[martin1985]

WOW!!! Nice Informations!! I need them for my Me-109 Emil.

[Theseus]

Is what you're talking about the P-torque? After you start up the engines, slowly increase the throttle, and give ever-increasing right rudder. It takes a bit of practice, but it's not hard once you're used to it. Great work on that virtual cockpit!!!

[StanZ]

Could somebody tell me what is the airfoil is closest by characteristics to foil has been used on Messerschmitt BF109G2. I interesting particularly in a model G2 (end of the
1942).
I have tried already NASA 2312(popular).afl , the plane flies great, but has a terrible behavier on take-off like a bad
figured out ultralight- take off run is only some 100 feet and
it jumps into the air even before I can lift up the tail (before tale became efficient).
I have read about "very steady and solid of Messerschmitt`s
behavier during take off", which is definitely true for the plane
with MTOW 5300 pounds.

This one will come out with 360 degrees of WW2 look of the virtual cockpit

[StanZ]

Could somebody here to carry out a small course "How to create *.afl file from data availiable in internet (like from link above)? :0

[Jon Peats]

Stanz,

I can't figure out the airfoil, but i'll keep trying. Keep using the 2312 in the interim, it is your best bet.  From the quotes below the wing root was a 2314.8 and the tip a 2310.5 airfoil.

May I suggest you let a few "test pilots" try your design and help tweak it?  you know..a collaborative effort, someem cocnstructive feedback.  A stong point for x-plane is the "community" of it all.

Some quotes off the internet on subject;

Early-war fighters, like the Me109 (later called the Bf109) and the Spitfire, had narrow outward-retracting landing gear that when combined with new pilots often resulted in planes being wrecked in landing accidents.  5% of 109s throughtout the war were written off from ground accidents.

[i]The fastest "G" subtype was the G-10 capable of 344 mph at SL or 428 mph at 24,000 ft. with a meager range of 350 miles and an endurance of 55 minutes, but it wasn't introduced until the spring of 1944. Too little, too late, and still lacking in range and endurance.
Engine and Propellor:
In principle the DB 601 and 605 series engines were the same as the Allison or Merlin, except they were inverted and had direct fuel injection; otherwise they were 12-cylinder, 60 degree Vee, glycol-cooled engines. The prop was a 10.2 foot, 3 blade variable pitch mechanism of VDM design. Here is another major difference between their design approach and ours. The pitch on the Me-109 prop could be set at any value between 22.5 and 90 degrees, a visual pitch indicator being provided for the pilot. There was no provision for automatically governing the rpm. We did just the opposite, using a constant speed governor and flying by a constant tachometer indication of rpm. For any flight condition the rpm remained constant. We didn't know, or care, what the blade angle was.
Wings and Controls:
The wings had straight leading and trailing edge taper and no geometric twist from root to tip. The airfoil section had a 2 percent camber with the maximum thickness at the 30% chord position. The "E" thickness ratio was 14.8 percent at the root and 10.5 percent at the tip. All that was standard design practice of the mid-1930s. What was new for fighter design was the leading edge slats which ran 46% of the span. There was no damping device fitted to the slat mechanism, they'd bang open at 120 mph with the airplane clean or at 100 mph with the gear and flaps down. Each control surface was mass-balanced. Another unusual feature was that as the flaps were lowered, the ailerons automatically drooped, coming down 11 degrees for the full flap movement of 42 degrees.
There were no movable trim tab controls on the ailerons or rudder, although both had fixed tabs that could be bent on the ground. Pitch trim was affected by changing the stabilizer incidence thrugh a range of 12 degrees. The design scheme was that both the flaps and the stabilizer were coordinated mechanically from two 12-inch wheels mounted concentrically on the left side of the pilot's seat. By twirling both wheels in the same direction the pilot could automatically compensate for the change of pitch trim due to lowering or raising the flaps. Differential coordination could be set by moving one wheel relative to the other.
Performance Evaluation:
The first surprise you get in planning a test hop in the Me-109 is that you're limited to about an hour with some aerobatics at combat power, because the internal fuel capacity is only 88 gallons; with the drop tank, the "G" carried a total of 154 gallons. I'll never understand why the fuel capacity designed in Luftwaffe fighters was so limited. It was a major design deficiency that contributed to the loss of the air war, but even more puzzling is the fact that it could have been quickly changed anytime after 1940 onward, but it wasn't.
Takeoff was best done with 30 degrees of flaps. The throttle could be opened quickly without loading or choking up the engine. In fact, the Daimler-Benz engine was the best thing about that airplane. The stick had to be held hard forward to get the tail up, and it was advisable to let the airplane fly itself off. If it was pulled off at low speed the left wing would not respond and on applying aileron the wing would lift and fall again with the aileron snatching a little. If no attempt was made to pull it off quickly, the takeoff run was short and the initial climb good.
The absense of a rudder trim control in the cockpit was a bad feature at speeds above cruise or in dives. Above 300 mph the pilot needed a very heavy foot on the port rudder pedal for trimmed flight with no sideslip which is absolutely essential for gunnery. The pilot's left leg quickly tired while keeping this load on, and this affected his ability to put on more left rudder for a turn at 300 mph or above. Consequently, at high speeds the 109 could turn far more readily to the right than to the left.
Fighting Qualities:
A series of mock dogfights were conducted by the British in addition to the flight test and the following was revealed:
If the airplane was trimmed for level flight, a heavy push on the stick was needed to hold it in a dive at 400 mph. If it was trimmed into the dive, recovery was difficult unless the trim wheel was wound back, due to the excessive heaviness of the elevator forces.
Ailerons:
At low speeds, the ailerons control was good, response brisk. As speed increased the ailerons became too heavy but the response was good up to 200 mph. At 300 mph they became "unpleasant". Over 300 mph they became impossible. At 400 mph the stick felt like it was set in a bucket of cement. A pilot exerting all his strength could not apply more than one fifth aileron at 400 mph; that's 5 degrees up and 3 degrees down. The aileron situation at high combat speeds might be summarized in the following way:
(1) Due to the cramped cockpit a pilot could only apply about 40 pounds side force on the stick as compared to 60 pounds or more possible if he had more elbow room.
(2) Messerschmitt also penalized the pilot by designing in an unsually small stick top travel of plus or minus 4 inches, giving very poor mechanical advantage between pilot and aileron.
(3) At 400 mph with 40 pounds side force and only one fifth aileron displaced, it required 4 seconds to get into a 45 degree roll or bank. That immediately classifies the airplane as being unmaneuverable and unacceptable as a fighter.
Elevator:
This was a good control at slow speeds but became too heavy above 250 mph and at 400 mph it became so heavy that maneurverability became seriously restricted. When diving at 400 mph a pilot, pulling very hard could not pull enough "g" force to black himself out. The stick force per "g" was an excess of 20 pounds in a high speed dive. To black out, as a limit to the human factor in high speed maneuvers, would require over 100 pounds pull on the stick.
Rudder:
At low speeds the rudder was light, but sluggish in response. At 200 mph the sluggishness disappears, at 300 mph the absense of trim control in the cockpit became an acute problem. The pilot's leg force on the port rudder above 300 mph to prevent sideslip became excessive and unacceptable.
Control Harmony:
At low speed, below 250 mph, control harmony was good, only a little spoiled by the suggishness of the rudder. At higher speeds the aileron and elevator forces were so high that the word "harmony" is inappropriate.
Aerobatics
Not easy to do. Loops had to be started from about 280 mph when the elevator forces were getting unduly heavy; there was also a tendency for the wing slats to bang open the top of the loop, resulting in aileron snatch and loss of direction.
Below 250 mph the airplane would roll quickly, but there was a strong tendency for the nose to fall through the horizon in the last half of the roll and the stick had to be moved well back to keep the nose up.
Upward rolls were difficult, again because of elevator heaviness at the required starting speed. Due to this, only a moderate pull out from a dive to build up speed was possible and considerable speed was lost before the upward roll could be started.
The very bad maneuverability at high speed of the Me 109 quickly became known to the RAF pilots in 1940. On many occasions 109 pilots were led to self-destruction when on the tail of a Hurricane or Spitfire at moderate or low altitudes. The RAF pilot would do a snappy half roll and "split ess" pull out, from say 3,000 feet. In the heat and confusion of the moment the 109 pilot would follow, only to discover that he didn't have enough altitude to recover due to his heavy elevator forces and go straight into the ground or the Channel without a shot being fired.
Turning Radius:
At full throttle, at 12,000 feet, the minimum turning radius without loss of altitude was about 890 feet for the Me 109E with its wing loading of 32 pounds per square foot. The corresponding figure for the Spit I or Hurricane was about 690 feet with a wing loading of 25 pounds.

[Jon Peats]

From this Link:  The Incomplete Guide to Airfoil Usage

Messerschmitt Bf 108                                   NACA 2416                     NACA 2413
Messerschmitt Bf 109B                                  NACA 2314.8 ?                 NACA 2310.5 ?
Messerschmitt Bf 109C                                  NACA 2314.8 ?                 NACA 2310.5 ?
Messerschmitt Bf 109D                                  NACA 2314.8 ?                 NACA 2310.5 ?
Messerschmitt Bf 109E                                  NACA 2314.8 ?                 NACA 2310.5 ?
Messerschmitt Bf 109F                                  NACA 2R1 14.2                 NACA 2R1 11.35
Messerschmitt Bf 109G                                  NACA 2R1 14.2                 NACA 2R1 11.35
Messerschmitt Bf 109K                                  NACA 2R1 14.2                 NACA 2R1 11.35
Messerschmitt Bf 110                                   NACA 2R1 18.5                 NACA 2R1 11
Messerschmitt Bf 161                                   NACA 2R1 18.5                 NACA 2R1 11
Messerschmitt Bf 162                                   NACA 2R1 18.5                 NACA 2R1 11
Messerschmitt M 17                                     Gottingen 535                 Gottingen 535
Messerschmitt M 29                                     Gottingen 655                 Gottingen 655
Messerschmitt Me 163A                                  Me 1.8 25 14-1.1-30 ?         NACA 00008-1.885-20 ?
Messerschmitt Me 163B Komet                            Me 1.8 25 14-1.1-30           NACA 00008-1.885-20
Messerschmitt Me 208                                   NACA 2416                     NACA 2413
Messerschmitt Me 209V1                                 NACA 2R1 16                   NACA 23010-64
Messerschmitt Me 210                                   NACA 23018-636.5              NACA 23010-636.5
Messerschmitt Me 262 Schwalbe                          NACA 00011-0.825-35           NACA 00009-1.1-40
Messerschmitt Me 263                                   Me 1.8 25 14-1.1-30 ?         NACA 00008-1.885-20 ?
Messerschmitt Me 310                                   NACA 23018-636.5              NACA 23010-636.5 ?
Messerschmitt Me 328                                   NACA 00012-1.1-50             NACA 00012-1.1-30
Messerschmitt Me 410                                   NACA 23018-636.5              NACA 23010-636.5
Messerschmitt P.1101                                   NACA 00011.41-1.1-40          NACA 00009-1.1-40
Messerschmitt S 11                                     Gottingen 535                 Gottingen 535
Messerschmitt S 12                                     Gottingen 535                 Gottingen 535
Messerschmitt S 13                                     Gottingen 535                 Gottingen 535
Messerschmitt S 14                                     Gottingen 535                 Gottingen 535


I may be able to make it for you if you can't find it.  good luck

[Theseus]

Please please please say that this 109 is going to be released to the masses! That plane looks truly amazing, and I'd love to have it! How far along are you in designing it?

 :D  :D

[StanZ]

Thanks for input. There is too much of good info.
Really the plane has a behavier (about wing drop, etc) like specified. I have asigned airprofile NACA 21012 and first time had a good enough take-off.
By the way, just got an order to secure flight of DC-3 (may be some polititions are right there... , if suddenly Arafat then I would shot him down)  
...not less.

[StanZ]

Thanks a lot.
It would be fine if you could be figure out this one for me
"Messerschmitt Bf 109G   NACA 2R1 14.2   NACA 2R1 11.35",
because I am, frankly, have no idea how to create correct data for airfoil in Foil-maker
???  :(  :)

[StanZ]

I am doing something now on a virtual cockpit. The plane is flyable and screenshot is here-
.
The problem is I can not properly take off and land it
    .
Have installed yesterday another flight sim with this plane and found... it is really has the same behavier (may be a bit better on take off).
It flies like a dream, but very strong prop torque on take off does not allow me to keep it in centerline. Half of my efforts
to take off is across the field    ???  ???