More 109 goodness

[Kurfürst]

You should check out the LEMB thread, Milo. Even British posters agreed that the Mosquito as a bomber was little more than 'high profile nuisance' to the LW. The RAF needed a propaganda weapon, that didn`t neccesarily had to damage the enemy, but make the British public believe the RAF was actually achieving something over Germany - apart from 55 000 dead brits from the B.C. Sending a handful Mosquitoes over Berlin in daylight had as much effect as the fighter-bomber 109s in 1940 dropping bombs on English cities - absolutely nothing, but the RAF was extremely unsuccessful intercepting them just the same. Same reason of sending Mosquitos to bomb Berlin after early 1944, when the heavies and their crews of the BC were decimated, and the Harris needed find some excuse for his clear defeat.

[pasoleati]

Poor rollrate in the same period.

False, all acounts I have seen yet praise the roll rate characteristics. Beuvais explicitely says it was only 25% slower in roll than the FW 190... certainly it appears to be better than the Spitfire at higher speeds.


Do you have rate of roll curves for the 109? Beauvais´s comments seem to be in complete disagreement with AFDU pilots.
.

Narrow landing gear.

True - and the Spit`s was even more narrow.

Yes, but the problem is not narrowness, but Willy´s stupid design having so much toe in. Finnish tech reports make it clear that consumption of 109 tyres was extremely high due to just that toe in. That same toe in is the culprit behind that swinging tendency on landing. OTOH the Spit had NO tendency to swing on landing. Read Dave Southwood´s report on Black 6 in Warbirds Worldwide for the landing behaviour. He is far more qualified on the 109 than your beloved Mark Hanna.

Hight torque, - from 109D onwards (hehe, you want that quote, still have to translate it, - 109  taxiin and takeoff)

Torque was similiar as on other ww2 fighters - yes, that means high. [/B]

[Wotan]

If as you claim you are writing a book then you should understand that the responsibility is on the author make himself clear.

Here's you statement:

Mosquito's were routinely intercepted in daylight incursions. Adi Glunz got several of them and used to volunteer for the morning recon flight over England.

This sentence leaves the clear impression that:

1. Addi Glunz shot down a number of Mosquitoes. He only claimed 3 out 70+ claims all together. That hardly seems worth mentioning in the context of the thread.

2. You combined the following into a single sentence:

Adi Glunz got several of them and used to volunteer for the morning recon flight over England.

Why add the superfluous:

used to volunteer for the morning recon flight over England.

When it has nothing to do with the subject or your point?

My reply was to point out to others, who maybe left with the wrong impression after reading your post, that in fact Addi Gluz did not claim a significant number of Mosquitoes and he didn't claim any on 'morning recon flights over England'.

Regards,

Wotan

[Crumpp]

Addi Glunz shot down a number of Mosquitoes. He only claimed 3 out 70+ claims all together. That hardly seems worth mentioning in the context of the thread.

Mosquitos make up what percentage of the Allied Air Forces?  Are you trying to create the impression there where thousands of them penetrating German Airspace at will before spring 1944?  

As a night fighter the mosquito is unmatched.  It was the fastest thing in the night sky just about.  The chances of encountering one of the very few nightfighter varients who were just as fast is pretty slim.

As for daylight.  Mossies were fast and when they flew low under the radar with a good route just about impossible to intercept.  Your relying on visual location from second hand sources reporting.  Intercepting at the target would be the best shot provided you guessed at the correct target that are in a light bombers ability to damage.  So you have to choose between not only the strategic targets but tactical ones as well.  Lets not forget the Gestapo prison attack,  I am sure that one did not show up on any target matrix.  It's on the order of looking for a needle in a haystack.

that in fact Addi Gluz did not claim a significant number of Mosquitoes  

Wow,

Struck a nerve with you Wotan.  Whole point of my previous post was to clear up the confusion.

Excuse me for replying in a few seconds.  Haven't had the time to waste on these boards, lately.

There is no "wrong" impression about Adi Glunz's mosquito victories.  They are significant.

He shot down every Mosquito he came across.   In other words, every one he saw, Adi Glunz ran down and destroyed.


All the best,

Crumpp

[MiloMorai]

Maybe you should re-read the LEMB thread Barbi.

some quotes:

"what other aircraft had a loss rate of only 0.63% over 39,795 sorties."

"I guess I'm thinking about Knoke's chasing a Mossie at low level, and eventually having to quit because he was boiling off his coolant. So, although the Fw 190 and Me 109 could achieve speeds as great as that of the Mossie, they could do it for only a short time -- as I recall."

As usual, you only see what you want to see.

[BUG_EAF322]

He shot down every Mosquito he came across. In other words, every one he saw, Adi Glunz ran down and destroyed.

yep offcourse just because he said so, hail hail.

[Crumpp]

So, although the Fw 190 and Me 109 could achieve speeds as great as that of the Mossie, they could do it for only a short time -- as I recall."

Without knowing the boost limits of the Mossie, I would say that is absolutely correct.

All the best,

Crumpp

[Kurfürst]

Originally posted by pasoleati
Do you have rate of roll curves for the 109? Beauvais´s comments seem to be in complete disagreement with AFDU pilots.

You mean those AFDU reports that were done with gondola carrying 109s, and which reports note the ailerons were not fully deflected during rolls? It`s pretty hard to get good roll rates without using the ailerons.

Besides I tend to trust one the chief Mtt test pilots on the 109s than some RAF one who spent half hour in them in total. The actual data I have points to better roll rate on the 109. The Spit simple had so excessive control forces on the ailerons that rules out rapid rolling.

Originally posted by pasoleati
Narrow landing gear.

True - and the Spit`s was even more narrow.

Yes, but the problem is not narrowness, but Willy´s stupid design having so much toe in. Finnish tech reports make it clear that consumption of 109 tyres was extremely high due to just that toe in.

AFAIK this toe-in was eliminated on the 109 design on late g-2s and G-4s and all later variants. I just noted the Spit`s undercarriage was even more narrow than the 109. Narrowness is directly related to the stability on the ground, which certainly put the Spit into disadvantage on rough airfields compared to others. The Hurricane ie. was noted to be much more simple to take off and land.

That same toe in is the culprit behind that swinging tendency on landing. OTOH the Spit had NO tendency to swing on landing. Read Dave Southwood´s report on Black 6 in Warbirds Worldwide for the landing behaviour. He is far more qualified on the 109 than your beloved Mark Hanna.

I think the swinging tendency (btw, ALL planes swing on t/o and landing, just to a different extent) was caused by the 109`s weak directional stability, and that it was tail heavy, plus it`s powerful engine coupled with the light airframe. Much of this was cured on later models with longer, more stable tail wheel, larger stabilizer and tires. The Spit on the other hand was longitudally ustable, and nose heavy - it liked to nose over instead of swinging, being especially problematic on the latest Griffon models.

[Wotan]

He shot down every Mosquito he came across. In other words, every one he saw, Adi Glunz ran down and destroyed.

Nonsense, post your source for this claim...

No where has anything be writen that states Glunz only ever 'saw' 3 Mosquitoes.

How do you know how many 'got away'?

You are just making that up aren't you?

3 is not 'significant' at all.

Do you want the number of Mosquito sorties flown by year? I am sure that data is available.

Nashwan, Karnak I have seen this posted some where along with an estimated total amount of ordnance delivered by Mosquitoes. If either of you have it please post it. It will save me some time.

[Nashwan]

I've got figures for Bomber Command Mosquito operations, but not any of the other forces (afaik).

BC's Mosquito figures were:

28,639 bomber sorties
11,036 other operations
110 sea mining sorties

39,795 total sorties with BC

26,867 (long) tons of bombs dropped

Losses were 169 failed to return on bombing ops, 2 on mining operations, 83 on other operations.
Note this doesn't include write-offs after returning to base, just aircraft that didn't make it back.

Total 254 failed to return from 39,795 sorties with bomber command.

[MiloMorai]

LOL Nashwan, that is along way from Barbi's claim that the Mossies was 'cannon fodder'.

Your numbers give a 0.64% loss rate and that includes losses to Flak, no doubt.

Or, to put it another way, a Mossie lost every 157 sorties.

[Karnak]

Crump,

The altitude in question, as I have repeatedly stated, is Sea Level.

I find it funny how on this board the German aircraft just get better and better and the Allied aircraft, particularly British, get ever worse and slower.  Now we have the much loved by its aircrews (more so than even the Spitfire) Mosquito being portrayed as a slow deathtrap and the statements from myself an others being intentionally misinterpeted as claiming it to be a great air superiority fighter despite by specific example to the contrary.  I specifically said that the Mosquito was not a match in aerial combat.  All it had over the German fighters in 1943 and early '44 is the ability to run, and that was a near thing.  As to boost duration, the Mosquito was limited to the typical five minutes of emergency boost, though its crews undoubtedly ignored that at times as pilots of all aircraft in all nations ignored such things.  In AH it is strictly limited to five minutes whereas the German fighters, besides being faster to begine with, are given 10 full minutes of emergency boost.

At the 2001 AH Con there was a pilot there who spoke.  He flew Spitfire Mk Vs, Mk IXs, Mk XIVs and P-47Ms in combat.  He flew a Mosquito once, service trials after it had been repaired.  He said that what he remembered was that it was very fast.  When flying Spitfire Mk IXs his squadron was once tasked with excorting Mosquitos.  He said it was the stupidist mission he ever flew as the Spitfires had to be at full throttle just to keep up with the Mosquitos on cruise settings.  Those are some odd impressions os an aircraft that was so slow given that he flew Spitfire Mk XIVs and P-47Ms as well.

[Kurfürst]

Personal attack

[Karnak]

Barbi,

You really, really, really need to educate your self before spouting of the sheer idiocy you just did.  You obviously don't know the mission profiles that were being flown.  You obviously don't know what comparable loss rates were.  You obviously know absolutely nothing about the subject you are now potificating about.

Nothing you have ever posted before has ever revealed your ignorance and bias more than this post.

[Crumpp]

Read JG 26 War diaries volumes I and II, Wotan.

Adi Glunz only encountered 3 Mosquitos, AFAIK.

When flying Spitfire Mk IXs his squadron was once tasked with excorting Mosquitos. He said it was the stupidist mission he ever flew as the Spitfires had to be at full throttle just to keep up with the Mosquitos on cruise settings.

Depending on the year in question, the Spitfire was not very fast as sea level.

I find it funny how on this board the German aircraft just get better and better and the Allied aircraft, particularly British, get ever worse and slower.

Actually I think that is a natural development.  A lot of original documentation has surfaced in the past few years on LW aircraft.  The misconceptions formed in the post war years are slowly evaporating.  They are not the super planes many thought immediately post war but neither were the performance wrecks later historians put them at.  Performance wise, generally speaking they were very competitive.  Check into Walter Oseau's death sometime.  Quite a dramatic story that IMHO speaks volumes about the competitiveness of LW fighters when operated by a fully trained situationally aware pilot.  

All the best,

Crumpp