WWII warplanes vs combat sim realism

[[email protected]]

Posted this on a thread but the guys were too busy flaming each other to
notice or give an intelligent answer. Trying again.........

I am having a debate on the subject of whether planes like the BF109 and
FW190 were really as unstable and prone to stalls and spins at the drop of a
hat as modelled in the PC sim IL2 Sturmovik, Forgotten Battles. I am saying
not and that the air war would never have been won if planes of that era
could barely fly. Does anyone know of real stories/reports on this issue or
maybe know some vintage pilots who flew them? I have already read of a
Mustang pilot who says the sim feels about right if the 'stalls and spins'
setting is turned off.

The debate extended into 'blackouts and redouts'. In the sim, a hard pull on
the stick and the screen goes black, very annoying and I believe
unrealistic. How many G's could those WWII planes pull without tearing off
the wings? Should 'blackouts and redouts' even be modelled in a WWII sim?

What was the "real" story?
(I'm not a pilot but I have flown a real plane. I know that PC sims are
unrealistic so nobody has to tell me that........)

I was fortunate enough to be able to afford to charter a Hawker Hunter out
of Thunder City, Cape Town, South Africa, I was very at home on the stick
and was immediately capable of basic flight manouvres, thanks to playing
flight sims. It took only seconds to get over the initial tendency to make
'too big' movements. That's because I got a serious fright when I yanked on
the stick, the Hunter is as agile as a cat!. The pilot only took over for
the seriously rough aerobatics (and of course take off and landing). So,
unrealistic as they may be and although they will never make me a pilot, PC
flight sims do teach you something.

I blacked out at around 5 G's in the Hunter and the pilot reckons he has
bult up a
tolerance quite a bit hight than that (I'm glad, otherwise who would have
been watching where we were going?!)

[Mark Irvine]

> wrote in message
...
> Posted this on a thread but the guys were too busy flaming each other to
> notice or give an intelligent answer. Trying again.........
>

>
> The debate extended into 'blackouts and redouts'. In the sim, a hard pull
on
> the stick and the screen goes black, very annoying and I believe
> unrealistic. How many G's could those WWII planes pull without tearing off
> the wings? Should 'blackouts and redouts' even be modelled in a WWII sim?
>
I think that blackouts probably do belong. I read in a book (it was a
serious BoB analysis, if I can find the title I'll let you know) that when
the RAF captured an Bf109 they found that the pilots could take more "G" in
it without tunnel vision / blackout. The reason? The rudder pedals were
mounted higher in relation to the rest of the body on the Bf109. Hence less
blood rushing to the feet. A small detail, but that could be the one that
decides the fight! Alas for the luftwaffe the Bf109 wings were not designed
for guns etc so were not terrifically robust, the pilots were often more
worried about the wings falling off than blacking out......


>
> I blacked out at around 5 G's in the Hunter and the pilot reckons he has
> bult up a
> tolerance quite a bit hight than that (I'm glad, otherwise who would have
> been watching where we were going?!)
>
OK, 3.5 G in a Glider is all I have managed to pull and then not for very
long (for obvious reasons!). 5G in a Hunter, now envy is a really bad
thing........ Must have been a great trip!

Mark

[Jukka O. Kauppinen]

> decides the fight! Alas for the luftwaffe the Bf109 wings were not designed
> for guns etc so were not terrifically robust, the pilots were often more
> worried about the wings falling off than blacking out......

Incorrect.

Having guns or not doesn't have anything to do with the strenght of the
wings. 109s from A-E had wing weapons, again one of the K models was
designed for wing weapons. The wings were also one single structure,
which made it possible to make them very strong.

"- Are the stories true, that the 109 had weak wings and would loose
them easily?
He has never heard of a 109 loosing its wings from his experience or
others. The wings could withstand 12 g's and since most pilots could
only handle at most 9 g's there was never a problem. He was never
worried about loosing a wing in any form of combat."
- Franz Stigler, German fighter ace. 28 victories. Interview of Franz
Stigler.

"The maximum speed not to be exceeded was 750kmh. Once I was flying
above Helsinki as I received a report of Russkies in the South. There
was a big Cumulus cloud on my way there but I decided to fly right
through. I centered the controls and then something extraordinary
happened. I must have involuntarily entered into half-roll and dive. The
planes had individual handling characteristics; even though I held the
turning indicator in the middle, the plane kept going faster and faster,
I pulled the stick, yet the plane went into an ever steeper dive.
In the same time she started rotating, and I came out of the cloud with
less than one kilometer of altitude. I started pulling the stick,
nothing happened, I checked the speed, it was about 850kmh. I tried to
recover the plane but the stick was as if locked and nothing happened. I
broke into a sweat of agony: now I am going into the sea and cannot help
it. I pulled with both hands, groaning and by and by she started
recovering, she recovered more, I pulled and pulled, but the surface of
the sea approached, I thought I was going to crash. I kept pulling until
I saw that I had survived. The distance between me and the sea may have
been five meters. I pulled up and found myself on the coast of Estonia.
If I in that situation had used the vertical trim the wings would have
been broken off. A minimal trim movement has a strong effect on wings
when the speed limit has been exceded. I had 100kmh overspeed! It was
out of all limits.
The Messerschmitt's wings were fastened with two bolts. When I saw the
construction I had thought that they are strong enough but in this case
I was thinking, when are they going to break
- What about the phenomenon called "buffeting" or vibration, was there any?
No, I did not encounter it even in the 850kmh speed."
- Kyösti Karhila, Finnish fighter ace. 32 victories. Source: Interview
by Finnish Virtual Pilots Association.

Given that 109s were routinely dived at 800-900 km/hour speeds that
certainly shows that if there was some weaknesses in the plane, wings
werent' them.

jok

[Stephen Harding]

"Jukka O. Kauppinen" wrote:
>
> > decides the fight! Alas for the luftwaffe the Bf109 wings were not designed
> > for guns etc so were not terrifically robust, the pilots were often more
> > worried about the wings falling off than blacking out......
>
> Incorrect.
>
> Having guns or not doesn't have anything to do with the strenght of the
> wings. 109s from A-E had wing weapons, again one of the K models was
> designed for wing weapons. The wings were also one single structure,
> which made it possible to make them very strong.

[...]

> Given that 109s were routinely dived at 800-900 km/hour speeds that
> certainly shows that if there was some weaknesses in the plane, wings
> werent' them.

It's not so much the case the wings were actually breaking off the
Bf 109 [E] during hard maneuvering, but a psychological belief that
it could happen due to the very well known high wing loading.

You've quoted some 109 pilots that indicated this belief wasn't a
concern to them, but I've heard/read the story enough to think there
must be some basis for it in fact.

At least during the BoB period (109 Emil).


SMH

[Mark Irvine]

"Jukka O. Kauppinen" > wrote in
message ...
> > decides the fight! Alas for the luftwaffe the Bf109 wings were not
designed
> > for guns etc so were not terrifically robust, the pilots were often more
> > worried about the wings falling off than blacking out......
>
> Incorrect.
>
> Having guns or not doesn't have anything to do with the strenght of the
> wings. 109s from A-E had wing weapons, again one of the K models was
> designed for wing weapons. The wings were also one single structure,
> which made it possible to make them very strong.
>
The wings do however have to be redesigned to carry the guns and the
ammunition. This in turn places stress on the wing. The early 109s with
wing mounted guns had to have an ammuntiion feed belt that went from the
gun, to the wingtip and back round again!

> "- Are the stories true, that the 109 had weak wings and would loose
> them easily?

<snip>

I was quoting Len Dieghtons book "Fighter":

The Messerschmitts weak wings were providing it's pilots with a new problem.
The Spitfire pilots had discovered how to make use of the superior strength
of the spitfire wings. Faster in a dive, the Messerschmitts were being
overtaken because they pulled out in a shallow curve, nervous that they
might rip their wings off.

A little later:

(this) gave rise to the widely held belief that the Bf 109 could not turn as
tightly as the Spitfire. In theory it's turn was tighter, but few pilots
were prepared to test this to it's limit.

The Spitfire wing probably was a little stronger as it's main spar is
effectively a leaf spring, capable of taking some stress and recovering.
Part of the Bf 109s reputation may also come however from it's very narrow
undercarraige, and the amount of taxi and landing accidents that resulted.
Certainly the Fw 190 resolved this issue with a very wide undercarraige!

Mark

[Regnirps]

About a year and a half ago I finished up most of a digital remastering of a
narration of combat footage by a friend and P-47 pilot of the 78th who few 105
missions out of Duxford.

I had heard that the physics model in the Microsoft Combat Flight Simulator for
WWII was excellent and I used it to get some gun and engine sounds. For fun I
added a gun film placard with "Wrongway Springer" at the end of the combat
sequences and a section where I use the simulator and "attacked" a 109 from the
rear. There is some good maneuvering and use of WEP to avoid stalls, fragments
flying by, etc before the 109 goes down. I suppresed the color to make it look
like the other footage.

The very experienced pilot just said he didn't remember that sequence and where
did I find film with a view from the cockpit and showing the instruments and
with sound? I explained and he thought the realism was amazing.

I'm still trying to get a good sound recording of engine noise from inside a
maneuvering P-47. I think it is unlikey I will find a modern recording of gun
sound!

-- Charlie Springer

[MLenoch]

>I'm still trying to get a good sound recording of engine noise from inside a
>maneuvering P-47.

I might be able to help in this department.
VL

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: WWII warplanes vs combat sim realism
>From: (MLenoch)
>Date: 11/20/03 10:56 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>>I'm still trying to get a good sound recording of engine noise from inside a
>>maneuvering P-47.
>
>I might be able to help in this department.
>VL
..
I've got a sound effect on my website of an R-2800 winding up. That's the same
engine that was on the P-47. You might want to contact Bob McKellar and see if
he will let you use it. If that is a problem I think I may have some R-2800
sound effects around somewhere. Nothing sounds quiet like an R-2800. (grin)

Regards,


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[[email protected]]

Thanks for that Mark. Maybe blackouts should be in the game, but then the
problem lies, not with the aircraft flight models but with the modelling of
the pilots G-force tolerence.

Yeah, my Hunter seat time was the most intense hour of my life, very
extreme!

"Mark Irvine" > wrote in message
...
>
> > wrote in message
> ...
> > Posted this on a thread but the guys were too busy flaming each other to
> > notice or give an intelligent answer. Trying again.........
> >
>
> >
> > The debate extended into 'blackouts and redouts'. In the sim, a hard
pull
> on
> > the stick and the screen goes black, very annoying and I believe
> > unrealistic. How many G's could those WWII planes pull without tearing
off
> > the wings? Should 'blackouts and redouts' even be modelled in a WWII
sim?
> >
> I think that blackouts probably do belong. I read in a book (it was a
> serious BoB analysis, if I can find the title I'll let you know) that when
> the RAF captured an Bf109 they found that the pilots could take more "G"
in
> it without tunnel vision / blackout. The reason? The rudder pedals were
> mounted higher in relation to the rest of the body on the Bf109. Hence
less
> blood rushing to the feet. A small detail, but that could be the one that
> decides the fight! Alas for the luftwaffe the Bf109 wings were not
designed
> for guns etc so were not terrifically robust, the pilots were often more
> worried about the wings falling off than blacking out......
>
>
> >
> > I blacked out at around 5 G's in the Hunter and the pilot reckons he has
> > bult up a
> > tolerance quite a bit hight than that (I'm glad, otherwise who would
have
> > been watching where we were going?!)
> >
> OK, 3.5 G in a Glider is all I have managed to pull and then not for very
> long (for obvious reasons!). 5G in a Hunter, now envy is a really bad
> thing........ Must have been a great trip!
>
> Mark
>
>

[Mark Irvine]

"Jukka O. Kauppinen" > wrote in
message ...
> > decides the fight! Alas for the luftwaffe the Bf109 wings were not
designed
> > for guns etc so were not terrifically robust, the pilots were often more
> > worried about the wings falling off than blacking out......
>
> Incorrect.
>
> Having guns or not doesn't have anything to do with the strenght of the
> wings. 109s from A-E had wing weapons, again one of the K models was
> designed for wing weapons. The wings were also one single structure,
> which made it possible to make them very strong.
>
> "- Are the stories true, that the 109 had weak wings and would loose
> them easily?
> He has never heard of a 109 loosing its wings from his experience or
> others. The wings could withstand 12 g's and since most pilots could
> only handle at most 9 g's there was never a problem. He was never
> worried about loosing a wing in any form of combat."
> - Franz Stigler, German fighter ace. 28 victories. Interview of Franz
> Stigler.
>
<snip>

The reference that I was using was Len Deightons book "Fighter" which
examines the Battle of Britain. When discussing tactics he asserts that the
Bf109 pilots used the tactic of diving away as the Bf109 engine maintained
power during the dive unlike that generation of Merlin. However the 109
pilots tended to pull out of their dives in a shallower curve, due to fears
over the wings. The spitfire pilots would continue the dive longer and then
pull out harder, so overhauling them and pushing home their attack. This is
of course a generalisation, and it is not a claim that the Bf109 was a bad
aircraft.

I do wonder how much of this stemmed from the narrow undercarraige, which
while it allowed wing removal while the aircraft sat on its own wheels, also
forced a narrow undercarraige. Presumably if the thing toppled over the
main area of damage would be the wings. Something like 5% of Bf109s made
were reportedly lost in landing accidents. One would assume that a
contributing factor was the narrow undercarraige. Something that was
certainly looked at in the Fw190, which had one of the widest fighter
undercarraiges of the war!

In summary the Bf109 could probably take a lot of stress and it is not as
though they were falling out of the sky due to wings falling off. However
in all likelyhood the pilots did have a concern. It could be one of those
cases where perception is everything....


Mark

[The Revolution Will Not Be Televised]

Right, instead of forking out billions upon billions for a force of
capable strike fighters, I suggest the RAF has a look at what it's
been doing for the past 20 years plus, and accepts that there is a
role for a cheap strategic bomber. Yes, that's right: strategic
bombing on the cheap. Do not adjust your newsreader.

The role: All we want is a fantastically long range aircraft, with an
excellent sub-sonic economic cruise, extensive ECM and ECCM fit,
shedloads of decoys and suchlike, and a good PGM fit to allow an
enormous bombload to be carried and dropped on distant people of whom
we know little with great accuracy.

Let's face it, it's never going to operate against anybody with
substantive air defences or if it does the RAF will almost certainly
be operating with the USAAF who can handle all the glamour work. We
can even have a Eurofighter force for some token in-house air-to-air
capacity. But what we really need is something to lug large
quantities of PGMs to distant battlefields, and to do so more cheaply
than a carrier can in the majority of cases, and without all that
annoying diplomacy required to allow the use of local bases.

The solution: something that can be built relatively cheaply by BAe
Systems in the UK. Relatively low-tech in terms of airframe, with no
pretensions to any kind of multi-role or air-to-air performance
capability. This means lower chances of budgetary overruns, and
higher chances of maximising the pork-barrel job creation factor.
Only one service customer to confuse the issue with random spec
changes, only one defence beaurocracy to beat into submission, and
the admittedly minute production run offset against low airframe cost.

Or shall we just re-engine and re-fit the Vulcans?

Quick, before the men in white coats come to take me away!

Gavin Bailey


--

"Will Boogie Down For Food".- Sign held by Disco Stu outside the unemployment office.

[Keith Willshaw]

"The Revolution Will Not Be Televised" > wrote in
message ...
> Right, instead of forking out billions upon billions for a force of
> capable strike fighters, I suggest the RAF has a look at what it's
> been doing for the past 20 years plus, and accepts that there is a
> role for a cheap strategic bomber. Yes, that's right: strategic
> bombing on the cheap. Do not adjust your newsreader.
>
> The role: All we want is a fantastically long range aircraft, with an
> excellent sub-sonic economic cruise, extensive ECM and ECCM fit,
> shedloads of decoys and suchlike, and a good PGM fit to allow an
> enormous bombload to be carried and dropped on distant people of whom
> we know little with great accuracy.
>
> Let's face it, it's never going to operate against anybody with
> substantive air defences or if it does the RAF will almost certainly
> be operating with the USAAF who can handle all the glamour work. We
> can even have a Eurofighter force for some token in-house air-to-air
> capacity. But what we really need is something to lug large
> quantities of PGMs to distant battlefields, and to do so more cheaply
> than a carrier can in the majority of cases, and without all that
> annoying diplomacy required to allow the use of local bases.
>
> The solution: something that can be built relatively cheaply by BAe
> Systems in the UK. Relatively low-tech in terms of airframe, with no
> pretensions to any kind of multi-role or air-to-air performance
> capability. This means lower chances of budgetary overruns, and
> higher chances of maximising the pork-barrel job creation factor.
> Only one service customer to confuse the issue with random spec
> changes, only one defence beaurocracy to beat into submission, and
> the admittedly minute production run offset against low airframe cost.
>

I suggest that this is one role that is right for a pilotless vehicle.
If all you intend to do is fly to a map reference point and
drop a shedload of guided or unguided HE on it why do you
need a pilot ?


> Or shall we just re-engine and re-fit the Vulcans?
>

Most of them have been turned into double glazing.

Keith

[Greg Hennessy]

On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 12:39:41 GMT, (The Revolution
Will Not Be Televised) wrote:


>
>Or shall we just re-engine and re-fit the Vulcans?
>
>Quick, before the men in white coats come to take me away!
>

A reengined victor would be superior to the vulcan in all aspects of what
you propose IMHO.

Carrying 50% more bombload, higher and faster.


greg
--
$ReplyAddress =~ s#\@.*$##; # Delete everything after the '@'
The Following is a true story.....
Only the names have been changed to protect the guilty.

[Keith Willshaw]

"Greg Hennessy" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 12:39:41 GMT, (The Revolution
> Will Not Be Televised) wrote:
>
>
> >
> >Or shall we just re-engine and re-fit the Vulcans?
> >
> >Quick, before the men in white coats come to take me away!
> >
>
> A reengined victor would be superior to the vulcan in all aspects of what
> you propose IMHO.
>
> Carrying 50% more bombload, higher and faster.
>
>

Until the wings fell off, they all used their airframe hours
many moons ago.

Keith

[Greg Hennessy]

On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 14:05:11 -0000, "Keith Willshaw"
> wrote:

>
>
>> A reengined victor would be superior to the vulcan in all aspects of what
>> you propose IMHO.
>>
>> Carrying 50% more bombload, higher and faster.
>>
>>
>
>Until the wings fell off, they all used their airframe hours
>many moons ago.
>
>Keith


Quite true.


greg

--
$ReplyAddress =~ s#\@.*$##; # Delete everything after the '@'
The Following is a true story.....
Only the names have been changed to protect the guilty.

[The Revolution Will Not Be Televised]

On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 13:22:55 -0000, "Keith Willshaw"
> wrote:

>I suggest that this is one role that is right for a pilotless vehicle.
>If all you intend to do is fly to a map reference point and
>drop a shedload of guided or unguided HE on it why do you
>need a pilot ?

I forgot the real reason: we have to sell it to a service full of
ex-pilots.

Gavin Bailey

--

"Will Boogie Down For Food".- Sign held by Disco Stu outside the unemployment office.

[The Revolution Will Not Be Televised]

On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 13:53:55 +0000, Greg Hennessy >
wrote:

>A reengined victor would be superior to the vulcan in all aspects of what
>you propose IMHO.
>
>Carrying 50% more bombload, higher and faster.

Yeah, but let's face it, all the old V-force are shagged, and in any
case wouldn't have the same pork-barrel job-creation dynamic as a new
aircraft. Think modern cheapskate version of the B-52 or something
similar - I doubt they'd go for embedded engines again.

Gavin Bailey

--

"Will Boogie Down For Food".- Sign held by Disco Stu outside the unemployment office.

[Greg Hennessy]

On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 17:30:19 GMT, (The Revolution
Will Not Be Televised) wrote:

>On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 13:53:55 +0000, Greg Hennessy >
>wrote:
>
>>A reengined victor would be superior to the vulcan in all aspects of what
>>you propose IMHO.
>>
>>Carrying 50% more bombload, higher and faster.
>
>Yeah, but let's face it, all the old V-force are shagged, and in any
>case wouldn't have the same pork-barrel job-creation dynamic as a new
>aircraft.

Quite. The unnecessary selection and production of 3 aircraft was an act of
political stupidity. Nonsense about it being 'insurance' should have been
sorted at the trial stage.


> Think modern cheapskate version of the B-52 or something
>similar

Yes, airbus will suggest using the wings and engines of the A-400M on a new
slender fuselage and call it the A-95M Ursa, The maritime variant, A-142M
would be an ideal nimrod replacement.

Think of all the french aerospace workers we can featherbed.

> - I doubt they'd go for embedded engines again.

Yes, with a modern high bypass turbofan, it would lead to some interesting
levels of wing root thickness.


greg



>
>Gavin Bailey

--
$ReplyAddress =~ s#\@.*$##; # Delete everything after the '@'
The Following is a true story.....
Only the names have been changed to protect the guilty.

[Regnirps]

(ArtKramr) wrote:

<< I've got a sound effect on my website of an R-2800 winding up. That's the
same
engine that was on the P-47. You might want to contact Bob McKellar and see if
he will let you use it. If that is a problem I think I may have some R-2800
sound effects around somewhere. Nothing sounds quiet like an R-2800. (grin) >>

I hadn't noticed that sound link before, it sounds great!

At Duxford they had a huge grass field and took off 8 abreast. I can overlay 8
tracks with slightly different start times for the 8 planes and another 8 for
the next group, etc. I need to find a full takeoff power pass from about
halfway down the field, or I should say from a point where a fully loaded P-47
would be about 25 to 50 feet off the ground.

If I can add some in-the-cockpit engine sound for the ACM I will be about done.

-- Charlie Springer

[The Revolution Will Not Be Televised]

On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 18:38:24 +0000, Greg Hennessy >
wrote:

>Quite. The unnecessary selection and production of 3 aircraft was an act of
>political stupidity. Nonsense about it being 'insurance' should have been
>sorted at the trial stage.

I dunno, at least the Valiant came in on time and almost to budget.
which is impressive if we ignore the fatigue situation for a minute.
They really should have made a choice between the Vulcan and the
Victor, though, and probably in favour of the latter. Having said
that, there was a time constraint at the time coupled with the
necessity to produce a successful type which doesn't exist now.

>> Think modern cheapskate version of the B-52 or something
>>similar
>
>Yes, airbus will suggest using the wings and engines of the A-400M on a new
>slender fuselage and call it the A-95M Ursa, The maritime variant, A-142M
>would be an ideal nimrod replacement.
>
>Think of all the french aerospace workers we can featherbed.

No, this is not a collaborative effort. They can work for certain
flagship programs at the political level, but one financial quagmire
at a time until the Eurofighter procurement and the A-whatever
(ex-FLA) contract is complete. This is a UK-led supplier effort.

>> - I doubt they'd go for embedded engines again.
>
>Yes, with a modern high bypass turbofan, it would lead to some interesting
>levels of wing root thickness.

Dig those old Short Sperrin airframes out of storage now!

Gavin Bailey

--

"Will Boogie Down For Food".- Sign held by Disco Stu outside the unemployment office.

[Nele_VII]

Mr Irvine, Mr. Kauppinen,

I have also read the book(s) "Fighter" and it is a great reference, too, but
I also have re-printed Me-109E-3 flight manual in Serbo-Croatian(!) language
and I have read RAE evaluation on Internet.

Firstly, the figther's name for export was Me-109. The manual is the
re-print of the original manual for Yugoslav Kingdom (1918-1941) called
"Me-109 manual". I do not have it handy, but I remembered few things;

Max speed: 570 kph
Max allowed dive speed: 750 kph

Dive procedure:

1) Turn the trim whell up so the plane is "tail-heavy", take off the
throttle, propeller pitch 12 (I -might- be mistaken for the last one-sorry,
it comes from the memory);
2) Depress stick "down";
3) If aircraft is diving on it is own, abort dive emmidiatelly
4) max allowed dive speed is 750 kph.

Taking the plane out from the dive:
1) DO NOT (bold letters!) pull on the stick!
2) since the aircraft is wheel-trimmed "tail-heavy" (i.e. up), leave the
aircraft to bring itself from the dive (black-on white manual statement!)

So, there was some worry... but for the tail, not wings!

From the RAE evaluation of the captured Bf-109;

<quote>
Safety in the Dive
During a dive at 400 mph all three controls were in turn displaced slightly
and released. No vibration, flutter or snaking developed. If the elevator is
trimmed for level flight at full throttle, a large push is needed to hold in
the dive, and there is a temptation to trim in. If, in fact, the airplane is
trimmed into the dive, recovery is difficult unless the trimmer is moved
back owing to the excessive heaviness of the elevator.
....
Elevator
This is an exceptionally good control at low air speeds, being fairly heavy
and not over-sensitive. Above 250 mph, however, it becomes too heavy, so
that maneuvrability is seriously restricted. When diving at 400 mph a pilot,
pulling very hard, cannot put on enough 'g' to black himself out; stick
force -'g' probably exsceeds 20 lb/g in the dive.
<end quote>

It is strange that RAE experts didn't have 109's flight manual and made such
errors in handling, especialy they have sold Hurricane I fighters to
Yugoslavia after Yugoslavia has obtained Me-109s!

Book "fighter" also describes the Bf-109 that it has the tighter circle. It
is not true, but it has the best instantenuos turn rate-Huricane is the
second, and Spitfire on the third place. But, due to the high wing loading
(no matter that the slats are installed), Bf-109 bleeds speed very quickly
in turns.

Since Mr. Irvine and I are reffering to the same source and same plane
version, it should be noted that these information are valid for the
Bf/Me-109E-3 ONLY.

--

Nele

NULLA ROSA SINE SPINA
Mark Irvine wrote in message ...
>
>"Jukka O. Kauppinen" > wrote in
>message ...
>> > decides the fight! Alas for the luftwaffe the Bf109 wings were not
>designed
>> > for guns etc so were not terrifically robust, the pilots were often
more
>> > worried about the wings falling off than blacking out......
>>
>> Incorrect.
>>
>> Having guns or not doesn't have anything to do with the strenght of the
>> wings. 109s from A-E had wing weapons, again one of the K models was
>> designed for wing weapons. The wings were also one single structure,
>> which made it possible to make them very strong.
>>
>> "- Are the stories true, that the 109 had weak wings and would loose
>> them easily?
>> He has never heard of a 109 loosing its wings from his experience or
>> others. The wings could withstand 12 g's and since most pilots could
>> only handle at most 9 g's there was never a problem. He was never
>> worried about loosing a wing in any form of combat."
>> - Franz Stigler, German fighter ace. 28 victories. Interview of Franz
>> Stigler.
>>
><snip>
>
>The reference that I was using was Len Deightons book "Fighter" which
>examines the Battle of Britain. When discussing tactics he asserts that
the
>Bf109 pilots used the tactic of diving away as the Bf109 engine maintained
>power during the dive unlike that generation of Merlin. However the 109
>pilots tended to pull out of their dives in a shallower curve, due to fears
>over the wings. The spitfire pilots would continue the dive longer and
then
>pull out harder, so overhauling them and pushing home their attack. This
is
>of course a generalisation, and it is not a claim that the Bf109 was a bad
>aircraft.
>
>I do wonder how much of this stemmed from the narrow undercarraige, which
>while it allowed wing removal while the aircraft sat on its own wheels,
also
>forced a narrow undercarraige. Presumably if the thing toppled over the
>main area of damage would be the wings. Something like 5% of Bf109s made
>were reportedly lost in landing accidents. One would assume that a
>contributing factor was the narrow undercarraige. Something that was
>certainly looked at in the Fw190, which had one of the widest fighter
>undercarraiges of the war!
>
>In summary the Bf109 could probably take a lot of stress and it is not as
>though they were falling out of the sky due to wings falling off. However
>in all likelyhood the pilots did have a concern. It could be one of those
>cases where perception is everything....
>
>
>Mark
>
>

[Greg Hennessy]

On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 08:17:29 GMT, (The Revolution
Will Not Be Televised) wrote:


>I dunno, at least the Valiant came in on time and almost to budget.
>which is impressive

Not just impressive, a bleeding miracle considering the money which was
wasted on projects like the brabazon.

>if we ignore the fatigue situation for a minute.

Was re-sparring them ever seriously looked at ?

>They really should have made a choice between the Vulcan and the
>Victor, though, and probably in favour of the latter.

I'd agree with that. I reckon if they had done so, the victor would still
be in service today.

>>Think of all the french aerospace workers we can featherbed.
>
>No, this is not a collaborative effort.

Ahh we wouldn't be good europeans then mate :-).

>They can work for certain
>flagship programs at the political level, but one financial quagmire
>at a time until the Eurofighter procurement and the A-whatever
>(ex-FLA) contract is complete. This is a UK-led supplier effort.

/me shudders at the thoughts of Nimrod AEW.


>
>>> - I doubt they'd go for embedded engines again.
>>
>>Yes, with a modern high bypass turbofan, it would lead to some interesting
>>levels of wing root thickness.
>
>Dig those old Short Sperrin airframes out of storage now!

LOL! Thinking about it, a lifting body design like boeing was proposing for
future air lifters could take nice thrifty turbofans with humongous amounts
of internal volume for fuel, electronics and things to drop on the heads of
the other side.


greg
--
$ReplyAddress =~ s#\@.*$##; # Delete everything after the '@'
The Following is a true story.....
Only the names have been changed to protect the guilty.

[ANDREW ROBERT BREEN]

In article >,
Greg Hennessy <nntp> wrote:
>On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 17:30:19 GMT, (The Revolution
>Will Not Be Televised) wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 13:53:55 +0000, Greg Hennessy >
>>wrote:
>>
>>>A reengined victor would be superior to the vulcan in all aspects of what
>>>you propose IMHO.
>>>
>>>Carrying 50% more bombload, higher and faster.
>>
>>Yeah, but let's face it, all the old V-force are shagged, and in any
>>case wouldn't have the same pork-barrel job-creation dynamic as a new
>>aircraft.
>
>Quite. The unnecessary selection and production of 3 aircraft was an act of
>political stupidity. Nonsense about it being 'insurance' should have been
>sorted at the trial stage.

Four aircraft. There was the Short Sperrin as well, albeit prototypes
only. In a sense you can see why they went for multiple designs -
Victor and Vulcan were very daring designs for their day, Valiant
(and Sperrin) would work, but might not be good enough, long enough.
However actually going into production with three of the designs.. hmm.
If they'd done the four designs as prototypes and then built one of them
once they were sure it would work - well, perhaps there'd have been monet
over for the Avro 730 (or even the EE P10..)

>Yes, airbus will suggest using the wings and engines of the A-400M on a new
>slender fuselage and call it the A-95M Ursa, The maritime variant, A-142M
>would be an ideal nimrod replacement.

:)

>Yes, with a modern high bypass turbofan, it would lead to some interesting
>levels of wing root thickness.

Still think it's amazing that the original Comet wing managed to go from
housing the Ghost to the Avon to the Spey..

--
Andy Breen ~ Interplanetary Scintillation Research Group
http://users.aber.ac.uk/azb/
"Time has stopped, says the Black Lion clock
and eternity has begun" (Dylan Thomas)

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: WWII warplanes vs combat sim realism
>From: (Regnirps)
>Date: 11/21/03 11:50 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
(ArtKramr) wrote:
>
><< I've got a sound effect on my website of an R-2800 winding up. That's the
>same
>engine that was on the P-47. You might want to contact Bob McKellar and see
>if
>he will let you use it. If that is a problem I think I may have some R-2800
>sound effects around somewhere. Nothing sounds quiet like an R-2800. (grin)
>>>
>
>I hadn't noticed that sound link before, it sounds great!
>
>At Duxford they had a huge grass field and took off 8 abreast. I can overlay
>8
>tracks with slightly different start times for the 8 planes and another 8 for
>the next group, etc. I need to find a full takeoff power pass from about
>halfway down the field, or I should say from a point where a fully loaded
>P-47
>would be about 25 to 50 feet off the ground.
>
>If I can add some in-the-cockpit engine sound for the ACM I will be about
>done.
>
>-- Charlie Springer
>
>
>

Sounds great. Good luck. The sound of an R-2800 is music to my ears.

Regards,

Arthur

Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[The Revolution Will Not Be Televised]

On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 10:57:47 +0000, Greg Hennessy >
wrote:

>>I dunno, at least the Valiant came in on time and almost to budget.
>>which is impressive
>
>Not just impressive, a bleeding miracle considering the money which was
>wasted on projects like the brabazon.

Too true.

>>if we ignore the fatigue situation for a minute.
>
>Was re-sparring them ever seriously looked at ?

IIRC it was considered, but the cost was prohibitive. I think the
jigs had gone west by then, and Vulcan B.2 was the next stage on
everybody's minds.

>>They really should have made a choice between the Vulcan and the
>>Victor, though, and probably in favour of the latter.
>
>I'd agree with that. I reckon if they had done so, the victor would still
>be in service today.

I dunno, the cost/role issue would raise it's head as it did
historically. John Nott would have settled their hash. What we
really need is a new type with 30-40 years of operational life at a
shatteringly low pound sterling per bomb cost, rather than trying to
reanimate an old V Force zombie which guzzles fuel using late '50's
engine technology.

>>>Think of all the french aerospace workers we can featherbed.
>>
>>No, this is not a collaborative effort.
>
>Ahh we wouldn't be good europeans then mate :-).

Nobody else is pushing a similar requirement, although I'm sure the
French will jump on the bandwagon to "collaborate" (**** it up) if
they thought it might actually have a danger of appearing. We can
call it RAF A.L. to annoy them.

>>They can work for certain
>>flagship programs at the political level, but one financial quagmire
>>at a time until the Eurofighter procurement and the A-whatever
>>(ex-FLA) contract is complete. This is a UK-led supplier effort.
>
>/me shudders at the thoughts of Nimrod AEW.

Yeah, but that was the internal squiggly bits fit. This project is an
existing-tech come as you are party. No new mission-critical systems
to be built from scratch and which can fail the airframe and the whole
project.

>>Dig those old Short Sperrin airframes out of storage now!
>
>LOL! Thinking about it, a lifting body design like boeing was proposing for
>future air lifters could take nice thrifty turbofans with humongous amounts
>of internal volume for fuel, electronics and things to drop on the heads of
>the other side.

This is what we want. Sod the radar signature, if the opposition have
any credible ability to a) detect it tooling in for the bomb run at
46,000 feet or b) intercept a nice, fat target like it, it won't be
going anywhere until the defences are suppressed. Afterwards they
orbit Talibanistan with their humungous internal fuel capacity at 0.9
Mach all day long dropping PGMs on every mud hut until they run out of
stores and go home.

I want a 10,000 mile range on internal fuel with a minimum of 50,000
lbs internal bombload, lowest quote wins.

Gavin Bailey



--

"Will Boogie Down For Food".- Sign held by Disco Stu outside the unemployment office.

[Peter Stickney]

In article >,
Greg Hennessy > writes:
> On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 08:17:29 GMT, (The Revolution
> Will Not Be Televised) wrote:


>>I dunno, at least the Valiant came in on time and almost to budget.
>>which is impressive

Jumping in at this point, because it concentrates a number of replys.
>
> Not just impressive, a bleeding miracle considering the money which was
> wasted on projects like the brabazon.
>
>>if we ignore the fatigue situation for a minute.
>
> Was re-sparring them ever seriously looked at ?

Yes, it was. But eamination of the spars already built for that
purose, and laid up in storage, showed that they were suffering from
the early stages of fatigue as well - brought on by jouncing them
around as they wer transorted. Damned brittle, if you ask me!
Since at that time the Mk I Vulcans and Victors were available, it was
viewed to be more cost effective to use teh Vulcans for the NATO Nuke
role, and the Victors as tankers.
>
>>They really should have made a choice between the Vulcan and the
>>Victor, though, and probably in favour of the latter.
>
> I'd agree with that. I reckon if they had done so, the victor would still
> be in service today.
>
>>>Think of all the french aerospace workers we can featherbed.
>>
>>No, this is not a collaborative effort.
>
> Ahh we wouldn't be good europeans then mate :-).
>
>>They can work for certain
>>flagship programs at the political level, but one financial quagmire
>>at a time until the Eurofighter procurement and the A-whatever
>>(ex-FLA) contract is complete. This is a UK-led supplier effort.
>
> /me shudders at the thoughts of Nimrod AEW.

USAnian smirk of superiority taken as read, thereby filling the
Gratuitous Nationalistic Insult requirement for Tranatlantic Posting.

>>
>>>> - I doubt they'd go for embedded engines again.
>>>
>>>Yes, with a modern high bypass turbofan, it would lead to some interesting
>>>levels of wing root thickness.

The embedded engines actually held up turbofan development in the
U.K. The Conway's rediculously low bypass ratio (0.3 for the Victor's
flavor, 0.6 for the commercial ones used on the 707-400s) was a direct
result of having to fit it into a Victor's wing. This didn't give
much in the way of an efficiency increase. The JT3D/TF-33 for the
707-300B series and B-52s, had a 1.5 bypass ratio, and were much
better economically.
>>
>>Dig those old Short Sperrin airframes out of storage now!
>
> LOL! Thinking about it, a lifting body design like boeing was proposing for
> future air lifters could take nice thrifty turbofans with humongous amounts
> of internal volume for fuel, electronics and things to drop on the heads of
> the other side.

No, what you need is long loiter time, reasonable altitude capability,
and low observability on European Weather Conditions (Fog & Clouds,
with a chance of no rain). Might I suggest, then a Deltoid-shaped
Zeppelin, (Such as the Areon), powered by (Wait for it) Steam
Turbines. This would fill all of Great Britains classic requirements:
A huge internal volume, low sonic observability, a ;ong loiter time,
the use of steam, and the excuse to make a lot of stuff out of Brass. :)

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

[Greg Hennessy]

On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 13:49:35 GMT, (The Revolution
Will Not Be Televised) wrote:


>>I'd agree with that. I reckon if they had done so, the victor would still
>>be in service today.
>
>I dunno, the cost/role issue would raise it's head as it did
>historically. John Nott would have settled their hash.

I forgot about that malign influence. I am sure the treasury would have
found a hatchet somewhere also.

> What we
>really need is a new type with 30-40 years of operational life at a
>shatteringly low pound sterling per bomb cost, rather than trying to
>reanimate an old V Force zombie which guzzles fuel using late '50's
>engine technology.

True.

>>Ahh we wouldn't be good europeans then mate :-).
>
>Nobody else is pushing a similar requirement, although I'm sure the
>French will jump on the bandwagon to "collaborate" (**** it up)
> if they thought it might actually have a danger of appearing. We can
>call it RAF A.L. to annoy them.

PMPL!

>>/me shudders at the thoughts of Nimrod AEW.
>
>Yeah, but that was the internal squiggly bits fit. This project is an
>existing-tech come as you are party. No new mission-critical systems
>to be built from scratch and which can fail the airframe and the whole
>project.

As with the Aden-25, it never ever works out that way though. It would turn
into another 'how can we featherbed Bae' project.

>>LOL! Thinking about it, a lifting body design like boeing was proposing for
>>future air lifters could take nice thrifty turbofans with humongous amounts
>>of internal volume for fuel, electronics and things to drop on the heads of
>>the other side.
>
>This is what we want. Sod the radar signature, if the opposition have
>any credible ability to a) detect it tooling in for the bomb run at
>46,000 feet or b) intercept a nice, fat target like it,

A lifting body design could be surprisingly stealthy I reckon. All that
volume gives plenty of space to hide 3-4 RR Trents internally.

>it won't be
>going anywhere until the defences are suppressed. Afterwards they
>orbit Talibanistan with their humungous internal fuel capacity at 0.9
>Mach all day long dropping PGMs on every mud hut until they run out of
>stores and go home.

LOL!

>I want a 10,000 mile range on internal fuel with a minimum of 50,000
>lbs internal bombload, lowest quote wins.
>

Why only 50k pounds ? A lifting body could easily carry 2-3 times that
without becoming overly large. I am sure the thoughts of them orbiting at
45k feet with 500 SDBs on board would give any corps commander a wet dream.



greg

--
$ReplyAddress =~ s#\@.*$##; # Delete everything after the '@'
The Following is a true story.....
Only the names have been changed to protect the guilty.

[Greg Hennessy]

On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 09:32:45 -0500, (Peter Stickney)
wrote:


>Yes, it was. But eamination of the spars already built for that
>purose, and laid up in storage, showed that they were suffering from
>the early stages of fatigue as well - brought on by jouncing them
>around as they wer transorted.

Jesus!

> Damned brittle, if you ask me!

As with the comet, a lot about fatigue and stresses was pretty much unknown
back then. Makes one wonder what sort of acceptance testing was undertaken
though.

>Since at that time the Mk I Vulcans and Victors were available, it was
>viewed to be more cost effective to use teh Vulcans for the NATO Nuke
>role, and the Victors as tankers.

What was the K model Victors fuel offload like compared to probe and
droguing a commercial alternative ?


>>>They can work for certain
>>>flagship programs at the political level, but one financial quagmire
>>>at a time until the Eurofighter procurement and the A-whatever
>>>(ex-FLA) contract is complete. This is a UK-led supplier effort.
>>
>> /me shudders at the thoughts of Nimrod AEW.
>
>USAnian smirk of superiority taken as read, thereby filling the
>Gratuitous Nationalistic Insult requirement for Tranatlantic Posting.

LOL!

>
>>>
>>>>> - I doubt they'd go for embedded engines again.
>>>>
>>>>Yes, with a modern high bypass turbofan, it would lead to some interesting
>>>>levels of wing root thickness.
>
>The embedded engines actually held up turbofan development in the
>U.K. The Conway's rediculously low bypass ratio (0.3 for the Victor's
>flavor, 0.6 for the commercial ones used on the 707-400s) was a direct
>result of having to fit it into a Victor's wing. This didn't give
>much in the way of an efficiency increase. The JT3D/TF-33 for the
>707-300B series and B-52s, had a 1.5 bypass ratio, and were much
>better economically.

Could one assume therefore that the 'selection' of Conway powered 707s by
BOAC was yet more idiotic whitehall interference.


>No, what you need is long loiter time, reasonable altitude capability,
>and low observability on European Weather Conditions (Fog & Clouds,
>with a chance of no rain). Might I suggest, then a Deltoid-shaped
>Zeppelin, (Such as the Areon), powered by (Wait for it) Steam
>Turbines. This would fill all of Great Britains classic requirements:
>A huge internal volume, low sonic observability, a ;ong loiter time,
>the use of steam, and the excuse to make a lot of stuff out of Brass. :)

ROFLMAO!!! Getting 'em to a target 5000 miles away in a timely manner could
be a problem though.


greg


--
$ReplyAddress =~ s#\@.*$##; # Delete everything after the '@'
The Following is a true story.....
Only the names have been changed to protect the guilty.

[Jukka O. Kauppinen]

> The reference that I was using was Len Deightons book "Fighter" which
> examines the Battle of Britain. When discussing tactics he asserts that the
> Bf109 pilots used the tactic of diving away as the Bf109 engine maintained
> power during the dive unlike that generation of Merlin. However the 109

While being just armchair enthusiast, I wonder how much of this "wing
failure" myth is based on hollow claims - or facts. I don't know for
fact, but were 109 pilots themselves really worried of wing failure in
dives? I don't remember reading any such accounts. It could be the
greener pilots were worried, but were those who were more familiar with
the plane? And how mcuh changes there was between various subtypes? In
BoB 109 E-4 to E-7 were standard types. Was there some real problem with
them? I haven't at least heard of such. Early 109 Fs had weak tail
structure and several planes were lost, when tail ripped off. Later Fs,
Gs and Ks had no such problem. Several Finnish 109 G pilots had dived
regularly 750-900 km speeds in vertical dives when disengaging and they
haven't been worried about the plane.

> I do wonder how much of this stemmed from the narrow undercarraige, which
> while it allowed wing removal while the aircraft sat on its own wheels, also
> forced a narrow undercarraige. Presumably if the thing toppled over the
> main area of damage would be the wings. Something like 5% of Bf109s made
> were reportedly lost in landing accidents. One would assume that a
> contributing factor was the narrow undercarraige.

Actually,

The width of undercarriage in Me 109 E is 1,97 meters; 109 G 2,06 meters
and 109 K 2,1 meters. However - Spitifre's undercarriage width was 1,68
meters.

Nothing unusual with the undercarriage there.

The real problem was the center of gravity behind the undercarriage.
This made it possible to brake unusually hard in landings, but it also
required the pilot to keep the plane straight in takeoff and landing. If
this failed the plane could get into quickly worsening turn until the
other undercarriage failed or the plane drifted off the runway.

jok

I'm putting together an article about various aspects of the 109 with
pilot commentary. Here's some quotes about 109s diving:

- The Me 109 was dived to Mach 0.79 in instrumented tests. Slightly
modified, it was even dived to Mach 0.80, and the problems experimented
there weren't due to compressility, but due to aileron overbalancing.
Compare this to Supermarine Spitfire, which achieved dive speeds well
above those of any other WW2 fighter, getting to Mach 0.89 on one
occasion. P-51 and Fw 190 achieved about Mach 0.80. The P-47 had the
lowest permissible Mach number of these aircraft. Test pilot Eric Brown
observed it became uncontrollable at Mach 0.73, and "analysis showed
that a dive to M=0.74 would almost certainly be a 'graveyard dive'."
- Source: Radinger/Otto/Schick: "Messerschmitt Me 109", volumes 1 and 2,
Eric Brown: "Testing for Combat".

- 109 didn't "compress" but the elevators became heavy. When adjusting
trim the entire horizontal tail plane moved and reduced the force needed
to pull out.

Me 109 G:
"The maximum speed not to be exceeded was 750kmh. Once I was flying
above Helsinki as I received a report of Russkies in the South. There
was a big Cumulus cloud on my way there but I decided to fly right
through. I centered the controls and then something extraordinary
happened. I must have involuntarily entered into half-roll and dive. The
planes had individual handling characteristics; even though I held the
turning indicator in the middle, the plane kept going faster and faster,
I pulled the stick, yet the plane went into an ever steeper dive.
In the same time she started rotating, and I came out of the cloud with
less than one kilometer of altitude. I started pulling the stick,
nothing happened, I checked the speed, it was about 850kmh. I tried to
recover the plane but the stick was as if locked and nothing happened. I
broke into a sweat of agony: now I am going into the sea and cannot help
it. I pulled with both hands, groaning and by and by she started
recovering, she recovered more, I pulled and pulled, but the surface of
the sea approached, I thought I was going to crash. I kept pulling until
I saw that I had survived. The distance between me and the sea may have
been five meters. I pulled up and found myself on the coast of Estonia.
If I in that situation had used the vertical trim the wings would have
been broken off. A minimal trim movement has a strong effect on wings
when the speed limit has been exceded. I had 100kmh overspeed! It was
out of all limits.
The Messerschmitt's wings were fastened with two bolts. When I saw the
construction I had thought that they are strong enough but in this case
I was thinking, when are they going to break
- What about the phenomenon called "buffeting" or vibration, was there any?
No, I did not encounter it even in the 850kmh speed."
- Kyösti Karhila, Finnish fighter ace. 32 victories. Source: Interview
by Finnish Virtual Pilots Association.

Me 109 G:
"- The vertical dive was how to disengage.
Jussi Huotari: That was the remedy.
Antti Tani: That is how I survived when attacking two of them and losing
the first round. They had more speed because I was coming from a lower
altitude.
It was nothing special, the (Yak-9) planes were climbing and began to
turn back. I had planned to get to shoot at them as they have lost their
speed in the turn. But I was not in the right position. I turned at them
and pulled the nose up - and I lost my speed, I had to turn below them.
I had to push the stick to get behind them, and as they dived at me I
dived right down. I turned with ailerons a couple of times, and had full
power on.
Then I started recovery from the dive, of course in the direction of
home, then checked the dials, the reading was eight hundred plus kmh.
Then I started pulling the stick, pulled harder as hard as ever: never
in my life did I pull so hard. I pulled with right hand and tried to
trim the horizontal rudder with my left hand. But it did not budge, as
if it had been set in concrete. But by the by the nose began to rise,
but terribly slowly. As my angle was about 45 I heard over the radio as
Onni Paronen said, "hey lads, look, a Messerschmitt is going in the
sea!" I wanted to answer back but I could not afford to do anything put
pull with two hands. As soon as I had returned to level flight and had
been able to breath normally for a while, I in a way regained
consciousness. I pushed the transmitter key and said "not quite". It was
a close shave.
- It was so hard that you almost blacked out?
Antti Tani: I felt I was on the edge, pulling as hard as I ever could."
- Antti Tani, Finnish fighter ace. 21,5 victories. Source: Interview by
Finnish Virtual Pilots Association.
- Jouko "Jussi" Huotari, Finnish fighter ace. 17 victories. Source:
Interview by Finnish Virtual Pilots Association.

Me 109 G-6:
After landing Me 109 with damaged rudder trim tab, which shook the
rudder heavily in flight:
"Antti Tani: It had to be strong, both the rudder and the pedals, they
withstood the damn shaking without any further damage.
Jussi Huotari: The Messerschmitt was a very tough aircraft. You could do
vertical dives and the tailplane hang along..."
Antti Tani: But Mäittälä, what happened to him, he lost the tailplane?
Mäittälä dived like that, and being a strong man he was able to pull
harder than I did. And so the tailplane was ripped off
- The day before a similar dive and recovery had happened to the same
plane. Two steep dives in succession and a strong pilot pulling the
stick each time, so...
Antti Tani: It certainly was a risky job. It must be that I remember him
because I did a dive like that and remembered his tailplane had been
ripped off. I, too pulled as hard as I could, because I thought that I
am going to die if I don't."
- Antti Tani, Finnish fighter ace. 21,5 victories. Source: Interview by
Finnish Virtual Pilots Association.
- Jouko "Jussi" Huotari, Finnish fighter ace. 17 victories. Source:
Interview by Finnish Virtual Pilots Association.

Me 109 G-6:
"The story of Valte Estama's 109 G-6 getting shot down by a Yak-6 was
also an interesting one. Their flight of nine planes was doing
high-altitude CAP at 7,000 meters (23,000').
(snip) So it happened that the devil fired at him. One cannon round hit
his engine, spilling out oil that caught fire. Estama noticed that it
wasn't fuel that leaked or burned, just oil.
He pushed the nose of the plane and throttled up. His feet felt hot, but
the fire was extinguished and there was no more smoke. The speedometer
went over the top as the speed exceeded 950 km/h. The wings began to
shake and Estama feared the fighter would come apart. He pulled the
throttle back, but the stick was stiff and couldn't pull the plane out
of the dive. Letting the flaps out little by little gradually lifted the
nose. The plane leveled at 1,000 meters (3,300').
Clarification of the escape dive: "It didn't stay (vertical) otherwise,
it had to be kept with the stabilizer. I trimmed it so the plane was
certainly nose down. Once I felt it didn't burn anymore and there was no
black smoke in the mirror, then I began to straighten it up, and it
wouldn't obey. The stick was so stiff it was useless. So a nudge at a
time, (then straightening off with trims).
Then the wings came alive with the flutter effect, I was afraid it's
coming apart and shut the throttle. Only then I began to level out. To a
thousand meters. It was a long time - and the hard pull blacked me out."
- Edvald Estama, Finnish fighter pilot. Source: Recollections by Eino
and Edvald Estama by Finnish Virtual Pilots Association.

Me 109 G:
"-Many claim that the MT becomes stiff as hell in a dive, difficult to
bring up in high speed, the controls lock up?
Nnnooo, they don't lock up.
It was usually because you exceeded diving speed limits. Guys didn't
remember you shouldn't let it go over.
We had also Lauri Mäittälä, he took (unclear tape), he had to evade and
exceeded the speed, and the rudders broke off. He fell in a well in the
Isthmus. He was later collected from there, he's now there in Askola
cemetery.
The controls don't lock up, they become stiffer of course but don't
lock. And of course you couldn't straighten up (shows a 'straightening'
from a dive directly up) like an arrow."
- Väinö Pokela, Finnish fighter ace and Me 109 trainer. 5 victories.
Source: Interview of Väinö Pokela by Finnish Virtual Pilots Association.

Me 109 G:
"- How fast could you go with it? How fast did you dare to fly in a
dive, what was the limit?
It was ... 720 (kilometers/hour), if I remember right. You weren't
supposed to exceed it but we did it many times. And as the air was thin
up there, so we often had to go vertical when escorting a photographing
plane."
- Väinö Pokela, Finnish fighter ace and Me 109 trainer. 5 victories.
Source: Interview of Väinö Pokela by Finnish Virtual Pilots Association.

"- Are the stories true, that the 109 had weak wings and would loose
them easily?
He has never heard of a 109 loosing its wings from his experience or
others. The wings could withstand 12 g's and since most pilots could
only handle at most 9 g's there was never a problem. He was never
worried about loosing a wing in any form of combat."
- Franz Stigler, German fighter ace. 28 victories. Interview of Franz
Stigler.

Me 109 F/G:
"- What's the fastest you ever had a 109 in a dive?
I've taken it to about 680 to 750 km/hr at which point you needed 2
hands to pulls it out of the dive."
- Franz Stigler, German fighter ace. 28 victories. Interview of Franz
Stigler.

"During a dive at 400 mph all three controls were in turn displaced
slightly and released. No vibration, flutter or snaking developed. If
the elevator is trimmed for level flight at full throttle, a large push
is needed to hold in the dive, and there is a temptation to trim in. If,
in fact, the airplane is trimmed into the dive, recovery is difficult
unless the trimmer is would back owing to the excessive heaviness of the
elevator."
- RAF Royal Aircraft Establishment (RAE) Farnborough handling
trials,Bf.109E Wn: 1304. M.B. Morgan and R. Smelt of the RAE, 1944.

"My flight chased 12 109s south of Vienna. They climbed and we followed,
unable to close on them. At 38,000 feet I fired a long burst at one of
them from at least a 1000 yards, and saw some strikes. It rolled over
and dived and I followed but soon reached compressibility with severe
buffeting of the tail and loss of elevator control. I slowed my plane
and regained control, but the 109 got away.
On two other occasions ME 109s got away from me because the P 51d could
not stay with them in a high-speed dive. At 525-550 mph the plane would
start to porpoise uncontrollably and had to be slowed to regain control.
The P 51 was redlined at 505 mph, meaning that this speed should not be
exceeded. But when chasing 109s or 190s in a dive from 25-26,000 it
often was exceeded, if you wanted to keep up with those enemy planes.
The P 51b, and c, could stay with those planes in a dive. The P 51d had
a thicker wing and a bubble canopy which changed the airflow and brought
on compressibility at lower speeds."
- Robert C.Curtis, American P-51 pilot.

[[email protected]]

Back in 1961, there was a fierce battle between the RAF and RN for the
deterrent system for the 70s. At that time we were buying Skybolt for
the Vulcans, and it was reckoned they'd be time expired by 1970.

The Navy's proposal was for Polaris. The RAF proposal was to fit up to
6 Skybolts on VC10s and maintain some form of standing patrol. The
British Nuclear Study Group's [BNDSG, affectionately known to the Navy
as the 'Benders'] Technical SubCommittee under Solly Zuckerman
preferred Polaris. The Treasury preferred the Skybolt option.

All of which became null & void with the cancellation of Skybolt.

Nicholas Hill


> Four aircraft. There was the Short Sperrin as well, albeit prototypes
> only. In a sense you can see why they went for multiple designs -
> Victor and Vulcan were very daring designs for their day, Valiant
> (and Sperrin) would work, but might not be good enough, long enough.
> However actually going into production with three of the designs.. hmm.
> If they'd done the four designs as prototypes and then built one of them
> once they were sure it would work - well, perhaps there'd have been monet
> over for the Avro 730 (or even the EE P10..)
>
> >Yes, airbus will suggest using the wings and engines of the A-400M on a new
> >slender fuselage and call it the A-95M Ursa, The maritime variant, A-142M
> >would be an ideal nimrod replacement.
>
> :)
>
> >Yes, with a modern high bypass turbofan, it would lead to some interesting
> >levels of wing root thickness.
>
> Still think it's amazing that the original Comet wing managed to go from
> housing the Ghost to the Avon to the Spey..

[Corey C. Jordan]

On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 21:14:48 +0200, "Jukka O. Kauppinen"
> wrote:

>The real problem was the center of gravity behind the undercarriage.
>This made it possible to brake unusually hard in landings, but it also
>required the pilot to keep the plane straight in takeoff and landing. If
>this failed the plane could get into quickly worsening turn until the
>other undercarriage failed or the plane drifted off the runway.

Generally, this was very interesting reading.

If I may make a few comments though....

The Cg was only part of the problem with the 109s ground instability, it was the
extreme negative camber of the wheels, combined with a "toe-out" condition that
induced the much of the instability. Compare with the Spitfire, positive camber
and a few degrees of "toe-in" produced far more stable ground handling on a
narrower track. Grumman used similar geometry for the G-36/F4F.

>
>I'm putting together an article about various aspects of the 109 with
>pilot commentary. Here's some quotes about 109s diving:
>
>- The Me 109 was dived to Mach 0.79 in instrumented tests. Slightly
>modified, it was even dived to Mach 0.80, and the problems experimented
>there weren't due to compressility, but due to aileron overbalancing.
>Compare this to Supermarine Spitfire, which achieved dive speeds well
>above those of any other WW2 fighter, getting to Mach 0.89 on one
>occasion. P-51 and Fw 190 achieved about Mach 0.80. The P-47 had the
>lowest permissible Mach number of these aircraft. Test pilot Eric Brown
>observed it became uncontrollable at Mach 0.73, and "analysis showed
>that a dive to M=0.74 would almost certainly be a 'graveyard dive'."
>- Source: Radinger/Otto/Schick: "Messerschmitt Me 109", volumes 1 and 2,
>Eric Brown: "Testing for Combat".

Which model of the P-47 was Eric Brown describing? With the introduction of the
P-47D-30, dive recovery flaps were standard, and dive speeds up Mach 0.83 became
uneventful. I have plenty of test data to support that. I have placed one data
sheet on the web at: http://home.att.net/~Historyzone/DiveChart.html

Here we see the P-47 diving at Mach 0.79, in just one of 300 dive tests that
varied from Mach 0.76 through Mach .083 over the course of several months.
Curtiss Wright test pilot Herb Fisher flew the test for the purpose of
evaluating various propeller blade designs at high sub-sonic Mach
where most of the blade was in the transonic region.

>
>"My flight chased 12 109s south of Vienna. They climbed and we followed,
>unable to close on them. At 38,000 feet I fired a long burst at one of
>them from at least a 1000 yards, and saw some strikes. It rolled over
>and dived and I followed but soon reached compressibility with severe
>buffeting of the tail and loss of elevator control. I slowed my plane
>and regained control, but the 109 got away.
>On two other occasions ME 109s got away from me because the P 51d could
>not stay with them in a high-speed dive. At 525-550 mph the plane would
>start to porpoise uncontrollably and had to be slowed to regain control.
>The P 51 was redlined at 505 mph, meaning that this speed should not be
>exceeded. But when chasing 109s or 190s in a dive from 25-26,000 it
>often was exceeded, if you wanted to keep up with those enemy planes.
>The P 51b, and c, could stay with those planes in a dive. The P 51d had
>a thicker wing and a bubble canopy which changed the airflow and brought
>on compressibility at lower speeds."
>- Robert C.Curtis, American P-51 pilot.

I wouldn't put too much stock in the Curtis quote.

If I remember correctly, Curtis transitioned from the P-38J into the P-51D.
I imagine that he had a few frightening experiences diving the P-38. Why,
because if he is accurately quoted, he seems a bit reluctant to push the Mustang
as you can be absolutely sure that the Bf 109 was into compressibility as well.
Much of the information in his quote is incorrect. There was no increase in wing
thickness and his redline speed for the P-51 is for much lower altitude
operation, not at 38,000 feet. How about an example attributed to Sid Woods, who
tested the P-51at Wright Field and later took into combat and finished the war
with more than 10 victories?

"In contrast, the P-51, had far fewer compressibility problems at speeds
normally encountered in combat, including dives from high altitude. The D
model was placarded at 300 mph IAS (539 mph TAS, Mach 0.81) at 35,000 ft.
In a dive, the P-51 was such an aerodynamically clean design that it could
quickly enter compressibility if the dive was continued (in reality, a
pilot could, as a rule, catch any German plane before compressibility
became a problem). But, say, in an evasive dive to escape, as the P-51's
speed in the dive increased, it started skidding beyond what the pilot
could control (this could be a problem in a dive onto a much lower-flying
plane or ground target--couldn't keep the plane tracking on the target if
speed was too high). As compressibility was entered, it would start
rolling and pitching and the whole plane would begin to vibrate. This
began about Mach 0.72. The pilot could maintain control to above Mach
0.80 (stateside tests said 0.83 (605 mph) was max safe speed--but
structural damage to the aircraft would result)."

Curtis' assertion that the bubble canopy induced compressibility at lower
speeds is bunk. Direction instability at high speeds was a problem through the
P-51D-5-NA. Later models were fitted with a "dorsal fin" which largely cured the
instability. All earlier D models were retro-fitted in the field as kits became
available (they also received a modification to the rudder trim tab).

Thanks for a very interesting read. :)

My regards,

Widewing (C.C. Jordan)
http://www.worldwar2aviation.com
http://www.cradleofaviation.org

[Ian Burnley]

"Jukka O. Kauppinen" > wrote in
:

>> decides the fight! Alas for the luftwaffe the Bf109 wings were not
>> designed for guns etc so were not terrifically robust, the pilots
>> were often more worried about the wings falling off than blacking
>> out......
>
> Incorrect.
>
> Having guns or not doesn't have anything to do with the strenght of
> the wings. 109s from A-E had wing weapons, again one of the K models
> was designed for wing weapons. The wings were also one single
> structure, which made it possible to make them very strong.
>
> "- Are the stories true, that the 109 had weak wings and would loose
> them easily?
> He has never heard of a 109 loosing its wings from his experience or
> others. The wings could withstand 12 g's and since most pilots could
> only handle at most 9 g's there was never a problem. He was never
> worried about loosing a wing in any form of combat."
> - Franz Stigler, German fighter ace. 28 victories. Interview of Franz
> Stigler.
>
> "The maximum speed not to be exceeded was 750kmh. Once I was flying
> above Helsinki as I received a report of Russkies in the South. There
> was a big Cumulus cloud on my way there but I decided to fly right
> through. I centered the controls and then something extraordinary
> happened. I must have involuntarily entered into half-roll and dive.
> The planes had individual handling characteristics; even though I held
> the turning indicator in the middle, the plane kept going faster and
> faster, I pulled the stick, yet the plane went into an ever steeper
> dive. In the same time she started rotating, and I came out of the
> cloud with less than one kilometer of altitude. I started pulling the
> stick, nothing happened, I checked the speed, it was about 850kmh. I
> tried to recover the plane but the stick was as if locked and nothing
> happened. I broke into a sweat of agony: now I am going into the sea
> and cannot help it. I pulled with both hands, groaning and by and by
> she started recovering, she recovered more, I pulled and pulled, but
> the surface of the sea approached, I thought I was going to crash. I
> kept pulling until I saw that I had survived. The distance between me
> and the sea may have been five meters. I pulled up and found myself on
> the coast of Estonia. If I in that situation had used the vertical
> trim the wings would have been broken off. A minimal trim movement has
> a strong effect on wings when the speed limit has been exceded. I had
> 100kmh overspeed! It was out of all limits.
> The Messerschmitt's wings were fastened with two bolts. When I saw the
> construction I had thought that they are strong enough but in this
> case I was thinking, when are they going to break
> - What about the phenomenon called "buffeting" or vibration, was there
> any? No, I did not encounter it even in the 850kmh speed."
> - Kyösti Karhila, Finnish fighter ace. 32 victories. Source: Interview
> by Finnish Virtual Pilots Association.
>
> Given that 109s were routinely dived at 800-900 km/hour speeds that
> certainly shows that if there was some weaknesses in the plane, wings
> werent' them.
>
> jok
>

Sorry mate, the wings on a Bf109 were NOT one piece. The wings were
attached to the fuselage at the wing root just outboard of the u/c and it
was possible to remove the mainplanes and leave the aircraft still standing
on its u/c (which was actually attached to fuselage). This very narrow
track u/c was one of the weak points of the design and when Tank designed
the FW190 he deliberately went the other way and designed his aircraft with
a one piece wing with wery wide track u/c.

[The Revolution Will Not Be Televised]

On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 17:26:09 +0000, Greg Hennessy >
wrote:

>> What we
>>really need is a new type with 30-40 years of operational life at a
>>shatteringly low pound sterling per bomb cost, rather than trying to
>>reanimate an old V Force zombie which guzzles fuel using late '50's
>>engine technology.
>
>True.

Allow me to clarify a little: we _are_ trying to reanimate an old
V-Force zombie, just one that doesn't guzzle fuel using late '50's
engine technology and otherwise keeps operating costs relatively low.

>>>Ahh we wouldn't be good europeans then mate :-).
>>
>>Nobody else is pushing a similar requirement, although I'm sure the
>>French will jump on the bandwagon to "collaborate" (**** it up)
>> if they thought it might actually have a danger of appearing. We can
>>call it RAF A.L. to annoy them.
>
>PMPL!

Right, "RAF Advanced Lifting-body" it is then.

>>>/me shudders at the thoughts of Nimrod AEW.
>>
>>Yeah, but that was the internal squiggly bits fit. This project is an
>>existing-tech come as you are party. No new mission-critical systems
>>to be built from scratch and which can fail the airframe and the whole
>>project.
>
>As with the Aden-25, it never ever works out that way though. It would turn
>into another 'how can we featherbed Bae' project.

Sure, but we're acknowledging that upfront. Where we score over
Eurobanker, sorry, Typhoon, is that there is one primary contractor,
one service and one procurement machine involved. Inefficient still?
Hell, yes, but better than collaborating with the French. And the
design is specifically _not_ state-of-the-art. All we want, afterall,
is a subsonic jetliner with a large bombload and massive internal fuel
capacity. The only performance figures we care about are range,
endurance, bombload and a fast economic cruise speed. And low
operating costs.

>>This is what we want. Sod the radar signature, if the opposition have
>>any credible ability to a) detect it tooling in for the bomb run at
>>46,000 feet or b) intercept a nice, fat target like it,
>
>A lifting body design could be surprisingly stealthy I reckon. All that
>volume gives plenty of space to hide 3-4 RR Trents internally.

Now we're on to something. What can we get out of four Trents in
terms of airframe weight, payload* and range?

[*Including token human aircrew in order to get the Air Marshalls to
buy in to the project]

>>it won't be
>>going anywhere until the defences are suppressed. Afterwards they
>>orbit Talibanistan with their humungous internal fuel capacity at 0.9
>>Mach all day long dropping PGMs on every mud hut until they run out of
>>stores and go home.
>
>LOL!

But this is what the RAF actually will *need*: maximum efficiency for
the missions they will carry out, and bugger (to some extent) the
capability to do the flasher, harder stuff.

>>I want a 10,000 mile range on internal fuel with a minimum of 50,000
>>lbs internal bombload, lowest quote wins.
>
>Why only 50k pounds ? A lifting body could easily carry 2-3 times that
>without becoming overly large. I am sure the thoughts of them orbiting at
>45k feet with 500 SDBs on board would give any corps commander a wet dream.

Precisely. Let's go for 50 x 2,000lb LGB's (or 100 x 1,000lb LGB's)
internal capacity as a starting point.

Gavin Bailey

--

"Will Boogie Down For Food".- Sign held by Disco Stu outside the unemployment office.

[Greg Hennessy]

On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 10:00:14 GMT, (The Revolution
Will Not Be Televised) wrote:

>
>>True.
>
>Allow me to clarify a little: we _are_ trying to reanimate an old
>V-Force zombie, just one that doesn't guzzle fuel using late '50's
>engine technology and otherwise keeps operating costs relatively low.
>

Off the shelf is where its at.


>>As with the Aden-25, it never ever works out that way though. It would turn
>>into another 'how can we featherbed Bae' project.
>
>Sure, but we're acknowledging that upfront. Where we score over
>Eurobanker, sorry, Typhoon, is that there is one primary contractor,
>one service and one procurement machine involved.

Yes, I can see where that would be an advantage. Rather than lets see how
we can copy the An-70.

>Inefficient still?
>Hell, yes, but better than collaborating with the French.

Anything is better than that. The fate of the Jaguar-M should have made it
plain w.r.t the French being in it for anyone other than themselves.

>And the
>design is specifically _not_ state-of-the-art. All we want, afterall,
>is a subsonic jetliner with a large bombload and massive internal fuel
>capacity. The only performance figures we care about are range,
>endurance, bombload and a fast economic cruise speed. And low
>operating costs.

I wouldn't have thought it that hard to do either given that its been done
b4 for commercial aviation.



>>A lifting body design could be surprisingly stealthy I reckon. All that
>>volume gives plenty of space to hide 3-4 RR Trents internally.
>
>Now we're on to something. What can we get out of four Trents in
>terms of airframe weight, payload* and range?

Two Trents can carry a fully loaded A330 or 777 out to 6-7000 miles with a
take off weight > 250 tonnes.


>>Why only 50k pounds ? A lifting body could easily carry 2-3 times that
>>without becoming overly large. I am sure the thoughts of them orbiting at
>>45k feet with 500 SDBs on board would give any corps commander a wet dream.
>
>Precisely. Let's go for 50 x 2,000lb LGB's (or 100 x 1,000lb LGB's)
>internal capacity as a starting point.
>

Lifting body is looking like a shoe-in in that case.


greg

--
$ReplyAddress =~ s#\@.*$##; # Delete everything after the '@'
The Following is a true story.....
Only the names have been changed to protect the guilty.

[Greg Hennessy]

On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 01:15:13 -0500, (Peter Stickney)
wrote:


>
>Those numbers are the maximum offload. If the tanker flies further,
>it can tranfer less fuel. Fir example, a KC-135A would typically
>transfer 120,000# at 1150 miles from takeoff, and 24,000# at 3450
>miles.

It sounds like the victor had all if not more operating expense than a
kc-135/707 tanker while having less than half the fuel offoad.


>I wonder if that particular conversion is what fooled the Air Ministry
>into thinking that the Spey=engined Phantoms would be a piece of cake.
>

That wouldnt surprise me. IMHO someone should have served time for the
whole tsr2/f111K/f4K debacle. The russians must have been laughing their
arses off.




greg
--
$ReplyAddress =~ s#\@.*$##; # Delete everything after the '@'
The Following is a true story.....
Only the names have been changed to protect the guilty.

[Nick Pedley]

"The Revolution Will Not Be Televised" > wrote in
message ...
> On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 18:38:24 +0000, Greg Hennessy >
> wrote:
>

> Dig those old Short Sperrin airframes out of storage now!
>
What did happen to the Sperrin airframes? Did they get scrapped in the
1960's (as I suspect)?

Nick

[Peter Stickney]

Greg Hennessy > wrote in message >...
> On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 01:15:13 -0500, (Peter Stickney)
> wrote:
>
>
> >
> >Those numbers are the maximum offload. If the tanker flies further,
> >it can tranfer less fuel. Fir example, a KC-135A would typically
> >transfer 120,000# at 1150 miles from takeoff, and 24,000# at 3450
> >miles.
>
> It sounds like the victor had all if not more operating expense than a
> kc-135/707 tanker while having less than half the fuel offoad.

Well... It's a matter of context, really. The KC-135 is a dedicated
Tanker/Transport design, intended to (among other things) top off what
at that time was the world's largest strategic bomber so that it could
go paste any point in the Former Soviet Union and get back home.)
The Valiant/Victor tankers were converted bombers that weren't doing
much else, at the time. A closer U.S> parallel would be the KB-50 -
retired bombers used by the Tactical Air Command, USAFE, and PACAF
to support deployments. They weren't optimum for the job, but they'd
already been paid for, and since nobody else wanted them, they wern't
going to be diverted when they were needed.

The KC-135 was a result of lessons learned by Boeing and the AIr Force
about
the amounts of transfer fuel required, and the tanker performance
necessary
to refuel efficiently. While the B-47/KC-97 combination was workable,
refuelling was a knife-edged proposition - the tanker's and receiver's
performance only overlapped in a fairly narrow band. We also had a
secondary requirement to be able to haul stuff along for worldwide
deployments - these were the days of Composite Air Strike Forces -
Reinforced Tactical Fighter Wings that could go anywhere and be
productive on arrival. (Well, that was the theory, anyway.)

The Brit requirements were a bit less stringent - the V-Force could
reach
most of its targets without refuelling, and tey needed to suport the
occaisional Long Range Fighter Command deployment from, say, Suffolk
to Scotland. :) (I love Brit jets, but I'd really like to see one
where you
don't have to declare a fuel emergency just after pulling the gear up)

Of course, unsuspected circumstances do arise, which have to be dealt
with,
such as the need to use the entire Victor Tanker force to get one
Vulcan
from Ascention Island to Port Stanley and back.

> >I wonder if that particular conversion is what fooled the Air Ministry
> >into thinking that the Spey=engined Phantoms would be a piece of cake.
> >
>
> That wouldnt surprise me. IMHO someone should have served time for the
> whole tsr2/f111K/f4K debacle. The russians must have been laughing their
> arses off.

Add the French, as well. Dassault was probably Sore Afraid that
Fairey
would build a fighter version of the FD.2 and cut them right out of
the
small Mach 2 fighter business. (If you overlay a same-scale image of
the
Mirage III over the FD.2, the resemblance is, shall we say, uncanny.)

It wasn't jusst fighters, or bombers, either. A whole series of
potentially useful and marketable transport aircraft adn airliners
was thrown away without thought.

The handling of the British Aviation Industry by various of Her
Majestey's
Governments in the '50s and '60s is a strange story. Derek Wood's
"Project Cancelled" is bittersweet reading.

--
Pete Stickney
On the road at the moment

[WaltBJ]

wrote in message >...
> Thanks for that Mark. Maybe blackouts should be in the game, but then the
> problem lies, not with the aircraft flight models but with the modelling of
> the pilots G-force tolerence.
>Blackout- a 'naive' pilot will lose vision at about 3 -3 1/2 G. First
time it happened to me I was in Av Cadets doing a loop in a T28 A and
all of a sudden i couldn't see. I was still awake so I eased off on
the stick and I could see again. The loop went to hell. Now for anti-G
- in WW2 the USAAF devised the 'M1 maneuver.' Anyone can do it - just
takes a little practice, You tighten up all the muscles south of the
diaphragm (You need that for breathing - G) Exactly as in the
isometric type exercises. Lower gut, thighs (quads and hams) calves
and feet. The idea is to use your muscles as a G-suit. It works well,
in fact, as good as a pneunmatic G suit. it just wears you out pretty
quick. And in serious trouble (nose buried, running out of sky, or you
trapped a bad guy at six) the adrenalin will help you squeeze even
harder. Now hear this - a pilot in the right frame of mind and skilled
at the M1 maneuver can pull the wings off his airplane and stay awake
doing it. Such a pilot can sustain about 7 G until he gets tired of it
- which won't take too long. Since G-tolerance is very idiosyncratic -
varying widely between individuals - I'd say maybe 9G for 10-15
seconds is a pretty good limit. Some guys have done much better. As
for pulling the wings off - 12-13G from a stick yank would do it in
very quickly if and only if the aircraft has a few years of hard use
on it. ( I know of an F4 that went in with about 8 g on it - lost an
entire outer wing. Too many trips to the well. A good friend and his
student went in with it.) If the plane is newish it'll bend the wings
and pop rivets. (We are talking about fighters - a Beech Bonanza would
be long gone by now - as quite a few pilots have already found out.)
Like I used to tell my students - the published G limits are for new
aircraft - don't bet on them - but if you need G to stay alive use as
much as you need.
Walt BJ