Is the BF-109 flight unstabl in real histroy?

Still was quite behind bf 109.

And the 1938 He 100 was far ahead of the 109.

And the 1938 He 100 was far ahead of the 109.

only 2 years late. I disagree about far ahead of 109

It depends on how "far ahead" is defined. :)

Sure the He 100 had some advanced technology, which the 1938 109 did not possess (like the advanced radiator and advanced aerodynamics like the retractable tailwheel). The reason the 209 was built, was because they could not beat the He 100 speed with the 109 design.

1. Wrong. Where were these 'steel plates' located in your opinion?

 

2. Completely wrong. Even the DOW for the complete 109 was only ~2000kg and what's 'crazy' about using a 1370hp engine?

 

3. The Spitfire has an very similar narrow track landing gear, what's so 'crazy stupid' about it?

 

4. Don't know where you've got this 'info' from.

 

FYI, the first 109 versions had only ~700hp engines and the landing gear and tail size were perfectly adequate for these versions, absolutely not 'deadly'.

Completely wrong?! Oh come on!

3. : The narrow track landing gear was a requirement of the "Reichsluftfahrtministerium" in order to detach the wings if a bird landed on a field. So they planned to move all aircraft s by trucks- completely stupid and dangerous (for the pilots)! In fact it was not the case during the war. Typical german.... Whatever, that was the reason for that dump landing gear.

2. : Rotary gyro overturning moment

1. : Look at the pictures please

4. : Eric Brown and Imperial Air War Museum and private sources

russian image upload

images from up

upload gifs online

Cheers

Tom

3. The Spitfire has an very similar narrow track landing gear, what's so 'crazy stupid' about it?.

Well it's not like the Spit is known for it's stellar ground handling either...

--

Those "plates" would be trim tabs, that may be where some confusion came from.

1. Wrong. Where were these 'steel plates' located in your opinion?

Images are easy to find on the internet, many a/c used them as well. The image is a photo from a factory drawing of a G model. Other drawings from this book also show them on other models including pilot adjustable rudder trims.

Completely wrong?! Oh come on!....completely stupid and dangerous (for the pilots)…Typical german.... Whatever, that was the reason for that dump landing gear.

I don't know why you have such a bad opinion about Germans and there are in fact quite a few advantages if you mount the landing gear on the fuselage.

FYI, an Extra 300 has a much higher power to weight ratio than the early 109s and a fuselage mounted landing gear. It doesn't seem to be another crazy, completely stupid German dump idea.

If a 109 actually weighs 50% less than you wrote, yes, then it's IMO completely wrong.

Maybe if the very light weight ground adjustable aluminium trim tabs (your steel plates) and the fuselage would be made of steel it would double the weight of a 109 ;)

Again, there are no 'steel plates' for trimming on an aircraft and it wouldn't make any sense because you couldn't bend them!

The reason for me to be that 'critical' is that you are a real pilot and hence I was surprised about your inaccurate/misleading post.

Okay. They installed the plates without any reason. Just for a better look , Right?

And the Landing gear is perfect. Are you agree?

And yes- I wrote About 2000kg - that was not an important Point for me. "Leermasse: 1970 kg" (with fuel, Pilot , weapons and ammo much more around 3500kg)

""1999 December, Flight Journal, “Combat Warrior, The Historical View” by Captain Eric Brown

“But the Bf 109’s deficiencies almost equal its fabulous assets. The Luftwaffe lost 11,000 of these thoroughbred fighting machines in takeoff and landing accidents, most of them at the end of the War when they needed them most.”

“I felt certain, too, that the landing gear’s being slightly splayed outward aggravated the ground-looping tendency and contributed to the excessive tire wear and bursts. The Spitfire had a similar, narrow-track landing gear, but it was not splayed out like that of the Bf 109, and the Spitfire didn’t show any ground-looping propensities.”"

Cheers

Tom

Okay. They installed the plates without any reason. Just for a better look , Right?

 

And the Landing gear is perfect. Are you agree?

 

And yes- I wrote About 2000kg - that was not an important Point for me. "Leermasse: 1970 kg" (with fuel, Pilot , weapons and ammo much more around 3500kg)

 

 

Cheers

Tom

Those trim tabs are only adjusted by factory, every plane differ a little bit so those tabs are for adjusting so every plane will fly similar.It is possible to adjust them on field, sing do not touch is for every person who will approach plane to not bend them in uncontrollable way.

Often ground crew or pilot it self is touching control surfaces for checking so this sign reminds do not touch here :)

Special tool would be required to make any adjustment to this tabs.

Hello grafspee,

perfect explained! :thumbup: Thank you and

Cheers

Tom

They installed the plates without any reason. Just for a better look , Right?

 

And the Landing gear is perfect. Are you agree?

 

And yes- I wrote About 2000kg.

You still don't understand. If the trim tabs would be made of 'steel plates' you wouldn't be able to bend them and they would serve no purpose.

So in your opinion, there are only two possibilities. Completely crazy stupid or perfect.

No. Suggest you re-read your own post. You wrote The fuselage was very light (only around 3500kg)

Max take off for G-6 weight was 3400 kg i don't know how about k-4

metal plates, sheet plates … you name it. And correct: I wrote around 3500 in first. So not wrong so far. Think it´s discussed and done

Question was: Was the 109 unstable in real history?

Question was: Was the 109 unstable in real history?

Neither in history or in the present age.

Otherwise pilots wouldn't claim that the 109 was a delight to fly (Eric Brown) or mention that the 109 is surprisingly docile for a high performance fighter (Hermann Liese) etc. etc.

Furthermore there are numerous flight test reports available on the internet with detailed data where you can draw your own conclusion.

Question was: Was the 109 unstable in real history?

I still don't know what this mean. unstable bf 109 what does it mean?

For me it is the most stable warbird in DCS i have never droped wing in it, The stalling of this plane is so controllable, for example in p-51 small mistake and it over you ending up up side down.Not mention it has the most robust engine you can just push throttle full and don't need to care about anything.

Of power glide is superb, it almost don't want to slow down at landing, while fw 190 drop like a rock with power off. Once you learn how to fly it 2 point landing are the easiest thing in this from all warbirds.

Of power glide is superb, it almost don't want to slow down at landing, while fw 190 drop like a rock with power off. Once you learn how to fly it 2 point landing are the easiest thing in this from all warbirds.

That's interesting because all the reports I've read state that the ROD is very high if you fly the approach at idle and that you have to touchdown in a three point attitude because the 109 otherwise will skip back into the air if you don't.

That's interesting because all the reports I've read state that the ROD is very high if you fly the approach at idle and that you have to touchdown in a three point attitude because the 109 otherwise will skip back into the air if you don't.

Nah, i watched interview with german pilot saying that bf-109 is more like a glider, and i didn't say that 2 point landing is at power off.

Don't forget to flare before touch

It was possible to touch bf 109 at 2 point but it was forbidden to do so, DCS is a game so i can do it w/o risking court martial

Nah, i watched interview with german pilot saying that bf-109 is more like a glider.

More like a glider? At idle, with full flaps and the gear down?

More like a glider? At idle, with full flaps and the gear down?

He was comparing it to fw 190.

Neither in history or in the present age.

 

Otherwise pilots wouldn't claim that the 109 was a delight to fly (Eric Brown) or mention that the 109 is surprisingly docile for a high performance fighter (Hermann Liese) etc. etc.

 

Furthermore there are numerous flight test reports available on the internet with detailed data where you can draw your own conclusion.

Cherry picking data to suit your agenda.

Stability can be highly dependant on flight regimes and the 109 (and the Spitty for that matter) are a case in point.

With power on at higher angles of attack a component of the thrust vector is angled on the normal axis, providing an upward moment on the nose and causing the aircraft to self-tighten a turn, particularly at the lower end of the speed range. The harder you pull the more aggressive this tendency. This is de-stabilising.

In cruise the aircraft might be stable about all axis, but apply full power and turn and now a host of gyroscopic effects start to increase in strength, and as air speed is lost and control authority diminishes these start to dominate and can also de-stabilise a previously stable aircraft.

In cruise the aircraft might be stable about all axis, but apply full power and turn and now a host of gyroscopic effects start to increase in strength, and as air speed is lost and control authority diminishes these start to dominate and can also de-stabilise a previously stable aircraft.

Don't understand. Every aircraft will be become unstable/destabilize when flying it into a stall, especially with full power applied.

The OP specifically asked about the stability in level flight.

Further information.

Disclaimer - This regards the 109E; I am aware that the K has a different wing planform and increased vertical tail profile, however, given the increased power and weight of the K-4 it could be reasonably assumed that the general directional stability characteristics would not suddenly be transformed.

Directional stability was clearly inadequate. Every roll input required conscious pedal coordination

The aeroplane felt comfortable in cruise, exhibiting weak but positive speed stability, as evidenced by the gentle, progressive elevator forces required to maintain off-trim speeds. A gentle sustained sideslip gave evidence of both weak directional stability and weak lateral stability, at least by modern standards. The rudder forces seemed very light. The sideslip also induced a gentle nose-down pitch response, indicative of possible elevator blanking. All this talk about weak stability doesn’t imply criticism of its qualities as a fighter. The flip side of low stability is often high agility. Nevertheless this wouldn’t be my first choice of an aeroplane for instrument flying.

Source: http://www.vintagewings.ca/VintageNews/Stories/tabid/116/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/124/Bouncing-Clouds--Flying-the-Messerschmitt-Bf-109.aspx

Also here: https://vintageaviationecho.com/bf109e/

Charlie Brown, another modern day warbird pilot (regarded as one of the highest times on restored 109 variants) also notes identical directional stability characteristics when test flying one of the first Bf-109E restorations, which he crucially then states as being identical to every other version of Bf-109 or Buchon that he had flown. If I can find the quote I will post forthwith.

Don't understand. Every aircraft will be become unstable/destabilize when flying it into a stall, especially with full power applied.

 

The OP specifically asked about the stability in level flight.

And my point was not to address the OP but your two very picked points regards stability.

And I'm not talking about the stall, I'm talking at lower end of the speed range, at ANY AoA below critical, but in particular approaching it.

If the OP is having such issues with straight and level I would suggest he's not operating at power settings conducive to stable cruise flight or there is some issue with his control setup.

Here's a bit of additional reading for those interested in the handling characteristics of the various 109 models and the, not surprisingly, wildly different opinions among 109 pilots.

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

Here's a bit of additional reading for those interested in the handling characteristics of the various 109 models and the, not surprisingly, wildly different opinions among 109 pilots.

 

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

Ha, i found here in this doc that "you could not stall bf 109 by accident" you can stall everything, bf 109 included. It is easy to stall bf 109 just ease power let it slow down and pull the stick.