompanied by the unpleasant aileron snatching as the slats opened unevenly. The stall itself was fairly gentle with the nose dropping and the port wing simultaneously dropping about 10 degrees."
- Eric Brown
- The author writes about an "unpleasant" event. Nothing catastrophic! Surely all of the planes of that time had features, that were unpleasant, just as well as many planes today have. Curtiss Hawk 75 was surely unpleasant to fly with the rear fuselage fuel tank filled, as flying acrobatics could get you killed. P-51 was at least unpleasant with fuselage tanks filled.

Me 109 E:
"The Bf 109s also had leading edge slats. When the 109 was flown, advertently or inadvertently, too slow, the slats shot forward out of the wing, sometimes with a loud bang which could be heard above the noise of the engine. Many times the slats coming out frightenened young pilots when they flew the Bf 109 for the first time in combat. One often flew near the stalling speed in combat, not only when flying straight and level but especially when turning and climbing. Sometimes the slats would suddenly fly out with a bang as if one had been hit, especially when one had throttled back to bank steeply. Indeed many fresh young pilots thought they were pulling very tight turns even when the slats were still closed against the wing. For us, the more experienced pilots, real manoeuvring only started when the slats were out. For this reason it is possible to find pilots from that period (1940) who will tell you that the Spitfire turned better than the Bf 109. That is not true. I myself had many dogfights with Spitfires and I could always out-turn them.
One had to enter the turn correctly, then open up the engine. It was a matter of feel. When one noticed the speed becoming critical - the aircraft vibrated - one had to ease up a bit, then pull back again, so that in plan the best turn would have looked like an egg or a horizontal ellipse rather than a circle. In this way one could out-turn the Spitfire - and I shot down six of them doing it. This advantage to the Bf 109 soon changed when improved Spitfires were delivered."
- Erwin Leykauf, German fighter pilot, 33 victories. Source: Messerschmitt Bf109 ja Saksan Sotatalous by Hannu Valtonen; Hurricane & Messerschmitt, Chaz Bowyer and Armand Van Ishoven.

Me 109 E:
"And there I discovered the first thing you have to consider in a 109. The 109 had slots. The slot had a purpose to increase the lift during takeoff and landing. In the air automatically it's pressed to the main wing. And if you turn very roughly you got a chance, it's just by power, the wing, the forewing, comes out a little bit, and you snap. This happened to me. I released the stick immediately and it was ok then. "
- Major Gunther Rall in April 1943. German fighter ace, NATO general, Commander of the German Air Force. 275 victories. Source: Lecture by general Rall.

Me 109 E/F/G: - The plane had these wing slats and you mentioned they pop open uneven?
"Two meter slots on fore wings. The reason was to increase the lift during low speed take off and landing. To reduce the length of runway you need. In the air, if you make rough turns, just by gravity, the outer slot might get out. You can correct it immediately by release of stick, you know? Only little bit, psssssssht, its in, then its gone. You have to know that. And if you know it, you prevent it."
- Major Gunther Rall. German fighter ace, NATO general, Commander of the German Air Force. 275 victories. Source: Lecture by general Rall.

Me 109 G:
"- How often did the slats in the leading edge of the wing slam open without warning?
They were exteneded always suddenly but not unexpectedly. They did not operate in high speed but in low speed. One could make them go out and in by moving the stick back and forth. When turning one slat functioned ahead of the other one, but that did not affect the steering. In a battle situation one could pull a little more if the slats had come out. They had a positive effect of the slow speed handling characteristics of the Messerschmitt.
- Could the pilot control the leading edge slats?
No. The slats were extended when the speed decreased enough, you could feel when they were extended. "
- Kyösti Karhila, Finnish fighter ace. 32 victories. Source: Interview by Finnish Virtual Pilots Association.

Me 109 G:
"- In a battle, which was the case: did the pilot endure more than the Messerschmitt could do or vice versa?
The fact is that when you pulled hard enough the wing leading edge slats slammed open. After that the pilot could not tighten the turn. The plane would have stalled. I don't know, I never tried to find out what the plane would do after that. I never heard anybody else saying that he would have banked so hard that the slats came out. I did that a few times, for example once over the Isthmus I tried to turn after an enemy, banking so hard that both slats came out, but I had to give up.
- How did the slats behave in such a situation, did they go in and out ?
It depended on speed, if you pulled more,they came out, then back in
The slats came out completely, never half-way?
I never came to watch them so intensely. You just knew they had come out, you could see them and feel that the lift increased pretty much.
- So the plane warned that now you are on the edge.
Yes, you knew the plane is about to spin."
- Antti Tani, Finnish fighter ace. 21,5 victories. Source: Interview by Finnish Virtual Pilots Association.

Me 109 F/G:
"- Did pilots like the slats on the wings of the 109?
Yes, pilots did like them, since it allowed them better positions in dogfights along with using the flaps. These slats would also deploy slightly when the a/c was reaching stall at higher altitudes showing the pilot how close they were to stalling.....this was also useful when you were drunk "
- Franz Stigler, German fighter ace. 28 victories. Interview of Franz Stigler.

Me 109 G:
"As CL max is reached the leading edge slats deploy - together if the ball is in the middle, slightly asymmetrically if you have any slip on. The aircraft delights in being pulled into hard manuevering turns at these slower speeds. As the slats pop out you feel a slight "notching" on the stick and you can pull more until the whole airframe is buffeting quite hard. A little more and you will drop a wing, but you have to be crass to do it unintentionally."
- Mark Hanna of the Old Flying Machine Company flying the OFMC Messerschmitt Bf 109 G (Spanish version).

Me 109 G:
"There was nothing special in landing the plane. It was heavy but the wing slats opened up when speed slowed down and helped flying in slow speed."
-Kullervo Joutseno, Finnish fighter pilot. Source: Hannu Valtonen, "Me 109 ja Saksan sotatalous" (Messerschmitt Bf 109 and the German war economy), ISBN 951-95688-7-5.

Me 109 G:
"It was beneficial to keep the throttle a little open when landing. This made the landings softer and almost all three-point landings were successful with this technique. During landings the leading edge slats were fully open. But there was no troubles in landing even with throttle at idle."
-Mikko Lallukka, Finnish fighter pilot. Source: Hannu Valtonen, "Me 109 ja Saksan sotatalous" (Messerschmitt Bf 109 and the German war economy), ISBN 951-95688-7-5.Source: Hannu Valtonen, "Messerschmitt Bf 109 and the German war economy"

Me 109 G:
"We didn't have time for acrobatics but we weren't forbidden from doing them, though. Snap roll was fast and easy, and the engine didn't cough as in older planes. Immelman turn was splendid when you tightened the stick a bit on the top. The automatic wing slats did their trick and you didn't need ailerons at all for straightening the plane."
-Otso Leskinen, Finnish fighter pilot. Source: Hannu Valtonen, "Me 109 ja Saksan sotatalous" (Messerschmitt Bf 109 and the German war economy), ISBN 951-95688-7-5.

"Unexperienced pilots hesitated to turn tight, bacause the plane shook violently when the slats deployed. I realised, though, that because of the slats the plane's stalling characteristics were much better than in comparable Allied planes that I got to fly. Even though you may doubt it, I knew it [Bf109] could manouver better in turnfight than LaGG, Yak or even Spitfire."
- Walter Wolfrum, German fighter ace. 137 victories.

http://www.virtualpilots.fi/feature/articles/109myths/

taildraggernut

12-11-2012 02:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crumpp (Post 486623)

Nothing to do with any emotional attachment one way or the other to the Spitfire. I like the airplane.

Nobody mentioned emotional attachments.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crumpp (Post 486623)

With certain posters on these boards though there is no reason to repeat the strengths of the design as that is all they emphasize.

They tend only to repeat the positive aspects after certain posters go out of their way to emphasise the minor negative aspects.

taildraggernut

12-11-2012 02:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crumpp (Post 486664)

At the forward CG point where our elevator requires the most moment, the airplane should not spin. As the CG moves rearward, the ability to enter a spin is increased until at its most rearward position a spin entry is possible with deliberate effort.

So basically you aknowlege the RAE evaluation that the aircraft was 'too stable' for a fighter, if you are having to use up elevator effect simply to counter the CoG then you have afairly impeded manouverability.

Crumpp

12-11-2012 02:21 PM

If you have never flown a slat equipped aircraft, it is a different experience despite the slats being totally unnoticeable for the vast majority of their operation.

Once you have, the idiosyncrasies of the slats becomes part of the airplane and the tactile clues are comforting acknowledgements that everything is working as it should.

Once you explore the low speed performance of a slat equipped aircraft you will miss them on airplanes that lack such a device.

II/JG53 Rolf

12-11-2012 02:35 PM

One of the most amusing threads I have ever read... You can learn so many details about slats and its function while there is an agreement that in-game Bf-109 E doesn't have realistic stall and spin characteristics... Well done chaps.:)

ACE-OF-ACES

12-11-2012 02:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crumpp (Post 486678)

http://www.virtualpilots.fi/feature/articles/109myths/

LOL

Leave it to Crumpp to cut-n-paste quotes from a website with the title 109 myths as PROOF that uneven slat activation could NOT cause spins.. Yup no chance of bias at that website! NOT! One glance at that site and anyone can see that site goes way out of it's way to interpret what was said about uneven slat activation in the best possible light for the 109

With that said, instead of 'words' from a biased Internet website, how about 'words' from actual Bf109 pilots in a book by David Isby called The Decisive Duel: Spitfire vs 109? Will this meet your standards of proof robtek?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oberleutnant Erwin Leykauf

Less experienced pilots could put a Bf 109 into a stall and spin when the slats deployed on one wing and not the other in a tight turn. When slats deployed unevenly in tight turns, they would disrupt the airflow, causing the ailerons to ‘snatch’ enough to shake a Bf 109, spoiling the pilot’s aim

Now it is decision time.. As in who are you going to belive?

1) A biased website quote posted by Crumpp.
2) A quote of an actual WWII Bf109 pilot.

The choice is clear, but I am sure that some folks like Crumpp, Tomcat, and robtek will find creative ways to disregard what this actual WWII Bf109 pilot had to say about the slats causing spins..

Crumpp

12-11-2012 02:43 PM

Quote:

RAE evaluation that the aircraft was 'too stable'

It is a fact the RAE pilot felt that way. It is also a fact the RAE had no defined stability and control standards outside of pilot opinion. They did not have the measurements and definitions of the NACA or the RLM.

It is also a fact if you apply those definitions and standards, the Bf-109 was designed to be thrown around the sky at maximum performance the physics and physiological limits of the real world allowed.

Gust factor is a very real limit to airplanes. Flying around the other day, I had to stay below Vno just cruising because the sky was so bumpy.

If you pull a 6G maneuver and hit a gust acceleration, you have damaged the airplane. Not only that, 6G's sucks!! It is very uncomfortable and exhausting! IIRC, the USAF did a study and a fighter pilots ability to accurately track a target for a gun solution is degraded ~85% of normal after a few seconds exposure to just 4.5G's.

What Mtt did was apply a stability and control standard to ensure the pilot could quickly and precisely maneuver the guns onto target in order to make the most accurate shot possible. They tried to ensure the airplane achieved maximum performance to get where it needed to be in a condition to destroy other airplanes.

The designed a stable shooting platform and built an airplane around it.

Crumpp

12-11-2012 02:47 PM

Quote:

Crumpp to cut-n-paste quotes from a website with the title 109 myths as PROOF that uneven slat activation could NOT cause spins..

Why don't you get some experience in an automatic slat equipped aircraft and come back to tell us how it works.

You don't seem to count my experience so share yours!!

Crumpp

12-11-2012 02:56 PM

Quote:

Bf 109 into a stall and spin when the slats deployed on one wing and not the other

Airframes break apart in flight, Flaps break, engines breakdown, spark plugs foul, fabric balloons, and slats malfunction...

http://img338.imageshack.us/img338/3...dwingsfail.jpg

All things mechanical can fail especially if not properly maintained or abused.

What does that have to do with me or the physics of how slats operate?

ACE-OF-ACES

12-11-2012 02:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crumpp (Post 486714)

Why don't you get some experience in an automatic slat equipped aircraft and come back to tell us how it works.

Why? When I have something better, as in an actual WWII Bf109 quote, i.e.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oberleutnant Erwin Leykauf

Less experienced pilots could put a Bf 109 into a stall and spin when the slats deployed on one wing and not the other in a tight turn. When slats deployed unevenly in tight turns, they would disrupt the airflow, causing the ailerons to ‘snatch’ enough to shake a Bf 109, spoiling the pilot’s aim

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crumpp (Post 486714)

You don't seem to count my experience so share yours!!

Don't take it personally!

I just think the experience of an actual WWII Bf109 pilot trumps Crumpp's modern civilian aircraft pilot experience when talking about how a Bf109 acts..

Guess I am just silly like that! ;)

ACE-OF-ACES

12-11-2012 02:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crumpp (Post 486722)

Flaps break, engines breakdown, spark plugs foul, fabric balloons, and slats malfunction...

All things mechanical can fail especially if not properly maintained or abused.

What does that have to do with me or the physics of how slats operate?

Not sure Crumpp..

But it sounds like your saying you know better than Oberleutnant Erwin Leykauf wrt how slats worked on a Bf109 in flight..

If so,

well..

I guess you can 'feel' that way..

Just know that I an others are probally going to stick with Oberleutnant Erwin Leykauf experance on this mater over yours

II/JG53 Rolf

12-11-2012 03:06 PM

AOA - Sir, you have just done the same thing. While he posted numerous pilot records about slats, you choose one from a single book as a proof... :) Is the book reliable in all aspects? Does the author really understand aerodynamics? Now I don't have the book in my place, so I can't check it, but it seems to me that this is one I've actually read and there were several mistakes caused by authors misunderstanding of how things work and were designed.

It sort of reminds me a book by Stephen Bungay who was trying to mathematically prove that the 8 machine guns of a spit/hurry were more effective than 2 cannons of Bf-109 E...

Now to your quote - "...Less experienced pilots could put a Bf 109 into a stall and spin when the slats deployed on one wing and not the other in a tight turn..." Sir, Less experienced pilots is the key here. It means they ignored the warning the slats had given them and continued pulling on the stick :-) ... It was mistake of a pilot not a plane... and less experienced pilots avoided near stall conditions at all... and it and it has been reported many times...

World would be a better place if we listened to each other instead of shouting...

And THE QUESTION about slats has both answers actually ;) - they do both in logical sequence... :-)

taildraggernut

12-11-2012 03:10 PM

purely in the interest of balance.

Quote:

Nice report, but apparently the RAE knew nothing and didn't have nice spangly testing equipment.....see quote below.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crumpp (Post 486664)

The behaviors of the Bf-109 are fairly well documented and we have some measured data. There is enough there to construct a reasonable facimile. Unfortunately the RAE did not have a standard or the measuring equipment developed by the NACA until later.

Quote:

Me 109 E-4:
"I was amazed at how docile the aircraft was and how difficult it was to depart, particularly from manoeuvre - in a level turn there was lots of warning from a wide buffet margin and the aircraft would not depart unless it was out of balance. Once departted the aircraft was recovered easily by centralizing the controls."
- Charlie Brown, RAF Flying Instructor, test flight of restored Me 109 E-4 WN 3579. Source: Warbirds Journal issue 50.

Here is where someone has basically confirmed the aircraft will spin, of course this is a contemporary report on a restored aircraft which is not loaded the same as a wartime machine.

Quote:

Me 109 G:
"- How the Messerschmitt reacted to hard pull? Did she stall?
There is the general opinion that you could not make her stall by pulling but she could 'slip'."
- Kyösti Karhila, Finnish fighter ace. 32 victories. Source: Interview by Finnish Virtual Pilots Association.

Note the oppinion was 'general' and not explicit.

Quote:

Quote:
Me 109 E:
"I was particularly interested in the operation of the slats, the action of which gave rise to aileron snatching in any high-G manoeuvres such as loops or tigh turns so I did a series of stalls to check their functioning more accurately. The stall with the aircraft clean, with half fuel load and the engine throttled right back occurred at 105 MPH (168 km/h). This was preceded by elevator buffet and opening the slats about 20 mph (30 km/h) above the stall, these being accompanied by the unpleasant aileron snatching as the slats opened unevenly. The stall itself was fairly gentle with the nose dropping and the port wing simultaneously dropping about 10 degrees."
- Eric Brown
- The author writes about an "unpleasant" event. Nothing catastrophic! Surely all of the planes of that time had features, that were unpleasant, just as well as many planes today have. Curtiss Hawk 75 was surely unpleasant to fly with the rear fuselage fuel tank filled, as flying acrobatics could get you killed. P-51 was at least unpleasant with fuselage tanks filled.

I'm sure all Mr Brown meant was 'unpleasant' and there is nothing more to be read into it.

Quote:

Me 109 E:
"The Bf 109s also had leading edge slats. When the 109 was flown, advertently or inadvertently, too slow, the slats shot forward out of the wing, sometimes with a loud bang which could be heard above the noise of the engine. Many times the slats coming out frightenened young pilots when they flew the Bf 109 for the first time in combat. One often flew near the stalling speed in combat, not only when flying straight and level but especially when turning and climbing. Sometimes the slats would suddenly fly out with a bang as if one had been hit, especially when one had throttled back to bank steeply. Indeed many fresh young pilots thought they were pulling very tight turns even when the slats were still closed against the wing. For us, the more experienced pilots, real manoeuvring only started when the slats were out. For this reason it is possible to find pilots from that period (1940) who will tell you that the Spitfire turned better than the Bf 109. That is not true. I myself had many dogfights with Spitfires and I could always out-turn them. One had to enter the turn correctly, then open up the engine. It was a matter of feel. When one noticed the speed becoming critical - the aircraft vibrated - one had to ease up a bit, then pull back again, so that in plan the best turn would have looked like an egg or a horizontal ellipse rather than a circle. In this way one could out-turn the Spitfire - and I shot down six of them doing it. This advantage to the Bf 109 soon changed when improved Spitfires were delivered."
- Erwin Leykauf, German fighter pilot, 33 victories. Source: Messerschmitt Bf109 ja Saksan Sotatalous by Hannu Valtonen; Hurricane & Messerschmitt, Chaz Bowyer and Armand Van Ishoven.

Another pilot report, subject to all the ego and fading memory issues, there is no clear evidence that the 6 Spitfires shot down were not being flown by fresh young pilots of the RAF.

Quote:

Me 109 E:
"And there I discovered the first thing you have to consider in a 109. The 109 had slots. The slot had a purpose to increase the lift during takeoff and landing. In the air automatically it's pressed to the main wing. And if you turn very roughly you got a chance, it's just by power, the wing, the forewing, comes out a little bit, and you snap. This happened to me. I released the stick immediately and it was ok then. "
- Major Gunther Rall in April 1943. German fighter ace, NATO general, Commander of the German Air Force. 275 victories. Source: Lecture by general Rall.

Heres a point showing the true function of the slats.

Quote:

Me 109 E/F/G: - The plane had these wing slats and you mentioned they pop open uneven?
"Two meter slots on fore wings. The reason was to increase the lift during low speed take off and landing. To reduce the length of runway you need. In the air, if you make rough turns, just by gravity, the outer slot might get out. You can correct it immediately by release of stick, you know? Only little bit, psssssssht, its in, then its gone. You have to know that. And if you know it, you prevent it."
- Major Gunther Rall. German fighter ace, NATO general, Commander of the German Air Force. 275 victories. Source: Lecture by general Rall.

Same guy same reasoning, slats were for low speed handling.

Quote:

Me 109 G:
"- How often did the slats in the leading edge of the wing slam open without warning?
They were exteneded always suddenly but not unexpectedly. They did not operate in high speed but in low speed. One could make them go out and in by moving the stick back and forth. When turning one slat functioned ahead of the other one, but that did not affect the steering. In a battle situation one could pull a little more if the slats had come out. They had a positive effect of the slow speed handling characteristics of the Messerschmitt.- Could the pilot control the leading edge slats?
No. The slats were extended when the speed decreased enough, you could feel when they were extended. "
- Kyösti Karhila, Finnish fighter ace. 32 victories. Source: Interview by Finnish Virtual Pilots Association.

Slightly confusing, the slats didn't open at high speed?, but another confirmation of the true function of slats.

Quote:

Me 109 G:
"- In a battle, which was the case: did the pilot endure more than the Messerschmitt could do or vice versa?
The fact is that when you pulled hard enough the wing leading edge slats slammed open. After that the pilot could not tighten the turn. The plane would have stalled. I don't know, I never tried to find out what the plane would do after that. I never heard anybody else saying that he would have banked so hard that the slats came out. I did that a few times, for example once over the Isthmus I tried to turn after an enemy, banking so hard that both slats came out, but I had to give up.
- How did the slats behave in such a situation, did they go in and out ?
It depended on speed, if you pulled more,they came out, then back in
The slats came out completely, never half-way?
I never came to watch them so intensely. You just knew they had come out, you could see them and feel that the lift increased pretty much.
- So the plane warned that now you are on the edge.
Yes, you knew the plane is about to spin."- Antti Tani, Finnish fighter ace. 21,5 victories. Source: Interview by Finnish Virtual Pilots Association.

Interesting, after the slats were open you didn't wan't to pull more or the aircraft would stall, a pilot showing a healthy reluctance to go beyond the envelope, and finishing by saying the aircraft would spin.

Quote:

Me 109 F/G:
"- Did pilots like the slats on the wings of the 109?
Yes, pilots did like them, since it allowed them better positions in dogfights along with using the flaps. These slats would also deploy slightly when the a/c was reaching stall at higher altitudes showing the pilot how close they were to stalling.....this was also useful when you were drunk "
- Franz Stigler, German fighter ace. 28 victories. Interview of Franz Stigler.

I just liked the drunk part.

Quote:

Me 109 G:
"As CL max is reached the leading edge slats deploy - together if the ball is in the middle, slightly asymmetrically if you have any slip on. The aircraft delights in being pulled into hard manuevering turns at these slower speeds. As the slats pop out you feel a slight "notching" on the stick and you can pull more until the whole airframe is buffeting quite hard. A little more and you will drop a wing, but you have to be crass to do it unintentionally."
- Mark Hanna of the Old Flying Machine Company flying the OFMC Messerschmitt Bf 109 G (Spanish version).

Mark Hanna was killed in a Buchon in a low speed low altitude departure...

Quote:

Me 109 G:
"There was nothing special in landing the plane. It was heavy but the wing slats opened up when speed slowed down and helped flying in slow speed."
-Kullervo Joutseno, Finnish fighter pilot. Source: Hannu Valtonen, "Me 109 ja Saksan sotatalous" (Messerschmitt Bf 109 and the German war economy), ISBN 951-95688-7-5.

Again the true purpose of slats

Quote:

Me 109 G:
"It was beneficial to keep the throttle a little open when landing. This made the landings softer and almost all three-point landings were successful with this technique. During landings the leading edge slats were fully open. But there was no troubles in landing even with throttle at idle."
-Mikko Lallukka, Finnish fighter pilot. Source: Hannu Valtonen, "Me 109 ja Saksan sotatalous" (Messerschmitt Bf 109 and the German war economy), ISBN 951-95688-7-5.Source: Hannu Valtonen, "Messerschmitt Bf 109 and the German war economy"

it's all about the low speed handling qualities for approach and landing.

Quote:

Me 109 G:
"We didn't have time for acrobatics but we weren't forbidden from doing them, though. Snap roll was fast and easy, and the engine didn't cough as in older planes. Immelman turn was splendid when you tightened the stick a bit on the top. The automatic wing slats did their trick and you didn't need ailerons at all for straightening the plane."
-Otso Leskinen, Finnish fighter pilot. Source: Hannu Valtonen, "Me 109 ja Saksan sotatalous" (Messerschmitt Bf 109 and the German war economy), ISBN 951-95688-7-5.

Snap roll is a spin entered at high speed.

Quote:

"Unexperienced pilots hesitated to turn tight, bacause the plane shook violently when the slats deployed. I realised, though, that because of the slats the plane's stalling characteristics were much better than in comparable Allied planes that I got to fly. Even though you may doubt it, I knew it [Bf109] could manouver better in turnfight than LaGG, Yak or even Spitfire."
- Walter Wolfrum, German fighter ace. 137 victories.

Depends on who is flying them I guess.

raaaid

12-11-2012 03:11 PM

stall is not equal to spin

you know what stall is?

think youre flying level but actually going so slow you are aactually falling as a rock

at some point the game modelled this

taildraggernut

12-11-2012 03:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crumpp (Post 486691)

I don't miss aircraft with slats at all, I am quite capable of handling aircraft without them, of course if you feel your own competence is questionable then there is nothing wrong with 'training wheels'

ACE-OF-ACES

12-11-2012 03:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by II/JG53 Rolf (Post 486727)

AOA - Sir, you have just done the same thing. While he posted numerous pilot records about slats, you choose one from a single book as a proof... :)

Ah.. I see where you are confused

Note what I posted was a quote of an actual WWII Bf109 pilot.. Not my 'take' or 'interpretation' of what the actual WWII Bf109 pilot said.

Which is very different from the website Crumpp provided where the webiste provides you their 'take' and/or 'interpretation' of what the WWII pilots actually were trying to say or meant to say.. I guess some folks need others to do their thinking for them?

Hope that helps!

Now allow me to point out to those reading this post how Rolf and Crump totally ignored the actually WWII Bf109 pilot's quote I provided that said uneven slat activation can cause spins and tried to make this about me!

Nice try guys!

Gold star for effort!

But no sale! ;)

Crumpp

12-11-2012 03:18 PM

Quote:

Mark Hanna was killed in a Buchon in a low speed low altitude departure...

Different airplane but yes, the nose up attitude at the stall and descent can be very dangerous if the pilot is not on his toes.

Your stalled and the danger is you don't realize in time.

taildraggernut

12-11-2012 03:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crumpp (Post 486736)

Different airplane but yes, the nose up attitude at the stall and descent can be very dangerous if the pilot is not on his toes.

Your stalled and the danger is you don't realize in time.

everything behind the firewall is a 109....including the slats.

taildraggernut

12-11-2012 03:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crumpp (Post 486710)

Actually I remember a thread that proved your theories the RAE had no established stability and control standards completely false.

The 109 was designed to be flown at high speed towards a target to throw bullets at it and then GTFO in a hurry too, a small wing with such a high loading was not designed to be thrown around and that is why they put slats on them, to improve it's low speed handling.

why does 6g suck? I personally like aerobatics and have been to 7g, of course you tend to avoid manouvering in conditions you 'know' likely to be gusty.

II/JG53 Rolf

12-11-2012 03:39 PM

AOA - Sir, with all respect, could you explain how could uneven deployment of slats cause the above effect? I mean it, sir. No irony. Say, we have a Bf-109 E4 in a tight right horizontal turn trying to gain enough lead to kill a spit. It's on the edge of stall. Does it mean that the slat on the right thing wouldn't deploy entirely but, say, lower part more than the upper part. There was construction a diagram shown here, where it shouldn't be possible so it must have been malfunction - and sir, all planes were not the same (e.g. max speeds show average number, actual outputs of the plane could be +/- 5-10%, up to 20% in case of Russian planes). Or does it work differently (I could be missing something.)

And your point about me ignoring something in your post wasn't valid I am afraid, as I tried to explain that the cause could have been the actual experience of the pilot. There was mentioned before that there could be mechanical problems with slats because of dust, so they didn't deploy evenly or at all. However, I would say that this is simple malfunction, not a construction thing.

ACE-OF-ACES

12-11-2012 03:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by II/JG53 Rolf (Post 486752)

AOA - Sir, with all respect, could you explain how could uneven deployment of slats cause the above effect? I mean it, sir.

No need for me to explain it..

In that based on Erwin Leykauf quote, an actual WWII Bf109 pilot we know that it happened, i.e.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oberleutnant Erwin Leykauf

Agreed?

Or are you saying you know better than Erwin Leykauf? Or that Erwin Leykauf was lying when he said that?

Eitherway you seem a little confused..

Allow me to bring you up to speed!

Back on page 19 robtek ask for PROOF, i.e.

Quote:

Originally Posted by robtek (Post 486516)

Now there you have to bring some proof that the assymetric action of the flaps, which was intended, was causing spins.

To which I did not bother providing in that I knew robtek would just poo poo anything I did provide

After that Crumpp felt the need to chime in with his cut-n-paste Bf109 myths site 'take on' what actual WWII pilots said as proof that uneven slat activation can NOT cause a spin because the Bf109 myth site, FOR SOME REASON left that part of Erwin Leykauf quote out of thier section called "Wing leading edge slats - good or bad?".

My guess is that it was just to black and white for them to 'spin' (pun intended) what Erwin Leykauf said into something positive..

So the Bf109 myth site conventally left that part of the quote out of their section devoted to uneven slat activation issue.

Talk about poster boys for 109 bias! ;)

After seeing that weak attempt by Crumpp to present the biased Bf109 myth site reinterpretation of WWII pilot quotes as proof I decided to post Erwin Leykauf quote here as PROOF of what I was saying

Hope that helps!

II/JG53 Rolf

12-11-2012 04:26 PM

AOA - Sir, how could this happen? If the slat opened on the lower wing, it would increase lift there thus preventing stall for a few moments. What the pilot said was that less experienced pilot went into the stall/spin (stall first spin later) when this happened. On previous pages there was a description of RL pilot doing the same with only one difference - he was very experienced and recovered without a problem. The point is - you have a pilot with say 150 hours in the heat of the fight to the death who is turning hard to avoid being shot at or to gain a shot on an enemy - he could have missed those warnings. So the pilot told the truth, but as in many examples from that era it is only part of it. In the same manner you are ignoring his quotes telling the opposite. If we just step back a bit - to sum it up:
1) Slats were designed to open unevenly because the aerodynamic effects were uneven on both wings, especially in high AOA.
2) Slats helped at stall speeds at low speeds, discussion is held about high speed with not much evidence for either case in this thread.
3) Slats could have malfunctions as any other part of a plane - not all planes and pilots have the best ground crew. The slat then could open partially which could cause inexperienced pilot to stall/spin.
4) Recovery from the spin of slats equipped 109 was considered easy.
5) This whole thread was started because of stall and spin characteristics of bf-109 in CLOD game ;) .

Crumpp

12-11-2012 04:33 PM

Quote:

Actually I remember a thread that proved your theories the RAE had no established stability and control standards completely false.

Really?

Wow, you should tell the engineering departments of every major university because they are teaching the wrong information.

Maybe you should tell one of the pioneers of stability and control engineering. A British engineer who strived during the war and after to get the RAE on a defined standard after his experience working with the NACA. What is even more funny is the fact stick force per G, which Gates developed, was adopted by the NACA as part of the 1942 standard!

The United States NACA adopted a British engineers ideas and made them standard long before the British RAE listened to their own guy! That was the basis of his invitation to come to the United States and observe the stability and control developments at the NACA.

Here is the first page of the proposed standards for longitudinal stability, in fact.

I think World War II in Europe ended in May 1945. Pretty sure September 1947 is after the conflict was over....

http://img607.imageshack.us/img607/8...fastandard.jpg

ACE-OF-ACES

12-11-2012 04:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by II/JG53 Rolf (Post 486786)

AOA - Sir, how could this happen?

Does not mater how..

In that based on Erwin Leykauf quote, an actual WWII Bf109 pilot we know that it happened, i.e.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oberleutnant Erwin Leykauf

Agreed?

Either way you seem a little confused..

Allow me to bring you up to speed!

This all started with me saying the following..

Quote:

Originally Posted by ACE-OF-ACES (Post 486478)

Especially in light of the fact that there are many accounts of how leading edge slats CAUSED spins!!

Where, for what ever reason, the leading edge slats did not deploy evenly and thus induces (CAUSE) the plane to spin..

Not to mention the accounts of the leading edge slats POPPING out suddenly such that they 'changed' the aerodynamics such that the pilot had to quickly adjust his controls.. In essence startling the pilot such that he may have over compensated and CAUSE the plane to stall or even spin

To which robtek responded asking for proof of the accounts, i.e.

Quote:

Originally Posted by robtek (Post 486516)

Now there you have to bring some proof that the assymetric action of the flaps, which was intended, was causing spins.

Initially I didn't bother digging up the historic accounts because I knew robtek would just poo poo anything I did provide..

But after that Crumpp felt the need to chime in with his cut-n-paste Bf109 myths site 'take on' what actual WWII pilots said as proof that uneven slat activation can NOT cause a spin because the Bf109 myth site, for some reason they conventually left that part of Erwin Leykauf quote out of their section called "Wing leading edge slats - good or bad?".

My guess is that it was just to black and white for them to 'spin' (pun intended) what Erwin Leykauf said into something positive..

But I digress..

After seeing that weak attempt by Crumpp to present the Bf109 myth site reinterpretation of what WWII pilot said as PROOF

I decided to post Erwin Leykauf quote here as PROOF of what I was saying..

IMHO there is no debating this issue

Unless your willing to say Erwin Leykauf was mistaken and you know better than he on how the Bf109 flys, or your willing to say Erwin Leykauf was lying?

So in summary

1) I pointed out uneven activation of the slats can cause spins..
2) rotek ask for proof of uneven activation of the slats can cause spins.. (aka bring it)
3) I provided proof of uneven activation of the slats can cause spins.. (aka brung it)

Hope that helps!

Crumpp

12-11-2012 04:55 PM

Quote:

everything behind the firewall is a 109....including the slats.

Exactly!

You have an airframe designed for one engine that is now having to work with another one.

This is why STC's are required and you just cannot swap motors in certified design airplanes.

The merlin prop swung at a lower rpm, weight is different, and the thrustline was higher. At least it turned in the same direction.

You do understand airframe are built to counteract the effects of spiral slipstream and torque?

That is why engine mounts/firewalls are angled and verticle stabilizers angled.

Mounting an engine with different properties results in different handling qualities.

Why are we even discussing this and what does it have to do with effect of the slats?

Is it just your justification for using an example which has nothing to do with the original topic?

Crumpp

12-11-2012 04:57 PM

II/JG53 Rolf,

My suggestion would be just to ignore AoA, ie, TAGERT.

ACE-OF-ACES

12-11-2012 04:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crumpp (Post 486818)

II/JG53 Rolf,

My suggestion would be just to ignore AoA, ie, TAGERT.

Yes, just like the Bf109 myth site you provided as proof ignored Erwin Leykauf quote! ;)

Crumpp

12-11-2012 05:00 PM

Quote:

to sum it up:
1) Slats were designed to open unevenly because the aerodynamic effects were uneven on both wings, especially in high AOA.
2) Slats helped at stall speeds at low speeds, discussion is held about high speed with not much evidence for either case in this thread.
3) Slats could have malfunctions as any other part of a plane - not all planes and pilots have the best ground crew. The slat then could open partially which could cause inexperienced pilot to stall/spin.
4) Recovery from the spin of slats equipped 109 was considered easy.
5) This whole thread was started because of stall and spin characteristics of bf-109 in CLOD game

Good summary.

I would add:

2) Slats helped at stall speeds at low speeds and ensured gentle stall behaviors, discussion is held about high speed with not much evidence for either case in this thread.

4) Entry into a spin was difficult and Recovery from the spin of slats equipped 109 was considered easy.

taildraggernut

12-11-2012 05:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crumpp (Post 486796)

Theres standards and then theres standardisation, you can have standards without standardisation, it simply means there was not a universally applied standard, I asure you the British aircraft industry was not a free-for all where they let the tea ladies get in on the act because it 'looked pretty', there were people who were very aware of what stability and control was within the RAE.
I am not arguing a point about whether a universal standard was adopted, I'm arguing against your bizarre claims the British had 'no' standards and therefore the RAE reports on the 109 may as well have been performed by monkeys.....until of course you want to 'cherry pick' anything positive.

taildraggernut

12-11-2012 05:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crumpp (Post 486815)

The point is the aircraft had slats, the same ones on the 109, the same ones you claim could not result in a spin, the same airframe from Mark Hannas quote you were more than happy to include to reflect the 109's behaviour, you do this all the time, completely contradict yourself.

are you really saying that the Spanish simply 'nailed' a merlin into the aircraft and thought 'to hell with the consequences'?

and how much did the basic 109 airframe design change through development when they used RR kestrel engines and Jumo's?

raaaid

12-11-2012 05:53 PM

for what ive understood slats are an all or nothing thing

but in the game the get just half way deployed sometimes

TomcatViP

12-11-2012 07:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VO101_MMaister (Post 486565)

Thx for reminding this.

Spin is not only the result of the stall of one wing. The drag diff. is also important (stall = high drag). If only one Slat is deployed then this a factor aggravating the likelihoods of a spin.

But regarding the deceleration, remind that at low speed 1000hp is by far enough to offset the drag penality such as in the case of a WWII fighter. So far that the size of the slats were reduced in span on the F to put them out of the propeller stream.

NZtyphoon

12-11-2012 07:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crumpp (Post 486818)

II/JG53 Rolf,

My suggestion would be just to ignore AoA, ie, TAGERT.

Quote:

Originally Posted by taildraggernut (Post 486832)

I am not arguing a point about whether a universal standard was adopted, I'm arguing against your bizarre claims the British had 'no' standards and therefore the RAE reports on the 109 may as well have been performed by monkeys.....until of course you want to 'cherry pick' anything positive.

Everybody, My suggestion would be just to ignore Crumpp, ie, GENE. :rolleyes::rolleyes:

Long story short, there will be no further improvements to the flight qualities of any of the aircraft in CLOD, whether it be the Bf 109, or the Spitfire unless there are people who are willing and able to modify the product to represent the flight qualities desired by the players. My guess is no matter what improvements are made there will still be those who will not be satisfied until every tiny nuance of all aircraft is replicated to the nth degree.

fruitbat

12-11-2012 07:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NZtyphoon (Post 486920)

Everybody, My suggestion would be just to ignore Crumpp, ie, GENE. :rolleyes::rolleyes:

i did, a while back....

Gabelschwanz Teufel

12-11-2012 10:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fruitbat (Post 486927)

i did, a while back....

It only works if everybody does it or the ones that don't will stop quoting him.

Crumpp

12-11-2012 11:50 PM

Quote:

are you really saying that the Spanish simply 'nailed' a merlin into the aircraft and thought 'to hell with the consequences'?

There is nothing they can do about the airframe changes without a complete redesign of the aircraft.

Why do you think they called the Avia S-199 the "Mule"?

The Ha-112 was a different airplane.

The higher thrust line, weight differences, and difference in rpm results in different dynamic pressure ranges in the spiral slipstream than the airframe was designed. It will have different flying qualities.

I guess you hate me for pointing out that fact!!

Try flying a piston engine porter and a turbine porter if you don't think engine makes a difference in flying qualities.

:eek:

Crumpp

12-11-2012 11:54 PM

Quote:

The slats ensure a laminar flow

Turbulent flow....not laminar!!

;)

*Buzzsaw*

12-11-2012 11:57 PM

All of this may be somewhat academic, as the game engine has been dropped.

See announcement on main forum.

New forum for BATTLE OF STALINGRAD is here:

http://forum.il2sturmovik.net/index.php?

Crumpp

12-12-2012 12:11 AM

Quote:

The RAE left things up to the opinion of the pilot as the definative source on the stability and control.

That is why you had such a variation in stability and control in British designs.

Here I will quote Lyons in his report:

Quote:

It is recommended that Q be adopted for designers' use, that its limits of validity be checked by careful tests on one aeroplane, and that more force measurements in pull out from dives be made on a number of aeroplanes in order that numerical standards may be attached to Q. Reference is made to American standards....

Quote:

A compact formula Im a criterion of manoeuvrability Q the stick force per g is proposed as a basis of design.

Quote:

If Q is adopted as a criterion, numerical standards should be attached to it. More measurements are needed of stick force in pulling out of dives, particularly on bombers, before these can be fixed.

taildraggernut

12-12-2012 01:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crumpp (Post 487075)

Do I hate you for pointing out the HE-112 was a different aircraft therefore irrelevant?.......no, it's one of the few things you've said that's true, I don' even hate you for bringing up the Pilatus porter which is also irrelevant. I Do have less than complimentary feelings for your hypocrisy at having quoted Mark Hanna describing the Bouchon's positive handling as an example of the 109 and then immediately contradicting yourself by saying it's not comparable.

Skoshi Tiger

12-12-2012 01:02 AM

Do you think the Leading edge slats will be moddled any better in BOS?

NZtyphoon

12-12-2012 02:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crumpp (Post 487088)

Just to quote one moderator who got tired of a subject being regurgitated time and again: http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpos...&postcount=934

Quote:

If Crump wants to provide Game test data or observed and documented characteristics and furnish the developers with the supporting valid realworld data (NACA or other I dont care). He can do it in private directly to Ilya, this thread has had more than enough time and data thrown at it to "prove" his theory if its correct. This thread is just causing more and more heated arguments and personal attacks and has failed to be objective. And yes I have read most of it because Ive had to moderate it continuously.

Personally I dont see the point of wasting this much energy on a single characteristic of a single aircraft at the expense of all other aspects and all other aircraft. In doing so it would unbalance the game and overall flight model of the aircraft in question. I would also have to question whether Crump holds an objective view of this flight characteristic and flight data given the single bloody-mindedness of the argument.

The developers have their criteria and approach to modelling flight characteristics and should not be pushed to change a FM based on one persons argument against the community. While I am impressed by the amount of research and data and the extreme effort to prove the spit was unstable, where was the game testing data to back up that infact the FM is incorrect? Nada, zero, zilch... so I have to conclude this is just a massive one-man-band trolling of the community.

Dead right, and it applies here as well - this is meant to be about improving 109 control characteristics in CLOD - which evidently won't be happening soon, as pointed out by Buzzsaw.

If Crumpp wants to exhaustively pursue his dead-end obsessions about whether or not the British had standards, or the Spitfire's control characteristics or his clear belief that he alone has all the answers about everything to do with aerodynamics and aeronautics, he can start his own site and troll that instead.

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpos...90&postcount=1

10. Off topic discussion - in full or in part. Purposeful and/ or continuous off topic discussion.

JG52Uther

12-12-2012 07:30 AM

You do all know CoD is dead don't you? All this is pretty pointless in the context of CoD, which is what this forum is about.Nothing will change, or be fixed. Its over.
I'm sure the new forum will be thrilled when you take all your knowledge there to share with everybody.I don't think there is an FM forum there yet, but its early days for the new project.
http://forum.il2sturmovik.net/

ACE-OF-ACES

12-12-2012 03:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gabelschwanz Teufel (Post 487022)

It only works if everybody does it or the ones that don't will stop quoting him.

I smell a trend! ;)

KG26_Alpha

12-12-2012 10:30 PM

Yea its called flogging a dead horse.

These threads always end up the same, locked with the same few people doing the same whining and personally insulting each other regardless what the topic is.

:rolleyes:

All times are GMT. The time now is 03:23 AM.

Page 3 of 3

Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page