messermeister

Actually, very related, and it shows both stick force and elevator angle for several IAS and Mach numbers, albeit only for a single CoG position (the NII VVS report for W.Nr. 14513 wich has several CoGs). BTW, 109 02 E 44 it's the only report that shows this kind of detailed data from german sources (either Mtt AG or DVL) for a late Bf 109. PD: they dived the plane to get the high IAS measurements, and I guess the soviets did the same, as climbing at 500 km/h CAS it's too much for a 109 (it's max horizontal speed already at sea level) :smilewink:

I'm not sure to follow you, but wind tunnel tests on V24 showed small or no influence at all for Cl max, and also no appreciable difference on Cd. Oh, and while OT, the aircraft in your photo is W.Nr. 5604, not V24 (W.Nr. 1929). What is exaggerated is the effect of slats on Cl max, at least in relation to Bf 109, as this is not backed by known primary sources. The report 109 09 E 44 is about change of bearings in slats (kugellager/gleitlager). It contains no Cl measurements, but has this sketch illustrating the effect of slats over the airflow in different stall phases.

The problem with this illustrarion is that it greatly exaggerates the effect of the slats on Cl max for the Bf 109. Known full-scale wind tunnel measurements on Bf 109 V24 point to very small or no gain at all (From Mtt AG Technical Report 94/43): The slats' main goal was to provide a relatively undisturbed airflow to retain enough aileron control up to complete stall of the wing (condition 4 of the following sketch):

Signal horn was dropped from production in early 1944, so no horn for K-4:

From Mtt AG projects office: I don't recall seeing any other kind of report (detailed or not) about calculating the moments of inertia of any Bf 109 variant.

Which forum is that? Are there primary sources for the G-10 claim?

Incomplete image upload. Missing parts: Status as of 5.10.44: Status as of 19.10.44: Status as of 21.12.44: Reliable (more or less) cover mechanism with improvements must have been thus introduced in series in late November or early December. There is also a point (no. 26) dedicated to follow the testing of corrections introduced to solve the problems on the tail wheel retraction mechanism, but I'm tired of scanning. Control harmony. Light elevator/moderate-to-heavy ailerons as undesirable (more in fact, according to Beauvais) as heavy elevator/light ailerons. What is clear from documents, is that no final decision on universally adopting ailerons with Flettner had been made as of February 1945.

Then I guess no fuss arose with E'Stelle Rechlin about problems in service machines... :rolleyes: There were machines converted in 1944, even if DB's directive apparently was not sanctioned by RLM via a TAGTT or Rechlin directive. The instructions to identification of modified engines were clear:

There is some doubts about the introduction of this feature, as the combination of standard ailerons and reduced elevator movement was forbidden by H. Beauvais : And the series introduction of new aileron (standard with Flettner or symmetrical nose without Flettner, were the two choices finally selected) hasn't been decided as of February 1945...

Dropped from series in October That might be about right for late series, to prevent malfunctions due to weather (snow, mud) or due to lower production quality. But the first series didn't have it from factory because the OK to systems reliability came later than the type's service introduction, after modifications proved successful in flight tests Testing continued up to December 44. With the presence of the valves, the cooling system felt off at temperatures about 10-20º below the evaporation temperature.

This is one thing that Prien & Rodeike got wrong: the G series had them from factory, and K series got them only on the first machines, as it was dropped from production at request of Daimler-Benz. As a sidenote, there is the possibility that also 1942 Schlacht Bf 109Es got them, as this device was initially tested in that variant (see VB 109 08 T 41 Abschaltung der Flügelkühler Me 109 E v.22.4.41)

Besides engine rating, it would be interesting to know which airframe condition the would represent: early batches with canopy antenna mast, no main wheel well doors, and fixed tail wheel, or late batches with all the aerodynamic improvements intended from start.

That must be (I hopemyes ;)), because in the aforementioned sources there isn't enough reports to model that variant with high accuracy (at least, not without resorting to tests of very similar G series).

I find this comment by Luthier a bit puzzling. I've been collecting Bf 109 reports for several years from main archives (PRO/NA, NASM, BA/MA, EADS), and K series are, by far, the least documented variant in terms of flight testing.