Bf 109F info

[Angus]

That will leave only the wing for the numbers. ROC is after all a function of power and LIFT.
Hauling 20% more weight at the same ROC with less power does indeed point at a very good wing design.
BTW, British pilots reports give great respect to the Italian aircraft. The Italians were skilled flyers and their aircraft seemed to be highly maneuverable. They would often be more agressive than the LW, - which also means engaging into a fight from a worse position.
I have some points on some engagements etc. Can post if there is interest for the material.
Anyway, Meyer, since you easily wrapped up what once was a mystery about a Stuka, would you kindly lend me a hand in chasing one or two other mysteries?
(If they stay mysteries for as little time as the Stuka did, I'll be even merrier!)
And Milo, maybe up for some digging too?

[gripen]

Originally posted by Charge

To be honest, I have often though how difficult it actually was for LW to check the claims as they were constantly retreating on the eastern front and possible wrecks were left behind enemy lines. But of course there were lots of targets, too...

There was a strange incident here in Finland of Brewster pilots claiming they shot down German Stukas but there are no mention of such instance or loss reports of Stukas from that time period. So I guess at the ending phases the LW loss reports may have been quite inaccurate.

The claims will be allways a fuzzy subject. The losses are easier because even in the case of LW considerable amount of records survived. The loss records are fairly complete until end of 43, after that things get fuzzier. Note that despite fairly complete records up to year 43, it's still difficult to define when and where a plane was exactly lost because writing of happened often considerably later.

[MiloMorai]

Meyer did you come across the, I believe was a RLM, report about 1.98ata on his site? In this report, it was questioned why go to 1.98 because the airframes were so badly constructed.

I left out selective in my other post.

Over at the Ubi forum he claimed the Spit cockpit was smaller than the 109 because the canopy was smaller. Now that is one large leap.  He even claimed the MK Is, IIs and early Vs did not have bulged canopies. Strange that Spitfire: The History has photos of pre-BoB Spits with bulged canopies. A mod issued 27-7-40. #283, is for bulged canopies.

As I said.

Angus, digging for what?

[Angus]

Digging for 2 things.

1: 190's in the Tunisian area 1942/43

2: LW loss records for 22nd of November 1942 in the med. That would actually be 15th to 30th to allow some margin. I am looking for a 109.

[MiloMorai]

Get the book Fw190 in North Africa Angus.

http://www.amazon.com/Focke-Wulf-Fw-190-North-Africa/dp/1903223458

There is another book by Shores (forget the name) but it costs a fortune that lists the losses in the Med for both sides.

[Angus]

Is that one by Shores and Ring?

If that is the one, it's hard to catch.

[Meyer]

Originally posted by Angus
That will leave only the wing for the numbers. ROC is after all a function of power and LIFT.
Hauling 20% more weight at the same ROC with less power does indeed point at a very good wing design.

I don't know much about aerodynamics, but I think that horse has been beaten to death by the experts.. and their position is that ROC is not a function of lift, but thrust and weight
check this thread

Since both fighters have the same propeller, and the Mtt enjoys an 100ps and -20% weight advantage, the drag should be really similar (the report states an small edge in speed for the 109), all points out to that the 109 should have a higher ROC. Perhaps the answer is that they were probably climbing at an speed closer to the best climb for the G55.. just speculating here

Originally posted by Angus
Anyway, Meyer, since you easily wrapped up what once was a mystery about a Stuka, would you kindly lend me a hand in chasing one or two other mysteries?
(If they stay mysteries for as little time as the Stuka did, I'll be even merrier!)
And Milo, maybe up for some digging too?

Sorry can't help you there... but regarding specific Lw losses you should ask in the TOCH board, there's a good chance that somebody knows that.

I support Milo's advice for the 190 book, but what exactly are you looking for?

[Meyer]

Originally posted by gripen
It was the DB 603 powered variant of the G.55 which was seen most promissing of the Italian fighters by LW.

Note that the even the DB 605 powered variant is quite impressive given it carried internally heavier armament and more fuel than the Bf 109.

That's true, but the Lw already had a very good DB603 powered potential fighter: the 190.

[gripen]

Originally posted by Meyer
That's true, but the Lw already had a very good DB603 powered potential fighter: the 190.

The fate of the DB 603 powered Fw 190s gives some idea how realistic were the plans to produce the DB 603 powered Fiats. However, it does not change the fact that they were seriously considering the production of these.

The change to the desired larger airframe than the Bf 109 should had been done much earlier, say 1942, before the production of the Bf 109G expanded and tied the needed resources. The developement of the engines was just too slow and other planned replacements (like Me 309 etc.) were more or less failures.

[Angus]

"I support Milo's advice for the 190 book, but what exactly are you looking for?"

I am looking for the fights between the RAF and the LW at the fall of Tunisia. The LW involved the bulk of their transport capacity for the evacuation, and never recovered from them.
There were some reports of scruffles between RAF fighters and 190's, which also were reported to be mixed with 109's.
The RAF pilots involved were of some renown, such as Neville Duke, Duncan Smith, Evan Mackie and some time before Anthony Bartley and Tony Jonsson. All familiar enough with the 190 to be able to recognize one.
However, Crumpp was firm about no 190's being in the area at the time, - the only ones possible being jabos. He claimed that those sightings were probably Re's from the Italian.
I had my doubts, since LW records were not complete, and stumbled across that Stuka case at the same time. After all, it was war, and lots of crazy things going on, and even today various facts are popping up.

[Angus]

Originally posted by Meyer
I don't know much about aerodynamics, but I think that horse has been beaten to death by the experts.. and their position is that ROC is not a function of lift, but thrust and weight
check this thread

Since both fighters have the same propeller, and the Mtt enjoys an 100ps and -20% weight advantage, the drag should be really similar (the report states an small edge in speed for the 109), all points out to that the 109 should have a higher ROC. Perhaps the answer is that they were probably climbing at an speed closer to the best climb for the G55.. just speculating here




Sorry can't help you there... but regarding specific Lw losses you should ask in the TOCH board, there's a good chance that somebody knows that.

I support Milo's advice for the 190 book, but what exactly are you looking for?

Oh, be careful in the lift department there, since there is two basic kinds of drag.
And BTW, lift is indeed quite a factor in ROC, but I forgot to mention the weight.
So, something 20% heavier with less power climbing at the same rate will point at either wing surface and/or airfoil.

[Meyer]

Originally posted by Angus
Oh, be careful in the lift department there, since there is two basic kinds of drag.

Well, since the AoA during a sustained climb, is pretty much the same as in level flight, I don't think the drag would be much different in both situations, depending of course of the speed

And BTW, lift is indeed quite a factor in ROC, but I forgot to mention the weight.

With all due respect, I think I'm gonna stay with Hitech and Badboy's opinions:

Lift does not effect climb rate, only power. Basicly in any normal climb the lift generated = the weight of the air plane (btw is only close the amout of lift goes down the steaper you climb).

Adding more lift makes the plane loop.

It is the power that is pulling you up the hill. Think of lift like the tires of your car. They holds the car up just like lift does. But it is the engine that pulles it up the hill.


HiTech

I would like to point out that Hitech has already posted a perfectly correct response… Aircraft climb with their engines not their wings! Climb angle depends on specific excess thrust and climb rate on specific excess power. The lift only influences the speed at which it all happens

[Angus]

LOL, we're not getting each other on this one. Anyway, A.o.A. is higher in climb. And the price to pay there is induced drag, which is referred to as LIFT induced drag. The other one, being parasite drag, which will start weighting more with increased speed.

Most of our WW2 favourites have the best ROC at speed WAY  lower than top speed.

Now if you start reducing their wings with the same power, eventually they won't fly at all. Same happens if you weight them up enough.

What was the answer to increase ceiling on the same power? To lower wingloading and/or Spanloading.  You see, you can have different lift with the same power....and weight.

[Guppy35]

Originally posted by Angus
"I support Milo's advice for the 190 book, but what exactly are you looking for?"

I am looking for the fights between the RAF and the LW at the fall of Tunisia. The LW involved the bulk of their transport capacity for the evacuation, and never recovered from them.
There were some reports of scruffles between RAF fighters and 190's, which also were reported to be mixed with 109's.
The RAF pilots involved were of some renown, such as Neville Duke, Duncan Smith, Evan Mackie and some time before Anthony Bartley and Tony Jonsson. All familiar enough with the 190 to be able to recognize one.
However, Crumpp was firm about no 190's being in the area at the time, - the only ones possible being jabos. He claimed that those sightings were probably Re's from the Italian.
I had my doubts, since LW records were not complete, and stumbled across that Stuka case at the same time. After all, it was war, and lots of crazy things going on, and even today various facts are popping up.

II/JG2 got to Tunis in response to Operation Torch late in November 42.  It was the first unit to have 190s there.  1st FG 38s ran into them in December 42.  They were based at Biskra.

What 109 are you looking for Angus?  Looking through Shores book "Fighters over the Desert" I'm seeing claims of 109s during that time frame.  JG77 or 27

[MiloMorai]

Dan, III./ZG2 was transferred to Sidi Ahmed from Sicily Nov 15 1942. On Nov 25 it made its 1st claim, said to be a Spitfire, as did JG 2 with 2 Spitfires.

III./ZG also lost 2 Fw190 in a bombing raid on Nov 17. III./ZG lots several more (~12) in the following days but JG2 lost a 190 on Nov 26 at the same base.

There was also possibly Ekdo 19 which operated A-3s from Bengahzi in Nov 42.

Are you sure about the JG2 base?