109's kill ratio (all variants from B to K)

[VO101_Isegrim]

Originally posted by gripen

Isegrim,
I repeat, nothing on these frames indicate that the data presented is based on flight tests, actually weights and shape of the curves indicate that these are calculations.


Still, Butch said "some parts" were based on real life tests. So as it stands now, nothing actually says wheter it`s calculation or a test, and which part of the performance figures is what, still you say it can`t be in any way, even partially a real life test, moreover, you say it`s kind of a wild claim, and in reality the 109K was so slow that even a tortoise could leave it behind.

Altough I have to mention, there`s absolutely nothing that backs up your story.



Seems that you just wan't to use the best data you can find on the Bf 109 and worst you can find on the Mustang.


Do you want the short version or the long version ?

The short one : Bull****.

The longer one : It`s seems to me that you are describing your own mindset.

Best data I can find on the 109 ? Hardly. The same data appears in every publication on the 109K, and it makes perfect sense for such a small plane with such a powerful 2000 HP engine to achieve such speeds. One can do aerodynamic calculations, and will arrive at the same figures. The G-6 with 1800 HP achieved some 570 kph, and you say that the K-4 with major aerodynamic improvements and no less then 200 extra HP was some 35 kph faster?
But OH my, I FORGOT, it`s about a bad 109, they say the 109K achieved 607 kph on the deck. And that`s happens to be the same as the P-51D with about the same power... Horrible. Impossible! It just didn`t happen! LA-7, 190D-9, Tempest, highly boosted Mustangs, F-4U4 etc. could all do the same or better... But it`s just not possible for a bad, bad, bad 109 to be anything else but slow. Anything else is unacceptable. So is Gripen`s mindset it seems.

And as for the Mustang data... the worst? What`s the BS again ? Since when are these the "worst" Mustang data ? Oh, I am sorry, I don`t really like to compare data for a single stripped V-1 chaser plane specially modified for speed, when there is data for the serial one, under the normal circumstances. You could read the shape of the Mustang IV I posted, it was in excellent condition. But of course you didn`t even bother to read it, it`s pretty much irrevelant if you can make up your mind without it, right ?



One person once said here that the wildest performance claims on these boards come for planes which have most controversial history.


Wildest performance claims, Gripen ?  Don`t make me laugh, What the heck make these "wild claims"? Show any better or worser please, if you can. So far you couldn`t. The only thing you did is keeping repeating that it`s not possible, and it can`t be achieved in tests, because You say it doesn`t say it`s a real life test, it doesn`t say either it`s calculation, so, it only can be calculation... It`s just so miserably preconceptional.

And regards of "controversial history" (hysteria would be  the better word). I don`t know about such in regards the 109. There are two sides, the opinions of those who flew it in combat, and liked it very-very much, praised it`s performance, and the opinion of the ones didn`t fly it or just for an hour or so, and want to tell us it`s the worst plane ever. And of course there are the actual historical records, an unsurprassed number of aerial victories, hundreds of aces made, the actual technical details, opposed by the errors and ignorance in William Green`s books and the Anglo-Saxon fury against it, ever since in 1940 the British pilot`s morale was all-time low, not to a small extent because of the 109, and they  needed some juicy propaganda stuff to tell there pilots they are facing greatly inferior equipment, greatly inferior pilots and so on.

But, as you claimed the "best" 109 data I could find, I challenge you to show anything worser or just different at the same power for the K-4. I bet you can`t.

[HoHun]

Hi Gripen,

>Obb. Forschnungsanstalt, Oberammergau appears on late German docs, no idea what it exactly was or what they exactly did. Anyway, many organizations were relocated to countryside or where ever to avoid bombing.

Obb. obviously means Oberbayerische (South Bavarian), Forschungsanstalt is research institute. I figure it might just as likely be a code name as a real one. If it actually was at Oberammergau, I'd agree that it would be due to dispersion.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

[gripen]

Isegrim,
I wonder what are you trying to argue? I have no story, I'm merely saying that nothing in those charts support the claim (by you or someone else) that those are based on real flight tests.

In the case of the Mustang it's very easy to find real test data.

gripen

[gripen]

HoHun,
Seems that some parts of the Messerschmitt A.G. were located at Oberammergau. Some of their documents dated 1944 are signed there while titles of the documents state Augsburg.

UBBS bombing survey might give a better answer, they studied Messerschmitt A.G. quite thoroughly after war

gripen

[gatt]

*If* you are complaining about our 109K-4 FM take a look at this nice avi movie (Il-2 FB's 109K after a merge):

http://pws.chartermi.net/~cmorey/k4flip.avi

[GScholz]

"We" don't have a 109K4

[gatt]

GScholz,
hell, havent you ever had a bad monday?

BTW, I wouldnt take Amadio's book about Gunther Rall as an example at all.

Considering the wing profile and surface, one of the best Pony's advantages probably was, among all those already described, the better E retention during a zoom. Real dogfights were mainly Hit&Run things, with very few aerobatics. Togheter with numbers and strong team tactics this should have given the Pony a big advantage.

[Angus]

Gunther Rall flew captured P51's as well as several other allied planes (Spits & more) as a combat instructor, teaching his pupils about the advantages and weaknesses of the allied planes.
He really liked the Mustang. I also remember him commenting about the allied engines being of a significally better quality than the German ones. He mentioned a Mustang with some hundreds of hours on the clock with still such a tight engine that you could not move the prop.
Wish I had the book, - well, I'll just order it

[VO101_Isegrim]

Originally posted by gatt

Considering the wing profile and surface, one of the best Pony's advantages probably was, among all those already described, the better E retention during a zoom. Real dogfights were mainly Hit&Run things, with very few aerobatics. Togheter with numbers and strong team tactics this should have given the Pony a big advantage.
 

Indeed the Mustang had a good zoom climb, but again as usual it`s a bit overhyped. While I generally don`t give much credit to AFDU comparisions - as the more I learn about those docs the more inaccuracies I find - , as we have nothing better, these puzzles could be interesting :

Parts concerning zoom climb :

Tempest V vs Mustang III:

"These compare directly with the results of the speed tests. At similiar performance height the Tempest has a better zoom climb."


Tempest V. vs. Bf 109 G:

Note : This Bf 109G was a G-2 captured in Africa late 1942, most likely running below maximum boost, w/o wing gondolas.

"Tempest is only slightly better in a zoom climb if the two aircraft start at the same speed..."

Bf 109 G vs. Mustang III.

Note : This 109G was different, a nightfighter "Wilde Sau" G-6, and it was also equipped with cannon gondolas for some 235 kg extra weight. Given British unfamiliarity with actual German boost clearances, and comments from Eric Brown that refer to 1.3ata only, I expect too that this was running below max. boost and certainly did not use MW injection either.


"When dived and then pulled up into a climb, there was little to choose between US and German fighter..."

(via Eric Brown)

[/i]

Now, considering how later models, or even the same models running at maximum boost, without the bulk of gunpods, related to these captured test machines, I seriously doubt that a Mustang would have any advantage in zoom climb, in fact I would except it to be in a slight disadvantage. This is also supported by the account of a US fighter pilot, who described his combat in Mustang vs. Hartmann`s G-6 in 1944, and found that he was outzoomed. I believe the primary reason for that was not as much as the superior E-retention of the 109s, rather their better slow speed stall characteristics at the top of the zoom.

[Nashwan]

How can a graph titled for K-4 refer to other versions as well ? I cannot imagine.

In the same way performance figures for a Mustang III can refer to a Mustang A or D, ie they can't.

Now, a Mustang III where we do know the condition managed 395 mph with bomb racks, small bracket, and cleaned up paintwork.

No sorry. I checked your figures vs. that of Neil`s and they don`t match what I have got. You made several significant mistakes.

You qouted the meausured speed of the Mustang III at 395mph, but that it only achieved at 3900 ft (given as 391 mph in 6/10 618).

Sorry, you're wrong. The level speed after cleaning up was 413.5 mph at 3,400ft. At sea level, the level speed as recieved was 383mph, and fully cleaned up 406mph.

The report notes that 8mph was gained from removing bomb racks, 12 mph from improving the surface finish, 1 mph from the aerial bracket, and 1.5 - 2mph from fitting Spitfire exhaust stubbs.

So, as I said, clean up the finish, leave the bracket, bombracks, and original Mustang exhaust stubbs in place, and you have 395mph at sea level, 403 mph at 3,900ft.

Sea level speed for in the August 1944 test in AVIA 6/10618 for Mustang III FB 377 w, Wing racks fitted, +25Lbs boost is given as 383mph at 0ft, and 391mph at 3900ft.

Yes, in very poor condition, with bombracks, aerial bracket, and original exhaust stubbs. With cleaned up paintwork, and everything else original, add 12 mph to those figures.

Neil also said the the Mustang was in same condition as the Tempest, ie. "fairly poor", and not "very poor".

Then either he made a mistake, or you are misinterpreting (or misrepresenting). The report clearly says "very poor"

He qoutes the following gains :

8mph due to the removal of bomb racks.
1mph due to removal of aerial bracket.
12mph due to improved finish.

Yes, so have I earlier in the thread.

So basically the 395 mph figure is a Mustang III w/o bombracks, w/o aerial brackets, and with improved finish.

Read what you have posted again:

Sea level speed for in the August 1944 test in AVIA 6/10618 for Mustang III FB 377 w, Wing racks fitted, +25Lbs boost is given as 383mph at 0ft, and 391mph at 3900ft.

383  mph. add 12 mph for the improved finish, and what do we get? 395 mph. With the bomb racks and bracket. Removing the bomb racks as well would take the speed to 403 mph, removing the aerial bracket as well adds another 1 mph, for a total of 404 mph at sea level. Add the 1.5 mph for the Spitfire exhaust stubbs, and you get 404.5, which is what the test shows. See for example Mike Williams Spitfire site, which has the final figures in a graph:

http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/spit14pt.html

Click on the "Top level speed at +25 lbs/sq.in. Boost" link.

In good finish, this Mustang did 383 mph w. the usual bombracks, and 391 mph w/o them.

So how did it reach 404 mph at sea level in the final chart? 383 mph at sea level is the figure with the very poor finish, bracket, bomb racks etc. It's as recieved from the sqaudron. 383 + 12 mph for the cleaned up paintwork is 395 mph.

You can work backwards if you like, subtract from the chart on Mike William's site: 8mph for the bomb racks, 1.5 2 mph for the exhaust stubbs, 1 mph for the bracket. You'll still get back to the 395 mph figure at sea level with cleaned up paint. Which is what I said earlier.

We also know that the P-51D was slightly slower. Note, however, that it would need to be 17mph slower to match the figures you are touting as being representitive for the D series. I've never seen anything to suggest the D was that much slower.

It wasn`t that much slower, see above. It was about 4 mph slower than P-51B/C.

Not when you do the maths properly.

I suspect that as Butch said they were calculations based on tests (iirc) the 109 figures refer to a manufacturers prototype, which is not to say it wasn't to final specifications as regards weight, equipment etc, but it was probably better quality than average production, let alone than the average machine taken from squadron service.

Except that the officially given for K-4 is 3362kg, whereas the test machine is given as 3400 kg, so it has all equipment and possibly more.

As I said, I don't think it was underequipped, just that it was in factory fresh condition, not with "at least 6 coats of badly chipped paintwork"

[leitwolf]

# 400

I always wanted to be number 400 in a four hundred posts monster.

[HoHun]

Hi Leitwolf,

>I always wanted to be number 400 in a four hundred posts monster.

A dwarf on the shoulders of giants ;-)

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

[VooDoo]

Cant get to Neil Stirling's site links. Anybody have it saved ? Would you be so kind to repost it here ? Especially  
 that dreaded AVIA 6/10618 report . Please !

[Black Sheep]

You are quite the gentleman in your debating
(and you've been winning as well )
Keep up the good work from an unbiased, virtual 51 AND 109 pilot

[1K3]

I have no time to read the WHOLE thread... So what is the real K/D ratio of 109 from 1937 to 1945?