Leading Edge Slats on the Me-109

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Originally Posted by II/JG53 Rolf

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

No need for me to explain it..

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

Originally Posted by Oberleutnant Erwin Leykauf

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

Agreed?

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

Eitherway you seem a little confused..

Allow me to bring you up to speed!

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

Originally Posted by robtek

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

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

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

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

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

Talk about poster boys for 109 bias!

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

Hope that helps!

[II/JG53 Rolf]

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

[Crumpp]

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

Really?

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

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

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

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

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

[Crumpp]

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

Exactly!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Crumpp]

II/JG53 Rolf,

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

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

II/JG53 Rolf,

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

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

[raaaid]

for what ive understood slats are an all or nothing thing

but in the game the get just half way deployed sometimes

[Crumpp]

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

Good summary.

I would add:

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

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

[NZtyphoon]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

II/JG53 Rolf,

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

Originally Posted by taildraggernut

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

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

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

[fruitbat]

Originally Posted by NZtyphoon

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

i did, a while back....