Leading Edge Slats on the Me-109

[Robo.]

Kurfurst I suggest you talk to the 109 pilots who are in perfect control of their aircraft and never stall it even in very aggressive maneuveurs (that someone here claimed to be impossible). It is in a good match with real life records - 109 expert can really really push harder and even outturn not so capable RAF pilot.

I also fly the 109 very often and I don't have this problem (unless I make a pilot mistake like too much foot or ). The aircraft is controllable even in very aggressive maneuveurs and last second corrections like full rudder deflection shots. You will get into high speed stall by doing that incorrectly but that's not aircrafts fault. I wonder if FF helps, I am using MSFF2 joystick and I can really 'feel' the aircraft.

Hurricane's stall behaviour is much worse than 109s btw, with droping the wing if you're not careful.

[Kurfürst]

Originally Posted by Robo.

Kurfurst I suggest you talk to the 109 pilots who are in perfect control of their aircraft and never stall it even in very aggressive maneuveurs (that someone here claimed to be impossible).

*sigh* point me in the direction of these experience pilots. Besides you do not seem to get the point - the problem is not that the 109 stalls (it should) neither that it does not outturn RAF planes (it shouldn't though getting near to it's turn limit SHOULD be easier than on those) but HOW it stalls. Stalls are extremely violent on this aircraft and spins occur often.

And apparently it's not just my problem. And dear Sir, I fly the 109 since original Il-2 beta - I have never had the problem with it like it's in Il2, well, except for something was extremely badly sc***d up with the G-6's FM.

"Word came from the Luftwaffe out of Antwerp early in the spring of 1943 that many pilots had experienced spin problems with the Me109 G and had to bail out. Numerous airplanes had been lost. Karl Baur's first reaction: "This is almost a foolproof airplane. How do these guys accomplish that?" The Me 109 had a relatively high wing loading (32.2 lb/sq ft) and therefore stalled readily under heavy G forces but the stall was gentle and the aircraft exhibited good control under G forces. If the stick was eased forward the aircraft immediately unstalled with no tendency to flick over on its back and spin. While not totally spin proof it took a fairly ham fisted pilot to get into trouble in the Me 109.

It took Karl several nerve wracking flights before he was able to get a Me 109 into a spin. Finally, after he had tried every possible dog fight maneuver, he had it figured out. It was during those split seconds before going into a vertical dive that it was possible to get this airplane to spin. Only rough flying inexperienced pilots were able to do it. Karl's solution to the problem was very simple. He advised: "Drop the landing gear boys, and the spin will end immediately." The dropped landing gear would appear to lower the airspeed and reduce the severity of the yaw (the movement around the normal axis of the aircraft, i.e. direction stability). Once the aircraft is not spinning (yawning) around its center of gravity the aircraft being in a nose down attitude accelerates and becomes unstalled.

p.86 of: A Pilot's Pilot, Karl Baur - Chief Test Pilot for Messerschmitt by Isolde Baur

I wonder if FF helps, I am using MSFF2 joystick and I can really 'feel' the aircraft.

Maybe, but I do not have a FFB joystick. I tried it once at a friends, but it behaved very weird in CLOD.

Hurricane's stall behaviour is much worse than 109s btw, with droping the wing if you're not careful.

Yes, the Hurri definietely sucks in this regard - but I do not know how the Hurris stall characteristics were.

[*Buzzsaw*]

Salute

Kurfurst is quite correct in noting the game 109 is quite difficult to recover from spins. I have often seen game 109's spinning to their destruction from considerable heights.

This is quite clearly an incorrect modelling of the real aircraft, which was in fact easy to recover from spins or stalls, one would have to be quite ham handed to maintain a spin in the historical aircraft. Not impossible mind you, given a pilot doing all the wrong things, but given a pilot with the training, recovery should be prompt and with a relatively minor altitude loss.

As far as the historical Spitfire stall characteristics were concerned, there was definitely the possibility of a violent flick and spin if the aircraft was pulled into a high G Stall, however, the Spitfire had a characteristic which allowed experienced pilots to know exactly how far to take it. At a point just before the stall, the aircraft would begin to shudder slightly, this was the warning. Experienced pilots learned to ride this edge, as the shudder happened, and maintain it just at that point.

Unfortunately, this vibration or shudder is not present in the game either.

[JtD]

If the 109 had the elevator authority of a Spitfire, it would certainly be possible to send it into a flick or spin easily as well. Stalling characteristics and control characteristics are related, but still a different pair of shoes.

Hurricane stalls/spins were more problematic than the Spitfires, but it didn't have the sensitive elevator.

Recovery from spins shouldn't be hard in any of the three, but easiest in the 109.

[Glider]

Originally Posted by *Buzzsaw*

Salute

Kurfurst is quite correct in noting the game 109 is quite difficult to recover from spins. I have often seen game 109's spinning to their destruction from considerable heights.

This is quite clearly an incorrect modelling of the real aircraft, which was in fact easy to recover from spins or stalls, one would have to be quite ham handed to maintain a spin in the historical aircraft. Not impossible mind you, given a pilot doing all the wrong things, but given a pilot with the training, recovery should be prompt and with a relatively minor altitude loss.

As far as the historical Spitfire stall characteristics were concerned, there was definitely the possibility of a violent flick and spin if the aircraft was pulled into a high G Stall, however, the Spitfire had a characteristic which allowed experienced pilots to know exactly how far to take it. At a point just before the stall, the aircraft would begin to shudder slightly, this was the warning. Experienced pilots learned to ride this edge, as the shudder happened, and maintain it just at that point.

Unfortunately, this vibration or shudder is not present in the game either.

Can I just say that I found this to be a very good summary of the situation and post 44 is one of the best descriptions I have seen of flying the Me 109.

Thanks for both

[Crumpp]

One wonders what the 109 would have been like to fly without the slats.

It would have been rather bad in the stall characteristics.

The wing would have stalled all at once instead of root first and the tips receiving an energized boundary layer to keep the flow attached.
The entire wing stalling would be violent and uncontrollable.
Same thing the Spitfire would do without the twist. Major difference being twisting the wing does not energize the boundary layer so the ratio of turbulent to laminar flow remains the same.
The slats increase the amount of turbulent flow over the wing. The turbulent flow portion of the boundary layer is the high energy, high lift portion.

[Crumpp]

nothing to do with making it better at turning

Obviously, this comment is an effort to troll because it is contrary to the physics behind the slats.

The slats are a very practical method of allowing the pilot to quickly, precisely, and safely achieve CLmax.

They act as training wheels allowing the pilot to maximize performance of the aircraft without fear of losing control.

[CWMV]

Oberleutnant Erwin Leykauf said, ‘For us, the more experienced pilots, real
manoeuvring only started when the slats were out.'

From Messerschmitt Bf 109 at War. Pretty common statement. Ive seen interviews with Rall where he said the same thing.

[*Buzzsaw*]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

The slats are a very practical method of allowing the pilot to quickly, precisely, and safely achieve CLmax.

Actually your comments are an exaggeration.

What the slats do is allow a pilot the confidence that if he pulls too much G and stalls his aircraft, the likelyhood of a violent spin is diminished and the knowledge he should be able to recover relatively easily.

The slats in themselves do not give any guarantee of a stall not occurring, they merely make the event, when it occurs, less violent.

The pilot still must be able to judge whether or not his aircraft is about to depart, and how many G's he is able to pull before departure may occur.

The slats opened prior to the stall, by RAF estimation, approx. 1/2 a G, and in pulling further G's and in order to avoid a stall, the pilot had to know the further signs of a stall approach, in the same way a Spitfire or Hurricane pilot was required to monitor his aircraft's behaviour.

In addition, the installation of the slats was not without penalty. As noted, the slats by deploying, increased the lift generated by the outer section of the wing, but they also generate more drag and reduce the speed of the aircraft. For earlier models of the 109, in particular the E, the chances of the slats deploying assymetrically in a turn was a factor, which was noted to cause aileron snatching and which could cause the aircraft to change direction without the pilot's intention.