Weird flight directional stability - Page 6 - ED Forums
 


Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 02-24-2019, 03:23 PM   #51
birdstrike
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 326
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ala13_ManOWar View Post
Key is what you call fuselage, as is obvious. For me the airframe is the fuselage, you take out the engine and you won't tell the difference between Buchón and any Bf109G. So don't put words I didn't say in my mouth just trying to show your "superiority" in language handling as I'm no native. I can also laugh at your stupidity, but hey, we shall not fall down that road, right?

We Spaniards did notice mate, you failed to read or know the whole story so let me put that away for you. Those airframes were first engined using a Hispano Suiza CCW rotating (from cockpit) prop as opposed to CW rotating DB and RR engines, so tail airfoil was build according to that "new" engine.

There's a story about how DB engines and tails failed to arrive together with those firsts 25 Bf109G-2 airframes (funny, engine-less airframes ) but that's not true. Those airframes were bought without engines, and tails were unnecessary since they planned from the beginning the use of a different engine. Always glad to uncover bullshit urban legends for you, welcome .

Later on HS engine was dumped due to fitting problems and were changed with RR they could get hand at, those firsts airframes were already built so for those airfoil shape was kept at first but then converted while the remaining newly built after that features the "correct" airfoil for RR rotation. There are airframes with the two tail shapes out there, some of them rebuild with restorations, some of them not. Lets get it straight, "wrongly shaped" tails were mostly dismissed in Spanish service or converted to the right shape, but since current Buchóns came from a scrapyard recovery for the well known film some of those recovered airframes featured the old "wrong" tail shape but those who bought them after the film shot were so eager to own and fly a 109 they didn't pay attention or cared at all about what shape they got nor tried to fix it until years later when restorations and conversions to regular 109 started.




There's a special case, and that's the two seat ones which were built first with HS engine and then RR re-engined but as there were only two of them tail shape (special tall G-10 tail) was kept (previous pic showing that is from a two seater). So, I don't know what reports you have read but the ones I have don't say they handle any bad, usually the opposite.


S!
oh, i didnt put words in your mouth, i just quoted your nonsense you posted. here as a reminder:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ala13_ManOWar View Post
Same fuselage, same everything (you haven't look that much what's inside one of them), just a different engine and license built so officially named Me109J from BFW factory. Well it is a 109 whether people like it or not, I don't really understand that stubbornness of some people trying to say it wasn't just because they don't like the RR cowl. Provided it weren't it wouldn't be so "easy" to convert into a regular 109 and every airworthy G model out there comes from a Buchon, G-2, G-6, G-10, G-12, all of them former Buchons. Remember you fly with the wings and those are exactly the same as any late 109, indeed 25 of them were actual BFW frames .


S!
oh and im trying to look surperiour with my awesome native english speaking skills?

and then all you got, is to insult?

and again, u completely contradict yourself. you claim there are no differences between between 109 and that ugly piece of .... and then in the next post you try to tell rely about adjustments by you spaniards. of course no differences in flying characteristics, as you as an expert must know.
i can see why you desperately want it to be a 109.
birdstrike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2019, 07:47 PM   #52
Ala13_ManOWar
Senior Member
 
Ala13_ManOWar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Spain
Posts: 1,490
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by birdstrike View Post
and then all you got, is to insult?
nope, probably my poor English. In Spanish "being stupid" is used as a synonim to mean and inpolite which is exactly what you are trying to show off for a reason. Sorry for my bad English .


Quote:
Originally Posted by birdstrike View Post
and again, u completely contradict yourself. you claim there are no differences between between 109 and that ugly piece of .... and then in the next post you try to tell rely about adjustments by you spaniards. of course no differences in flying characteristics, as you as an expert must know.
i can see why you desperately want it to be a 109.
You don't understand whatsoever, I don't care if it's a Bf109 (which Historically it is, look at the number of 109s built and where Hispanos are placed) or not, I don't want to enter political reasons why it was built but there's a bunch of them if you know just a bit of XXth century History and none of them are my pleasure to start with. So don't get me wrong, I don't care whatsoever but it's the people like you who want to say Buchon pilot's experience isn't good enough to tell how it flies. I guess only valid experience is the one you say which is, what?

With regard to you trying to invalidate my arguments by saying just "no", every Bf109 built even by the Germans has differences, adjustment and everything, so I don't get what's your point. Yo-yo himself explained there's no big differences in aerodynamics and then you try to say there are unbearable differences because… I guess because you know but I don't see the reasons or what do you know so enlighten us all. What do you mean by "adjustments"? The tail shape? The aircraft was license built, they just flip over the very same tail as you can see in the picture, using same German tooling, even they used an original German tall tail like the ones featured in late G's and K models, the exact same, not any "Spanish invention". What "adjustments" would make it so different then?




BTW in case you don't know, they even got better performances with different engines than original ones but getting enough engines in that time was impossible in the post-war Spain (engine produced in France). The whole idea back then wasn't to just build a new 109 with a new engine (so they didn't have the spare parts problem from Germany), the idea was to re-engine the whole Bf109 fleet (starting with Es but also a handful of Fs which made it to Spain) but it was so late by the time they got a solution (in the RR form) that all of them were already dismissed from service due to severe lack of spare parts. I guess if they were converted from the current Bf109 fleet you wouldn't say they weren't Bf109 . Anyway maybe you like them better because the slimmer look which apparently is what bothers you .

This is a re-engined Emil 1 , HS 12_Z-89 engine



Then re-engined firsts G-2 frames , same HS engine



Which finally were re-engined again with HS 12_Z-17


And then re-engined again with RR. You can tell whatever, engine experiments or not they are what they are whether you like it (aesthetically which is your complain) or not. I guess for you also Avia S-199 license build weren't 109 despite being Jumo engined, or was it because engine was German?

S!
__________________
"I went into the British Army believing that if you want peace you must prepare for war. I believe now that if you prepare for war, you get war." -- Major-General Frederick B. Maurice

Last edited by Ala13_ManOWar; 02-24-2019 at 07:50 PM.
Ala13_ManOWar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2019, 08:02 PM   #53
grafspee
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Poland
Posts: 131
Default

omg what an ugly piece of ****
grafspee is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2019, 08:25 PM   #54
birdstrike
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 326
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by grafspee View Post
omg what an ugly piece of ****
YES
birdstrike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2019, 09:30 PM   #55
grafspee
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Poland
Posts: 131
Default

dont get me wrong but every plane has some defining feature like spitfire has it wings etc bf109 are exhaust stack on the bottom of the fuselage. it just dont look right
grafspee is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2019, 11:44 PM   #56
rel4y
Member
 
rel4y's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 675
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ala13_ManOWar View Post
We Spaniards did notice mate, you failed to read or know the whole story so let me put that away for you. Those airframes were first engined using a Hispano Suiza CCW rotating (from cockpit) prop as opposed to CW rotating DB and RR engines, so tail airfoil was build according to that "new" engine.

There's a story about how DB engines and tails failed to arrive together with those firsts 25 Bf109G-2 airframes (funny, engine-less airframes ) but that's not true. Those airframes were bought without engines, and tails were unnecessary since they planned from the beginning the use of a different engine. Always glad to uncover bullshit urban legends for you, welcome .

Later on HS engine was dumped due to fitting problems and were changed with RR they could get hand at, those firsts airframes were already built so for those airfoil shape was kept at first but then converted while the remaining newly built after that features the "correct" airfoil for RR rotation. There are airframes with the two tail shapes out there, some of them rebuild with restorations, some of them not. Lets get it straight, "wrongly shaped" tails were mostly dismissed in Spanish service or converted to the right shape, but since current Buchóns came from a scrapyard recovery for the well known film some of those recovered airframes featured the old "wrong" tail shape but those who bought them after the film shot were so eager to own and fly a 109 they didn't pay attention or cared at all about what shape they got nor tried to fix it until years later when restorations and conversions to regular 109 started.

There's a special case, and that's the two seat ones which were built first with HS engine and then RR re-engined but as there were only two of them tail shape (special tall G-10 tail) was kept (previous pic showing that is from a two seater). So, I don't know what reports you have read but the ones I have don't say they handle any bad, usually the opposite.
Well, what do you know, that was actually very interesting. I didnt really remember the story behind the buchons rudder, so maybe I should have kept my mouth shut in the first place. Do you have any articles or sources for this by chance? I would honestly be interested in the real story.

However aerodynamically speaking I do know for a fact that the DB engine on G models was installed angled 1° upwards to the main fuselage line (and 0.7° downwards in reference to the wing chord line) while the Merlins were installed straight to the fuselage line. Maybe this was in response to the initially higher prop position or they didnt know about it. So the whole AoA regime should be different from the Bf 109s by design. I dont know the exact weight of the Merlin 500/45, but going by wartime models these engines were usually also around 50kg heavier than DB models in total dry weight. If anything this should put the CoG in a more stable position.

To this I have read reports on how roll and climb rate suffered significantly through the HS 404/808 cannon wing armament. Basically similiar effects of 109 cannon pods.
__________________
Cougar, CH and Saitek PnP hall sensor kits: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=220916

Shapeways store for DIY flight simming equipment and repair: https://www.shapeways.com/shops/rel4...flight-simming

Last edited by rel4y; 02-24-2019 at 11:46 PM.
rel4y is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-26-2019, 05:08 AM   #57
Rolds
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 206
Default

Yo-yo I'm really interested in the spin characteristics of the 109-K4, it seems to fight spin entry and once in, recovery appears to happen immediately on releasing the spin inputs (full aft stick plus full left rudder is what I'm doing), making it feel to me like it was never in the auto-rotation at all. Do you have any thoughts on this?
Rolds is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-28-2019, 12:56 PM   #58
Ala13_ManOWar
Senior Member
 
Ala13_ManOWar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Spain
Posts: 1,490
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rel4y View Post
Well, what do you know, that was actually very interesting. I didnt really remember the story behind the buchons rudder, so maybe I should have kept my mouth shut in the first place. Do you have any articles or sources for this by chance? I would honestly be interested in the real story.
No prob mate, I'm the first with a bad memory. About the subject, there's stories about it here and there, the problem is many of them are flawed due to years of mouth to mouth storytelling so they derived in different ways. I have the whole story in a quite recent book by a well known Spanish researcher who debunked all of the myths, it's written in Spanish though. I can try to send you pics or something, but it's quite a long text if you don't know Spanish.




Quote:
Originally Posted by rel4y View Post
However aerodynamically speaking I do know for a fact that the DB engine on G models was installed angled 1° upwards to the main fuselage line (and 0.7° downwards in reference to the wing chord line) while the Merlins were installed straight to the fuselage line. Maybe this was in response to the initially higher prop position or they didnt know about it. So the whole AoA regime should be different from the Bf 109s by design. I dont know the exact weight of the Merlin 500/45, but going by wartime models these engines were usually also around 50kg heavier than DB models in total dry weight. If anything this should put the CoG in a more stable position.

To this I have read reports on how roll and climb rate suffered significantly through the HS 404/808 cannon wing armament. Basically similiar effects of 109 cannon pods.
Well, bearing in mind Willy Messerschmitt himself were working in Hispano by the time in a trainer jet project (he declined to work in the 109 BTW) I guess they knew something about it and built what was needed, but so many engine changes and time rose the final cost of an already obsolete propeller fighter so much they had to cut a few things, and changing (again) the tail shape for the initial frames was one of those cuts I guess. Around 60 aircraft were already built with HS engine (so right shaped tail) and RR re-engined afterwards, the ~140 remaining were built with left tail shape for RR. The reason for "wrong" tails being airworthy today is as said they were recovered form the scrapyard for the movie, but those were quickly dismissed from AF service.


About the wing cannons, yes, the Merlin wasn't fitted to bear a prop firing gun like HS engine (though causing lots of problems IIRC) so they had to fit 20mm cannons in the wings, but apparently gun fairings produced turbulences hence the wings boundary layer fences were mounted to prevent those turbulences affecting high AoA near stall behaviour. So yes, original factory model had its own quirks but any airworthy survivor feature the guns or fences any more, just plain G model wings.

S!
__________________
"I went into the British Army believing that if you want peace you must prepare for war. I believe now that if you prepare for war, you get war." -- Major-General Frederick B. Maurice
Ala13_ManOWar is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT. The time now is 06:20 PM. vBulletin Skin by ForumMonkeys. Powered by vBulletin®.
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.