Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: DiabloTX on February 09, 2005, 09:47:31 PM
-
I have been a fan of WWII aviation, and aviation in general, for most of my life. Those of us here on this BBS can trace our tracks here due to some infatuation with a warbird of any given era. Narrower still, some of us can be grouped in to classes of what we like most; the rough and tumble FW-190, the graceful and deadly Spitfire, the all-too American character of the P-47, the nimble and manueverable Japanese fighters. For me it was, and always will be, about radial engined fighters, namely the FW-190.
As a kid I built many model airplanes that were available in the local five and dime store. The ONLY place you would find me in the school library was in the WWII section. Of the books I have read in my lifetime roughly 70% are about WWII aircraft. I feel that I am confident about basic facts of most fighters from the era and I know some of you are complete experts in the field. One thing that has struck me is I have never been a huge fan of the Bf-109. The more I have read or continue to read about it, the more this machine baffles me.
Here we have a fighter that, by rights, was not a long term answer to Germany's need for a pursuit aircraft, yet there it was at every front, on every continent they fought at. I was an odd design, not given to too much improvement yet by 1945 the K's were still highly lethal. It was cramped and only marginally comfortable. It had bad ground characteristics. It had a heavy port wing dip on take off that didn't help matters. It didn't carry enough fire power to be respected, for the most part, unless it had pods attached. And yet, it was still feared. It was the mount of the experten, the only mount for them. It was a fighter to be not solely loved, but to be equally respected. It was, as I would say, a fighter pilot's fighter plane. And yet it was still considered obsolete even up to its last days.
What I am getting at is how did a plane with seemingly so little to offer in it's initial production become such a well respected and highly coveted fighter through it's career in WWII? Even with all of it's short comings?
It truly is the most enigmatic WWII frontline fighter of them all.
-
I don't know.. in AH you can take the 109 to a place the 190 just can't go. The least manueverable 109 (G-6, in my opinion) is still on a completely different level in a fight than the most manueverable 190 (the A5, in my opinion).
I've heard it was the same in real life.. the 190 was a much better plane for "average" pilots, but a lot of the really high scoring guys prefered the 109's flight characteristics.
They both have their strengths and weaknesses, but I'd rate the G-10 as the second best "fighter" in the game, behind the La-7, in terms of flight performance. The A-5 is way down the list for me, with the D-9 and A-8 back farther.
-
Urch that's cus you don't have the force.
The Kurt Tank Force!
-
Hi Diablo,
>What I am getting at is how did a plane with seemingly so little to offer in it's initial production become such a well respected and highly coveted fighter through it's career in WWII?
It simply was a good fighter.
The Me 109 had had it strengths in areas of primary importance, while the weaknesses were in areas of secondary importance. The literature in the past has often focussed on the weaknesses, exaggerating them occassionally, and that has given the Me 109 an undeservedly bad reputation.
If you look at it, the much maligned Me 109 is surprisingly similar to the highly praised Spitfire in most aspects. I'm sure that if the Messerschmitt had been a British company and Supermarine a German one, you'd now be asking just the same question about the Spitfire ;-)
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Originally posted by HoHun
If you look at it, the much maligned Me 109 is surprisingly similar to the highly praised Spitfire in most aspects. I'm sure that if the Messerschmitt had been a British company and Supermarine a German one, you'd now be asking just the same question about the Spitfire ;-)
That might not be far from the truth... the winners write history don't they?
If the 109 really was that bad, it wouldn't have been built until 1945 and beyond (Czech and Spanish versions).
But I fear a new endless 109 thread coming up...
-
Franz Strigler put it like this: The experten were used to the 109. They knew the plane's performance capabilities and vices intimately and flew it more or less by instinct. These experten who had flown the 109 for years were very reluctant to convert to another aircraft they knew nothing about, even if it was technically better.
-
Originally posted by HoHun
If you look at it, the much maligned Me 109 is surprisingly similar to the highly praised Spitfire in most aspects. I'm sure that if the Messerschmitt had been a British company and Supermarine a German one, you'd now be asking just the same question about the Spitfire ;-)
Damn well put! :)
-
I guess I'm a bit confused. Since when has the 109 been seen as anything less then a great fighter aircraft from the Second World War?
Without getting into the Spit v 109 bit I think it's safe to say that they paralleled each other in development over the years. Both designed essentially as interceptors and forced to adapt to an ever changing demand for use in roles they were not originally designed for. What other prewar fighter aircraft can make that claim?
That the 109 was there before the war and seen as the premier fighter aircraft in the world and that it was still able to compete with the best fighters of the war at the end of WW2 speaks volumes to it's design and adaptability.
And where is this literature bashing the 109. I've been reading and researching WW2 aviation for close to 40 years now since I was a kid and I don't remember ever coming across anything like that.
Dan/Slack
-
Though not immediately apparent in AH, the Bf109 was evey bit the equal of anything the allied forces ever fielded. So was the FW 190. Numbers won WWII. The allied forces were the equivalent of the nit horde. In the end the Americans and the Brits looked like two fat kids fighting over a "twinky" in the school playground. :D
-
And yet, the LW lost the first time they met an organized force in numbers...
109 Rocks still the same.
My favourite ride in AH at the moment.
-
The 109 was a good fighter but IMO it owed it's longevity more to political alignments and bad decisions by the Nazi's than for it's novel, mid 1930's design.
Heinkel had the 112 which IMO, and many others, was a superior plane to the 109. A couple of years later the HE-100. Again a better plane than the 109. A few years later again Heinkel had the HE-280 development going very well and was much further along than the ME-262 but it did not get far. And even the HE-162 was superior but the Nazi's waited so long to develop and produce it that it had to use plywood in it's construction.
Why were the Heinkel designs ignored, passed by or delayed until too late? Because Willy Messerschmidt was the party and RLM favorite.
-
Willy was not favoured by all, I belive Erhardt Milch had a horn in his side...
-
HoHun-
My thoughts exactly about the comparison with the Spit.
It was not my intention to downplay the capabilities of the 109 but to illustrate in the literature that I have read that the 109 shouldn't have been as good as it was at the end of its career but it was. It seems that they write things as "Its airframe was too small for developement" or "Its landing gear strained at the added weight" or things to that effect. I guess it just amazes me that this little airplane could take on all the modifications and still kick ass.
I don't want this to turn into an endless 109 vs. XXXX thread, technicalities isn't what this is about. In no way do I think it's an inferior fighter, that's just my point. It seems like it should be but the 109 obviously was a winner throughout its lifetime.
I also like the 190 better for purely aesthetic resons only. But that is a completely different subject.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Franz Strigler put it like this: The experten were used to the 109. They knew the plane's performance capabilities and vices intimately and flew it more or less by instinct. These experten who had flown the 109 for years were very reluctant to convert to another aircraft they knew nothing about, even if it was technically better.
Yes. And I remember Barkhorn saying something to the effect that when he commanded a squadron of 190D's he and his adjutant deferred to 109K's. Asked if he thought the K's were better he said, "No, I know the 109's better and can get more out of them. The 190D is a better plane."
That's really the same thing Ritt. Manfred Von Richthofen did in the Spring of 1918 when he chose to stay with the Fokker Dr. I instead of the more technically superior plane available at the time.
-
Excellent thread, DiabloTX. I too have always been a WWII aircraft buff although I'm clearly at best only a low average in comparison to the expertise evident in the Aces High bulletin boards.
From what I've read over the years, the 109's best strength seems to be its ability to outclimb most opponents. Which is the way many Aces High experts use it. Climb and pounce, climb and pounce, choose your engagement, climb away home when you need to.
That first came home to me in Air Warrior when I was in a 109 chased by a couple P-51s. I just kept climbing and pretty soon there was no way they were going to catch me. I was surprised then and still am by the 109.
I've always marvelled that a fighter introduced in the 1930s could remain a deadly opponent for 20 years until the end of WWII.
-
Originally posted by DiabloTX
I have been a fan of WWII aviation, and aviation in general, for most of my life. Those of us here on this BBS can trace our tracks here due to some infatuation with a warbird of any given era. Narrower still, some of us can be grouped in to classes of what we like most; the rough and tumble FW-190, the graceful and deadly Spitfire, the all-too American character of the P-47, the nimble and manueverable Japanese fighters. For me it was, and always will be, about radial engined fighters, namely the FW-190.
As a kid I built many model airplanes that were available in the local five and dime store. The ONLY place you would find me in the school library was in the WWII section. Of the books I have read in my lifetime roughly 70% are about WWII aircraft. I feel that I am confident about basic facts of most fighters from the era and I know some of you are complete experts in the field. One thing that has struck me is I have never been a huge fan of the Bf-109. The more I have read or continue to read about it, the more this machine baffles me.
Here we have a fighter that, by rights, was not a long term answer to Germany's need for a pursuit aircraft, yet there it was at every front, on every continent they fought at. I was an odd design, not given to too much improvement yet by 1945 the K's were still highly lethal. It was cramped and only marginally comfortable. It had bad ground characteristics. It had a heavy port wing dip on take off that didn't help matters. It didn't carry enough fire power to be respected, for the most part, unless it had pods attached. And yet, it was still feared. It was the mount of the experten, the only mount for them. It was a fighter to be not solely loved, but to be equally respected. It was, as I would say, a fighter pilot's fighter plane. And yet it was still considered obsolete even up to its last days.
What I am getting at is how did a plane with seemingly so little to offer in it's initial production become such a well respected and highly coveted fighter through it's career in WWII? Even with all of it's short comings?
It truly is the most enigmatic WWII frontline fighter of them all.
Tactics
-
Originally posted by Rob Cashman
The 109 was a good fighter but IMO it owed it's longevity more to political alignments and bad decisions by the Nazi's than for it's novel, mid 1930's design.
Heinkel had the 112 which IMO, and many others, was a superior plane to the 109. A couple of years later the HE-100. Again a better plane than the 109. A few years later again Heinkel had the HE-280 development going very well and was much further along than the ME-262 but it did not get far. And even the HE-162 was superior but the Nazi's waited so long to develop and produce it that it had to use plywood in it's construction.
Why were the Heinkel designs ignored, passed by or delayed until too late? Because Willy Messerschmidt was the party and RLM favorite.
The 109 was both a better performer and easier to manufacture than He112 when they competed in 1935.
The He162 was designed and built in three months to a specific RLM request in late 1944, they were in service wirhin a few months of the proposal being issued. I have no idea where you get te though that the program was delayed, in fact it's probablt the fastest design to service time of ant new fighter in history. Also it was always designed with partial wood consruction in mind.
-
Originally posted by Guppy35
And where is this literature bashing the 109. I've been reading and researching WW2 aviation for close to 40 years now since I was a kid and I don't remember ever coming across anything like that.
I can think of two, off the top of my head.
The guy who wrote "I Fought You from the Skies"....Willi Heilmann?....expressed positive loathing for the 109s, and said he and everyone he knew were very glad they weren't flying them. Much of what he wrote is suspect, though, and some of it is fiction.
On the other hand, Caldwell's first book about JG 26 describes how, by the end of 1944, two-thirds of the unit were equipped with FW-190s, while the remaining third had 109s. Caldwell mentions several times how morale in the 109 unit dropped well before morale in the rest of the JG went down, and attributed this to the pilots' sense that their G6s had become cannon fodder.
I'm sure there are plenty of other books and articles that have made this point over the years. I know that I've taken it on faith that most German pilots preferred to be in FWs rather than 109s.
- oldman
-
Originally posted by Oldman731
I can think of two, off the top of my head.
The guy who wrote "I Fought You from the Skies"....Willi Heilmann?....expressed positive loathing for the 109s, and said he and everyone he knew were very glad they weren't flying them. Much of what he wrote is suspect, though, and some of it is fiction.
On the other hand, Caldwell's first book about JG 26 describes how, by the end of 1944, two-thirds of the unit were equipped with FW-190s, while the remaining third had 109s. Caldwell mentions several times how morale in the 109 unit dropped well before morale in the rest of the JG went down, and attributed this to the pilots' sense that their G6s had become cannon fodder.
I'm sure there are plenty of other books and articles that have made this point over the years. I know that I've taken it on faith that most German pilots preferred to be in FWs rather than 109s.
- oldman
Not much different then how the Spit V pilots were feeling after the 190 arrived on the scene.
Or the 4th FG pilots preferring their old Spit Vs to the P47s and how thrilled they were to get out of them for Mustangs. I don't think folks think the Jug was a bad aircraft based on that.
Maybe I misunderstood the original post but it seemed to imply that there was a message out there that the 109 was a poor design etc.
Dan/Slack
-
"The 109 was both a better performer and easier to manufacture than He112 when they competed in 1935."
Well. that's a valid opinion. From what I've read the 112 was a better performer to start and could have been as easily manufactured as well as improved upon as the 109 came to be.
" The He162 was designed and built in three months to a specific RLM request in late 1944..."
The "Volksjaeger" project was started in March 1944 but the very basic requirements and solicitation to aircraft manufactures wasn't done until September 1944. If there had been no delay Heinkel theoretically could have had the 162 in service six months earlier than they did.
And AFAIK the wood was a requirement because of a lack of materials. IMO if continued 109 manufacture and development had not continued to deplenish the limited aluminum supply the 162 could have been made stronger and as a result also held more fuel and been more effective. Instead of seeing next to no action in March and April of 1945 the 162's could have been in use the November prior.
IMO the reason Heinkel could develop the 162 so fast is due to thier depth of experience with jets going back to the late 30's. It was a simple, quickie design that with the help of bandaids, like the bent wingtips to fix lateral instability, added along the way to get it in service fast.
What about the ridiculous delays of the ME262?
-
The 109 prototype was faster and climbed better than the He112 during the competition. It was so m uch better in fact that even the anti-Messerschmit RLM was forced to accept the Bf109 even thiough Messerchmits participation was offiocialy discouraged in the bid. In other words the Bf109 had such a performance and technological advantage over He112 that it overcame the political advantages of Heinkel, which was the officaly prefered design before the competition. It was a better design.
You couldnt just stop production of Bf109 in mid 1944, there were no reliable substitutes that could be produced in volume. The Fw190A lacked high alt performance and the jets were still technically unreliable. IM O the great failing of the RLM was development of a high alt DB603 powered 190. Such a design fw190C was ready for mass production in late 1942 and would have given the LW a 3 cannon armed 450mph high alt plane in early 1943. However the Db603s went to Me410 destroyers so this 190C was shelved.
-
Hi Dan,
>I guess I'm a bit confused. Since when has the 109 been seen as anything less then a great fighter aircraft from the Second World War?
Well, double-edged praise following the pattern "a great fighter aircraft, but obsolete from the Gustav onwards" is quite commonplace.
If you don't believe in generalizations, all the better :-)
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Hi Diablo,
>It seems that they write things as "Its airframe was too small for developement" or "Its landing gear strained at the added weight" or things to that effect.
Well, no amount of development could turn the Me 109 into a P-51, which really was the war-winning fighter if any one actually qualifies.
So if Messerschmitt had been a US company, they probably wouldn't have sold 30000 of them, because it would have been unable to fulfill the USAAF requirements. They'd probably have shipped a couple of thousand of P-109s to the Soviet Union, though ;-)
European requirements were different, though of course the Luftwaffe (like the RAF) could have benefitted from a capable long-range fighter, too. The designs they actually had for that role didn't work out, however - the Bf 110 was not competitive against the RAF fighters, and the Whirlwind was killed by poor engines.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Hi Rob,
>From what I've read the 112 was a better performer to start and could have been as easily manufactured as well as improved upon as the 109 came to be.
Well, my impression is that performance was no better than that of a Me 109 with the same engine variant, and Heinkel himself stressed that he made great progress in terms of mass production suitability when designing the He 100, which I take as implicit admission that the He 112 wasn't competitive in that regard.
Still, the Spitfire wasn't well-suited for mass production either but got turned out in great numbers anyhow, so the He 112 might have been an option for the Luftwaffe after all.
>What about the ridiculous delays of the ME262?
Brought about by lack of strategic resources for engine manufacturing and completely unavoidable. If Jumo had been a British company, they could have had their jet engine ready for mass production in 1943.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Originally posted by HoHun
Hi Diablo,
>It seems that they write things as "Its airframe was too small for developement" or "Its landing gear strained at the added weight" or things to that effect.
Well, no amount of development could turn the Me 109 into a P-51, which really was the war-winning fighter if any one actually qualifies.
So if Messerschmitt had been a US company, they probably wouldn't have sold 30000 of them, because it would have been unable to fulfill the USAAF requirements. They'd probably have shipped a couple of thousand of P-109s to the Soviet Union, though ;-)
European requirements were different, though of course the Luftwaffe (like the RAF) could have benefitted from a capable long-range fighter, too. The designs they actually had for that role didn't work out, however - the Bf 110 was not competitive against the RAF fighters, and the Whirlwind was killed by poor engines.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
It still comes down to folks not looking at the overall then doesn't it.
The 109 and Spit were designed to be interceptors. Meaning the bombers are coming to them. Get up fast and shoot them down. Range was not the issue in the design requirements.
That both were adapted and were able to continue to be used as frontline fighters that performance wise were able to compete with anything flying at the end speaks to the greatness of the designs.
No one was asking for a long range escort fighter in the mid 30s as they didn't see the need, much to their regret later on.
What other operational fighter design from the mid 30s was still a front line combat aircraft in 45?
Dan/Slack
-
DiabloTX, fw190 alone had several flaws, 109 alone had several flaws also. The usage of Fw190 and Bf109 working together compensates any individual flaws in deffense or attack.
-
As a sidenote...
Didn't the Japanese get some 112's?
-
Yes they did, no idea what happened to them though.
-
I think they got about 6 He100's, from the same batch that was shipped to the USSR IIRC.
-
Originally posted by Guppy35
What other operational fighter design from the mid 30s was still a front line combat aircraft in 45?
Dan/Slack
The 30s thing is a bit strange though. Usually it`s noted for the 109 that it was a mid-30s design....
... like 95% of the fighter used in WW2. ,)
-
Originally posted by hogenbor
Yes they did, no idea what happened to them though.
A He112B of 5*68 damaged a P-38 of the 14th GF 12 Af over Spanish Morocco on March 3 1943 forcing it down on the shore of the Mulluya R.
(http://www.squadron.com/images/large/SS1159.jpg)
-
Hi Guppy,
>It still comes down to folks not looking at the overall then doesn't it.
Certainly! A careful reader won't fall into that trap - I think that's what must have happened to you :-)
The performance differences in capability between the Spitfire and the Me 109 become even smaller if you consider that they were mostly engine-determined, by the way.
One Spanish Me 109 batch was produced with Merlin engines, and some Spitfires were actually converted to Daimler-Benz powerplants during WW2, so if the two companies would somehow switched sides, the resulting aircraft would have resembled their historical opponents even more :-)
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
This, - from Guppy:
"What other operational fighter design from the mid 30s was still a front line combat aircraft in 45?
Dan/Slack"
Well, the Spitfire, of course ;)
-
Heinkel He 112 (http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/he112.html)
-
Interesting: "As would be expected the 112 had better turn performance due to it's larger wing, but the 109 was faster at all altitudes and had considerably better agility and aerobatic abilities."
"In addition some sources have mentioned that the 112 continued to suffer from lateral instability throughout the test period, which caused the plane to "snake" in flight. The various modifications to the vertical stabilizer may be evidence for this problem."
I guess Heinkel didn't notice that the fuselage should be tall and slender as in Spitfire to counter the effects of elliptic wing...
-C+
To Angus: Air resistance in the subsonic region, in which from now on the wing-only airplane is to be seen, was clarified by two messages in the Lifting Wing Theory by L Prandtl (published 1918). The diverted induced resistance becomes a minimum, if the lift is distributed over the span in the form of a half ellipse, in the case of a given span and a constant weight of the airplane. If now the wing has the form of an ellipse, then (without washout) the lift coefficient is same in every place of the span. Close to the max. lift a local flow separation can bring a rolling moment around the longitudinal axis of the airplane, which the pilot can barely adjust with the aileron, because the whole wing is close to the max. lift. The elliptical wing was therefore sparsely used for reasons of the flight characteristics and production.
http://www.nurflugel.com/Nurflugel/Horten_Nurflugels/theory/theory.html
-
What are the effects of an elliptic wing?
AFAIK it's maximum lift with the minimun lift-induced drag penalty.
BTW, a powered-up speedy spitfire already showed the tendency to "crab" sideways in full power flight. Later model Spits had to enlarge the stabilizers to counter the torque.
The 109. AFAIK, needed a constant boot on the rudder.
-
Early Spits imho had this problem of directional stability because of their assymetric radiators.
As for the 109, there were ground adjustable trim tabs to trim the rudder for cruise speeds, plus the vertical fin was assymetric, countering the torque at all speeds. So when flown at cruise speeds, the plane could be flown 'legs off' like any other correctly trimmed plane.
BTW.. the 190 didnt have rudder trim either, but I never see this ebing brought up ever.
-
Originally posted by Rob Cashman
A few years later again Heinkel had the HE-280 development going very well and was much further along than the ME-262 but it did not get far.
Around March 1943 the Heinkel test pilots discovered that the He 280 tailplane would begin a dangerous "see-saw" motion at high speed which twisted the rear fuselage - which required a re-design of the entire tail unit. The time they lost fixing this problem allowed the development of the Me 262 to overtake the Heinkel effort, and the He 280 program was cancelled.
-
As for the 109, there were ground adjustable trim tabs to trim the rudder for cruise speeds, plus the vertical fin was assymetric, countering the torque at all speeds. So when flown at cruise speeds, the plane could be flown 'legs off' like any other correctly trimmed plane.
But it is also true that with increasing speed the 109 required a lot of rudder to fly straight.
Mark Hanna also told that the rudder in the 109 though very controlable would not allow the plane to fly "legs off" at any time.
BTW.. the 190 didnt have rudder trim either, but I never see this ebing brought up ever.
Why should it? Comparing to other planes of the time the FW190 had the neat feature that it didnt require any retrimming over the entire flight envelope if the trim taps were properly ajusted.
This is mentioned in almost any FW190 test report, even by the allies ones.
-
From Kurfurst:
"So when flown at cruise speeds, the plane could be flown 'legs off' like any other correctly trimmed plane. "
At only some precisely certain speed.
Plains with rudder trim can of course be trimmed to fly legs off at any speed.
Since rudder trim is not a particularly complicated thing, I wonder why they skipped it.
As for the 190, how did they solve it? Quite interesting really :)
-
Q. How do you tell a late war 109 pilot from any other pilot?
A. He is the one that walks with a limp because of the huge leg(single) muscles from having to continually apply rudder at high speed. (high speed was the only way they could stay reletively safe in the dangerous skies over Germany)
:p
-
Originally posted by Naudet
Comparing to other planes of the time the FW190 had the neat feature that it didnt require any retrimming over the entire flight envelope if the trim taps were properly ajusted.
This is surreal, Naudet. An aircraft that 'doesn`t require ANY retrimming over the entire flight envelope' - how? Why they fitted it with adjustable trim in the first place then? Some aircraft`s trim changes may be different in given axis, on some it`s more pronounced and on other it`s less pronounced, but the need for trimming is always there.
As for the 109/190.. the trimming system followed EXACTLY the same pattern on both aircraft. No aileron or rudder adjustable trim, just ground adjustable trim tabs, plus varialbe tailplane incidence with fixed trim tabs on the elevator, a rather better solution than just elevator trim on Western aircraft under compressibilty.
The bottom line of course, that any 109 or 190 could transit easily without the use of pedals. Some sideslip occured if they were not flying near preset cruise speeds - so what ?
This 'it was no problem on the 190, but on the 109, which followed the exact same layout, the same phenomenon was an extreme disadvantage' just stinks of bias.
-
Ahem.
How can the absence of cockpit adjustable trim be a benefit?
So many pilots that flew the 109 point this out as the most uncomfortable factor.
-
It`s ain`t a benefit, but neither an issue. Esp. not for an interceptor. Or did you mean the variable tail incidence instead of elevator trim tabs?
But name three German/Axis pilots who complained about the lack of rudder trim.
-
That means you know about two?
I only know one, but I can always ask.
Anyway, think for your self, having to keep a stiff leg on the rudder to stay straight, rather than being able to trim it to leg-off at any speed you prefer.
Now Willy was a good designer, it boggles me why he skipped this one.
How about other German planes. I bet most of them had a trimmable rudder, or?
And for the FW, I do remember it being mentioned for it not being necessary to trim. I'll ask around as well, for this is quite interesting. One thing there is that control forces were really light, so maybe it was not a big issue if it was a little off, don't really know.
I do know though, from being a machine operator for thousands of hours, that needing constant muscle just to stay stable, is really really bad. But for a 1 hour mission, I guess one would get used to it, - 1 hr is not 10, and in 1 combat hours there are many worse things around.
IMHO the 109 would have benefitted from a rudder trim, find me 3 pilots that disagree :D
-
The Fw190 had very light controls at most speeds, and the electrical tailplane trimming (+-5 degrees max.) was in most cases a "risk" more than a help. It seems that with maximum tailplane up trim it was very easy to stall the plane with "light" joy pulls.
-
"Now Willy was a good designer, it boggles me why he skipped this one. "
Maybe it wasn't a real issue?
-C+
-
This 'it was no problem on the 190, but on the 109, which followed the exact same layout, the same phenomenon was an extreme disadvantage' just stinks of bias.
Kurfürst i find it rather funny that you mention something like "stinks of bias" when the facts don't support your claims.
The Bf109 was troubled due to the need of constant rudder input when not flying at cruise speed, which the FW190 was not, that is well documented.
Did this prevent the Bf109 from being a good and effective fighter, surely not, otherwise it would not have been around till 1945.
But contrary to your oppinion the Bf109 was not a miraculous design without any flaws.
And read my post again, were do i say it is an extreme disadvantage for the Bf109, i don't do that.
Btw that the trimming system of both airplanes followed the same pattern is no wonder, because it was german design philosophy at that time that 1-engined fighter planes did not require inflight ajustable trim tabs around all axis.
This should also answer Angus question about trimming on other german planes.
-
OMG Naudet you're alive :D
For the Love of Kurt Tank! ....wait ...ah yes sorry
-
LOL Glassess, were have you been? I am around in AH2 for over 4 weeks now, i am a member of 9./JG54 and you didn't noticed it yet??
I think the questions is not if i am alive, but if you are. ;) :D
-
Hehe, nice to know that you BOTH are still kicking.
Emm, which team do you fly for?
-
I'm on throtorial leavewaitin for my throttle to arrive then I shall come back and send the foul spits back to the hells from whence they came. Smite them I shall with my heilige Rhinemetal borsig minengeschoss of truth and justice!
-
Originally posted by Naudet
The Bf109 was troubled due to the need of constant rudder input when not flying at cruise speed, which the FW190 was not, that is well documented.
[/B]
You merely repeat yourself, that`s not convincing. Documented..? What is documented, a physical nonsense that a plane doesn`t require any trimming? An unrepeated marvel of aircraft design ever since?
Did this prevent the Bf109 from being a good and effective fighter, surely not, otherwise it would not have been around till 1945.
[/B]
Yep yep.
But contrary to your oppinion the Bf109 was not a miraculous design without any flaws.
[/B]
That`s not contrary to my opinion, because my opinion is not that it`s a 'miraculous design without any flaws'. I`d say it was the fighter with the most dynamic flight envelopes (speed characteristics vs. altitude and manouveribility in the vertical/horizontal plane) of it`s time, though.
In the future, please spend the time - which now you use telling what my opinion is (and note, that is my exclusive privilage) - for backing up your statements better.
Btw that the trimming system of both airplanes followed the same pattern is no wonder, because it was german design philosophy at that time that 1-engined fighter planes did not require inflight ajustable trim tabs around all axis.
This should also answer Angus question about trimming on other german planes. [/B]
Yep, that`s why I am interested in how would a plane with the same design pattern would make one plane free of to an aspect directly relating to that design pattern. I don`t know any other design aspect of the 190 that would make trim free. The much greater torque of the BMW 801 was certainly not one of them. And it`s torque and slipstream causes directional instability.
-
Some guy, on another BBS, claims the 109 would overheat at high speed while flying level. Only in climb because of the slow speed could the 'boost juices' be used without causing overheating. The radiators were not efficient enough. He also says the boundary layer seperator in the rad was not that good either.
He goes on and claims the P-51 could fly at high speed almost indefinately.
Barbi if you were not so blinded by your tunnel vision for the 109, you will find that the 190 was well known for the lack of trimming required in flight from take off to landing.
-
Interesting thread.....
A couple of points seem to be missing.....
1st the 109 was much harder to fly than the spitfire or mustang, this severely hurt the "average" pilot. It did however maintain a significant advantage in the vertical thruout the war vs its primary opponents (at least up to the tempest/spitXIV). Since the germans favored slash and run tactics it was still very competitive when properly utilized....
However, when you consider the fact that over 5% of all luftwaffe fighter deaths can be contributed to simply trying to land the plane (109) it hight lights just how pitiful the bird really was...when you consider that the guy who flew the air scenes in Saving Private Ryan died roughly two weeks after filming landing a 109 in clear skys on a windless day with no mechanical issues it makes it clear the plane is still a handful.
Bottom line is simple, its a below average plane overall flown by brave men with no real other choice. 99 out of a hundred of em would of rather had a pony,tempest,la-7 etc....
-
Originally posted by humble
However, when you consider the fact that over 5% of all luftwaffe fighter deaths can be contributed to simply trying to land the plane (109)
:eek: Do you know how many deaths are 5% of total 109 deaths along the war? 109 would be considered a suicide machine.
-
It's a documented fact mando....this was a very very dangerous plane to fly.
-
Hi Humble,
>A couple of points seem to be missing.....
Yes, proof for your claims.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
I've read that specific comment (regarding landing) from two different sources. The 109 was an unforgiving plane and beyond the capabilities of the baby seals flying it from 43 on as primary training was cut further and further.
As for the general comment, its easy to read between the lines in any number of memoirs. Remember in 43 there was a strong push to ditch the 109 for the C205 which the germans considered to be a far superior plane overall...politics and the impracticality of reengineering the production lines stopped it but the 109 was/is a dog compared to its contemporaries (handling, ease of flight...not performance wise). By late 43 it was easily the worst frontline fighter fielded by any major power with regard to everything but its performance numbers.
-
Hi Humble,
>I've read that specific comment (regarding landing) from two different sources.
Which sources?
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Kurfürst,
Yep, that`s why I am interested in how would a plane with the same design pattern would make one plane free of to an aspect directly relating to that design pattern.
Two different airframes will have different flying charateristics, that's it.
Just because the Bf109 had to use high rudder forces to fly straigh at high speeds, doesnt mean the FW190 had the same issue JUST because the trimming system is build to the same pattern.
I study WW2 aircraft now for ten yeas and for the Bf109 there are numerous mentionings about the rudder input that was needed to keep the plane flying straight in climb & dive, while for the FW190 i never came across one.
And if you hang to much to my statement "it didnt require any retrimming", that was quick typed sentense, where i didnt have in mind that someone would weight each word with a gold scale.
I guess the others in here know what i meant by this sentence, but to make it clearer to you i will try to reformulate it.
Each plane needs some sort of trimming, thats why the trim tabs are there, but with correcty set trim tabs the additional trim forces are very small with the FW190 and posses no handling penalty at all. They are indeed so small that retrimming for various flight conditions was considered unnecessary.
because my opinion is not that it`s a 'miraculous design without any flaws'
Is it not? Than you have a real problem making yourself clear. Whenever some statement from anyone in this BB implies that another plane type has the slightest advantage over the Bf109 you jump on it and call it untrue.
You always claim that noone besides you can back up anything, but you have in any case the needed documents to back up anything.
@Angus: Knights, you should know that Angus i got you atleast once. :) Or don't you fly under the GameID Angus?
-
I'll have to rumage around for them, however I'd assume its pretty common knowledge considering I'm not a hard core WW2 aviation type and have run into the comments/causulty numbers multiple times.
The 109 was simply not a particularly well designed aircraft by 1941 standards, obviously it was a world class design when it 1st flew in May 1935 in many ways but it was never a pilot friendly plane.
It's main US late war adversary (P-51) went on the drawing boards in late 39. The P-38 made its maiden flight in 1939, for whatever reason the germans decided to continue to up engineer a plane that was outdated by 1941. It's an interesting contrast to the US army and its decision not to start manufacturing the M-26 in 1943. Meanwhile the germans evolved from the Pz IIIj to the Pz IVh to the Panther to the Tiger.
The Grumman F4F flew in sept 37 and would be considered a contempory aircraft...it evolved into the F6F then the F8F by 1944...sadly the germans just stuck a bigger engine in their "F4F"...
-
Is it not? Than you have a real problem making yourself clear. Whenever some statement from anyone in this BB implies that another plane type has the slightest advantage over the Bf109 you jump on it and call it untrue. :aok
Yup.....
Then again lot of folks seem to like Yugo's also:)
-
Hi Humble,
Just a short notice: You're on my ignore list now.
"Bottom line is simple, its a below average plane overall flown by brave men with no real other choice. 99 out of a hundred of em would of rather had a pony,tempest,la-7 etc...."
For other readers: Clean example for "facts from fantasy".
Bottom line is simple: A troll.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Personal attack
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Me 109 G:
"So how does the aeroplane compare with other contemporary fighters ? First, let me say that all my comments are based on operation below 10,000 feet and at power settings not exceeding +12 (54") and 2700 rpm. I like it as an aeroplane, and with familiarity I think it will give most of the allied fighters I have flown a hard time, particularly in a close, hard turning, slow speed dog-fight. It will definitely out-maneuver a P-51 in this type of flight, the roll rate and slow speed characteristics being much better. The Spitfire on the other hand is more of a problem for the '109 and I feel it is a superior close in fighter. Having said that the aircraft are sufficiently closely matched that pilot abilty would probably be the deciding factor. At higher speeds the P-51 is definitely superior, and provided the Mustang kept his energy up and refused to dogfight he would be relatively safe against the '109.
I like the aeroplane very much, and I think I can understand why many of the Luftwaffe aces had such a high regard and preference for it."
- Mark Hanna of the Old Flying Machine Company flying the OFMC Messerschmitt Bf 109 G
109 G:
"The roll rate is very good and very positive below about 250 mph. Above 250 mph however the roll starts to heavy up and up to 300 or so is very similar to a P-51. After that it's all getting pretty solid and you need two hands on the stick for any meaningfull roll rates. Pitch is also delighful at 250 mph and below. It feels very positve and the amount of effort on the control column needed to produce the relevant nose movement seems exactly right to me. The aircraft is perfectly happy carrying out low-level looping maneuvers from 300 mph and below. Above 300 mph one peculiarity is a slight nose down trim change as you accelerate. The rudder is effective and if medium feel up to 300. It becomes heavier above this speed but regardless the lack of rudder trim is not a problem for the type of operations we carry out with the aeroplane."
- Mark Hanna of the Old Flying Machine Company flying the OFMC Messerschmitt Bf 109 G
"The 109? That was a dream, the non plus ultra. Just like the F-14 of today. Of course, everyone wanted to fly it as soon as possible. I was very proud when I converted to it."
Major Gunther Rall, German fighter ace, NATO general, Commander of the German Air Force. 275 victories.
" I had made my own estimates of the performance and maneuverability characteristics of a lot of other single-seater fighters, and I'd be willing to wager that none of them represent the general, all-around flight and fighting characteristics possessed by the Me109."
- US Marine Corps major Al Williams.
Me 109 G:
"Fast and maneuverable Me 109 (G) would be a tough opponent in the hands of a skillful pilot. Messerschmitt was during it´s time an efficient fighter and would not be in shame even nowadays. Eventhough the top speeds of the today´s fighters are high the differerencies would even up in a dogfight.
Mersu (Messerchmitt) had three meters long engine in the nose were with 1 500 horsepowers. The speed was at it´s best 750 kilometers per hour. It turned well too, if you just pulled the stick"
- Mauno Fräntilä, Finnish fighter ace. 5 1/2 victories. Source: Finnish Virtual Pilots Association: fighter ace Mauno Fräntilä was creating the glory of the war pilots.
-
Interesting quotes....
I'll disregard Mark Hanna, but the rest have merit.
Now Al Williams comments are based on his flight testing of the 109D in 1938. Compared to the standard marine corps ride of the time (Brewster Buffalo) I'd agree. THe 109D was certainly as good as any frontline fighter in service in 1938.....
Gunther Rall was flying the 109 at the begining of the war...what did he convert from?...at that time the other options were either a Me-110 or a biplane....yup I'd compare a 109D to a F-14 vs those other options....
Mauno Fräntilä flew G-2's in 43/44. The Fins compiled an outstanding record overall. I'm sure he was an outstanding pilot...
for the record....
17.1.1940 - flying Fokker D.XXI FR-90 - 1 SB-2
28.3.1942 - flying Curtiss Hawk 75 CU-572 - 1/2 I-153
28.3.1942 - flying Curtiss Hawk 75 CU-572 - 1 I-16
2.6.1943 - flying Messerchmitt 109 MT-217 - 1 LaGG-3
20.6.1944 - flying Messerchmitt 109 MT-410 - 1 Il-2
30.6.1944 - flying Messerchmitt 109 MT422 - 1 Yak-9
He shot down a Lagg-3, Il-2 & yak 9 (in a 109)
He had 5 kills in 380 sorties so his strike rate was an even 76.0...
It's amazing how easy it is to go and compile meaningless comments and take them out of context to support otherwise unteniable positions....
The bottom line is simple, the 109 was one of the premier fighters in the world in 1939. flown to its strengths by experienced pilots with superior tactics it was a tough nut to crack. As the war progressed the plane was repeatedly "up engined", with each upgrade the plane lost more of its handling and docility in return for greater speed and climb. No question that a superior pilot could utilize the raw power but the plane was a bear to fly. It was no match for any of the late war planes given equal pilot skill....obviously the pilot is still 80%+ of the equation and the top german expertain were in a league of their own....
-
You'll disregard Hanna? By your "logic" the Spit was an obsolete aircraft too. I think I'll disregard you.
-
I really dont want to get into an "argument" on something this trivial....especially since the truth is self evident to anyone who really wants to find it...as an example it took me less than a minute to find this....
This is a quote from Gunther Rall
"Most of us considered the 109G over-developed. Poor landing characteristics added to its woes."
Johannes Steinhoff (commander JG 77, Sicily July 1943)
"They're fitted with a high altitude supercharger and at anything over 25,000 ft they just play cat & mouse with us. At 28,000 ft the spitifre could turn in an astonishingly narrow radius. We on the other hand, in the thin air of those altitudes had to carry out every maneuver with caution and at full power so as not to lose control"
http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/spit9v109g.html
I'd be curious if anyone has access to Chilstroms flight test data on 109 right after the war??
-
Personal attack
-
Personal attack
-
Personal attack
-
Personal attack
-
You know the 109's biggest flaw?
It wasn't designed by Kurt of the Tank :D
-
"However, the tendency to swing on take-off and landing, which had first manifested itself during tests with the early prototypes, continued to plague the Bf 109E and contributed substantially to the Luftwaffe’s high accident rate, some 1,500 Bf 109 fighters being lost between the beginning of the war and the autumn of 1941 in accidents caused by unintentional swings."
http://www.malignani.ud.it/aer/bf109g/La%20Storia.htm
And thats the E model, the G was much worse.....
"With the phasing out of the F-series, the basic Bf 109 design might be considered to have passed the peak of its development, for with the introduction of the G-series the constant operational demands for increased fire power and additional equipment brought with them a serious deterioration in the fighter’s flying characteristics."
"The Bf 109G could not be flown in a landing circuit with Raps and undercarriage down other than at full throttle, and experienced German operational pilots have described its landing characteristics as “malicious” "
"Despite the advent of the very much superior Focke-Wulf Fw 190 fighter, production of the now elderly Bf 109 was progressively increased"
-
I have heard Humble's number of 5% of 109's crashing on landing.
However...
1. This could be many other WW2 fighter stats, - there were lots of crashings.
2. It did not kill all the pilots.
I can't remember the source, the only thing for sure is that I read this more than 4 years ago (I remember quoting this in 2000/2001), - so, I'll find it some day.
As for pilot quotes, those are always welcome, so read the one on my sig carefully.
Now Naudet
"@Angus: Knights, you should know that Angus i got you atleast once. Or don't you fly under the GameID Angus?"
Yes I do have the same name online , I don't change names.
Same with you?
So you shot me. Maybe I shot you sometime, have no idea.
But I fly either as a bish or rook. All kinds of planes, but 109 is sort of todays favourite.
Let's wing up some fine day, be it the CT or I go Kniggety, shall we ;)
-
Yugoslav airforce was an interesting mix of both western and russian airplanes including P-47, Yak-3 and Bf-109.
That gave pilots a unique chance to fly and compare the aircrafts from "both sides".
Copied and pasted from ABG forum:
»The main shortage of Jak 3 was its obsolete technique. Its cockpit was spartan, everything had to do be done manually. Particular problem was when you had to get air compressor into its second gear when rapidly changing altitude. In such situations engine is not receiving the right mixture of air and fuel and is loosing power, so you had to be very concentrated in doing it all synchronized and in exact moment. The same applies for the oil cooler which was adjusted with an mechanical wheel, during the dive the cooler had to be closed and during the climb opened as the engine needed more air. All of it was automatio on the Messerschmitt. In Jak 3, throttle handle and the propeler pitch handle were beside each other and you had to move them simultaneously, so all the time you pulled the throttle you had to think about the pitch. So imagine when you are in a midst of a combat, chasing and being chased, turning the wheels, setting the handles, adjusting the pitch, setting the gunsight and at the same time manouvring and trying to hit your enemy. Messerschmitt had it all automatic.
Messerschmitt had ailerons (I think this is not a right translation but I really cant remember the exact english word for "predkrilca" my note: He was actually referring to leading edge slots) to prevent it from stalling and Jak stalled even on highest speed. In sharp turns Messerschmitt provoked a black-out and that was not possible with the Jak since he would stall. On other hand Jak easily came out of the spin and Messerschmitt stalled slowly but when it did it was hard to get it out due to small command surfaces which would become »shaded«. Therefore it was neccessary to give a hard contra with the food pedals, full gas or sometimes to lower the gear. Messerschmitt had the electrical loading of weapons, and Jak mechanical, I remember how it clicked.
In all, Jak 3 had marvelous flying performance and excellent manouvrebility, it was invented for peacetime flying and aerobatics, but you had to have »a hand« for it. On other hand Messerschmitt was much more simple to fly, especially in air combat, of course once you learned to cope its small rudder on take-off and landing.«
-
"Apart from performance, it was also very important the plane to possess a sort of 'goodwill'.
The Bf 109 - except for take-offs - was an easy-to-fly airplane, and in addition it brought back the pilot even with serious damage. My plane, 'Blue 1' received hits multiple times, in one case when attacking a Boston formation the skin on the left wing was ripped off on half square meter, the main spar was damaged and the undercarriage tire was blown to pieces, yet it dropped without a problem and the plane landed just like it was a training session. Not to mention it`s valuable quality that it never caught fire during landing on the belly after a fatal hit, in contrast to many other type, with which such emergency procedure put us at a serious risk because of the danger of fire and explosion. To summerize : we loved the Bf 109.
- Pinter Gyula,
2nd Lt., RHAF. 101st Fighter Regiment, 1991. Flown with 101st Pumas, 1944/45, on 109G-6 and later.
Source : Punka György`s 'Messer'
Note : 'training session', he says 'school circle', ie. to take off, then land, not sure of the english equivalent.
Former Soviet pilot also had very high opinion on the Bf 109G.
A.S. - Author
I.K. - major Kozhemyako
**********************************************
A.S What do you think about German fighter planes Messerschmitt BF-109G?
I.K. I think of them with a lot of respect.
BF109 was very good, very high scale fighter plane. If was superior to our Yaks in speed and vertical combat. It wasn`t 100% superiority, but still. Very dynamic plane. I`ll be honest with you, it was my dream during my war years, to have a plane like this. Fast and superior on vertical, but that didn`t happen.
A.S. What was so specific for BF-109G, anything you can point out?
I.K. I have to tell you, that Messer had one extremely positive thing, it was able to be successful fight Yak`s at 2000m and Aircobras at 6000m. This is truly unique ability and valuable. Of course, here Yak and P-39 were inferior. As far as combat on different altitudes, BF109 was universal, like La-5.
A.S. Well, i guess 90% of success in all altitudes belongs to its engine…
I.K. I wouldn`t doubt it.
A.S. But if you look at this from another perspective, this uniqueness of BF109 could have played fatal role when it encountered aicraft that was specialized and optimized for combat on certain altitudes. You already know that Barkhorn on the question about best fighter of WW2 answered: On high altitudes P-51 and low altitudes Yak-9, Surprized?
I.K. Yes, Very Surprized. But, I guess if I was fighting in Me109 I would have look at Yak-9 differently, who knows.
A.S. How would you grade weapons on BF109G comparing to Yak1?
I.K. Yaks weapons were more powerful. maybe that`s why german fighters were trying to avoid head to head attacks.
A.S. I can`t agree with you. Yak can`t have more powerful weaponry because it has only 1 12.7mm MG (UBS) while BF109G has 2 13mm MG-13s.
I.K. German high caliber machine guns were rather weak, just a name "high caliber". They couldn`t even penetrate armored plate behind pilot, needed armor piercing bullet for that, and even then from close distance. But if german pilot would open fire from 200-300m with regular bullets and under sharp angle, it couldn`t even penetrate block of M105, could only bust thru the cowling covers.. Same for armored glass, couldnt penetrate it. My opinion on 13mm MG, they could only be effective from close distances, shooting at point blank ranges could bring you some success. I think 1 UBS in combat was more effective in combat then 2 MG13s combined.
20mm german cannon was excellent, unlike MG`s. Very powerful, not worse then out SHVAK.
A.S. I am surprised that you think that Me109 was capable in the turning combat. There is general opinion that BF109 was rather average when it comes to combat with many manuevers. It`s very common opinion that BF109G with its technical and tactical characteristics was rather "hunter" then turnfighter..
I.K. Lies! Me109 was exceptional in turning combat. If there is a fighter plane built for turning combat , it has to be Messer! Speedy, maneuverable,(especially in vertical) and extremely dynamic. I can`t tell about all other things, but taking under consideration what i said above, Messerschmitt was ideal for dogfight. But for some reason majority of german pilots didn`t like turn fight, till this day i don`t know why.
I don`t know what was stopping them, but it`s definitely not the plane. I know that for a fact. I remember battle of Kursk where german aces were starting "roller-coaster" rides where our heads were about to come off from rotation.
No, seriously... Is it true it`s a common thing now that Messer wasn`t maneuverable?
A.S. Yes.
I.K. Heh.. Why would people come up with something like this... It was maneuverable...by god it was.
Interesting that what I constantly find in such pilot opinions is that the more the pilot flown or experinced the Messerschmitt 109 the more he admires it, the more highly he speak of it. On the contrary to people who never even seen one, or know very little about it, or just read some cheap book written by an author who repeats another author who never seriously researched the subject.
-
Originally posted by MiloMorai
Some guy, on another BBS, claims the 109 would overheat at high speed while flying level. Only in climb because of the slow speed could the 'boost juices' be used without causing overheating. The radiators were not efficient enough. He also says the boundary layer seperator in the rad was not that good either.
He goes on and claims the P-51 could fly at high speed almost indefinately.
Who is this person and what are his sources and references?
-
Nice anecdotes Izzy.
-
Originally posted by Naudet
The Bf109 was troubled due to the need of constant rudder input when not flying at cruise speed, which the FW190 was not, that is well documented.
So, as Kurfurst put it, name three pilots who complained about that "feature" of the Me?
Of could it be, that it is another overrated urban myth, mostly being based on some less than trustworthly reports?
I've interviewed or discussed with some 20 Finnish Messerschmitt 109 G pilots, and none of them have complained about having to use their feet getting the airplane to fly straight, in cruise or combat speeds.
The only occasions when rudder was needed for any remarkable period was when the pilot had a poor condition airframe, that simply refused to fly well.
Might it be that the western reports claiming about the necessarity of using rudder are similar, flown with bad airframes? The most famous Me 109 E test flight report, written by the British, was flown on an airframe captured and crashed by the French, for example. This report is easily copied and copied and repeated elsewhere, and becomes a "documented fact" when it is actually not representative of a normal aircraft.
-
Izzy can I copy and paste it in another forum?
-
Personal attack
-
Of course in your world humble it couldn't even get off the ground, so either those pilots that succeeded in it were superhuman or the plane has and has had a negative image from post war from the winning side, downplaying the enemy aircraft as junk(obviously they won) and discredit it.
In your view if the 109 tried to turn at any speed it flop over and die. This is not the case, the plane recently has been getting the myth surrounding the characteristics in flight removed and that utterly irritates those of the X country persuassion that are deeply fanatical, and if things are said to the contrary of what their pre conceived notions are they get quite irritated :D
Why Else would you think Rall called the 109 a fencing weapon and the 190 a Broadsword.
One was a duelist and the other was a barbarian with chain and mace in hand. ( Sounds like a Manowar song :D )
The 109 did have flaws but so did every other saircraft of WW2 including the Spitfire. There are other factors that we cannot reproduce in flight sims and primarily most of the flight characteristcs put in flight sims today are from an allied post war and damaged captured ones. A lot of propaghanda was included in many of the reports from the enemy, except for the pilots that had to face them.
-
Flame bait
-
Well.... you haven't posted anything that refutes anything that has been said?
You're trying to refute our opinions with yours.
-
Personal attack
-
Originally posted by Glasses
Well.... you haven't posted anything that refutes anything that has been said?
You're trying to refute our opinions with yours.
"Most of us considered the 109G over-developed. Poor landing characteristics added to its woes." Gunther Rall
"They're fitted with a high altitude supercharger and at anything over 25,000 ft they just play cat & mouse with us. At 28,000 ft the spitifre could turn in an astonishingly narrow radius. We on the other hand, in the thin air of those altitudes had to carry out every maneuver with caution and at full power so as not to lose control" Johannes Steinhoff
"However, the tendency to swing on take-off and landing, which had first manifested itself during tests with the early prototypes, continued to plague the Bf 109E and contributed substantially to the Luftwaffe’s high accident rate, some 1,500 Bf 109 fighters being lost between the beginning of the war and the autumn of 1941 in accidents caused by unintentional swings."
"With the phasing out of the F-series, the basic Bf 109 design might be considered to have passed the peak of its development, for with the introduction of the G-series the constant operational demands for increased fire power and additional equipment brought with them a serious deterioration in the fighter’s flying characteristics."
"The Bf 109G could not be flown in a landing circuit with Raps and undercarriage down other than at full throttle, and experienced German operational pilots have described its landing characteristics as “malicious” "
"Despite the advent of the very much superior Focke-Wulf Fw 190 fighter, production of the now elderly Bf 109 was progressively increased"
Each of the above quotes was provided with the URL linking the source. I've purposely stayed away from heavily contested documentation. As of yet no one has critiqued or commented on anything specific I posted with the exception of someone else acknowledging seeing the same #'s for 109 fatalities due to landing accidents....
My mental midgit comment above is childish and unfair but its frustrating when folks seem to ignore the other sides points. I've taken the time to read and comment on all relavent posts and provide some logical arguement for my "side"....ho bout stepping up and doing the same.
-
Personal attack
-
:rolleyes:
And I thought P-38 threads turned to crap pretty fast.
:rofl :rofl :rofl
-
38 threads turn crap fast because you and other die hard 38 fans want to make it a dweeby plane(-L) that...
*goes 450+ @ hi alt:rolleyes:
*turn circles like A6M:rolleyes:
*dive at 500mph and can pull out:rolleyes:
38 is already uber, no point to make it a dweeb plane:rolleyes:
-
Here's what we know....
1) The plane was tough to takeoff in.....
2) The plane was tough to land in....
3) The plane was tough to control at "combat alt"....
4) the plane was tough to control at high speed
5) the plane had poor overall visability
6) the plane had a high pilot workload
1) yes
2) like all warbirds
3) no
4) no, better than average ww2 warbirds
5) average
6) not at all, much less than any american fighter (yes that includes P51)
-
Originally posted by Meyer
1) yes
2) like all warbirds
3) no
4) no, better than average ww2 warbirds
5) average
6) not at all, much less than any american fighter (yes that includes P51)
3) "They're fitted with a high altitude supercharger and at anything over 25,000 ft they just play cat & mouse with us. At 28,000 ft the spitifre could turn in an astonishingly narrow radius. We on the other hand, in the thin air of those altitudes had to carry out every maneuver with caution and at full power so as not to lose control"
4) significant data exists regarding the problems 109's had at high speed, especially in a dive....even Mark Hanna (who flew the plane "nuetered" commented....."Above 250 mph however the roll starts to heavy up and up to 300 or so is very similar to a P-51. After that it's all getting pretty solid and you need two hands on the stick for any meaningfull roll rates. Pitch is also delighful at 250 mph and below."
5) Again numerous sources comment on the poor visability of the 109....as an example "Mike Spick, Lutaffe fighter Aces" page 196...
"actually the view "out the window" is not so good, the heavy framing of the windshield and the canopy could conceal a whole gaggle of russians...."
6) engine management alone was much worse in the 109 than many other planes. I could easily go find 2-3 specific comments but for now this will do....
experienced German operational pilots have described its landing characteristics as “malicious” "
Once again I'm amazed at the unsupported comments from the peanut gallery. I haven't posted anything that I havent backed up....show me what you've got.....
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
:rolleyes:
And I thought P-38 threads turned to crap pretty fast.
:rofl :rofl :rofl
What amazes me is the inability to document a single facet of the opposing arguement.
In fact they support my position....
You already know that Barkhorn on the question about best fighter of WW2 answered: On high altitudes P-51 and low altitudes Yak-9
The #2 alltime expertain viewed the P-51 as superior at high alt and the Yak-9 at low alt....
Further...
I have to tell you, that Messer had one extremely positive thing, it was able to be successful fight Yak`s at 2000m and Aircobras at 6000m. This is truly unique ability and valuable
Here he's praising the 109 for its high alt performance vs the P-39 (8,000M is ~19,000+ft)....the plane was considered useless above 12,500 according to most sources. The Yak 1 was a quality aircraft....in 1942. with a top speed of 360 & climb rate of ~3900/ft it was inferior to the 109 F in both area's...
So in one article we have documentation that the p-51 and yak-9 were superior to the 109 according to the luftwaffe's #2 ace. We also have the soviet pilots comments that the 109 G6 was superior to the P-39 at 8,000m and to the yak 1 at 2,000m and on par with the la-5 a 1943 fighter....
With "opponents" like this I really dont need to do much.....
-
The 109's high workload?
Uh it had automatic rpm, charger settings,and manifold all in one ?
No allied aircraft that I've known had the same thing.
Sure it had worse visibility that other aircraft that had bubble canopy,and some like the Fw but it was improved later on.
Have you looked at the cockpit of a P-47,the F4U?
The 109 had flaws but it certainly was not a fighter that could not compete with its counterparts. The main problem with the 109 in the late war was it was outproduced and out numbered by the allied counterparts, not only that but many allied pilots,at least many more than the Russians had half a brain in fighter tactics and could compete with the LW, what it lacked in experience it made up for numbers.
The late war 109s were specifically designed to be interceptors get up there stay fast and make slashing passes.
So I mean either the 109 had some advantages or the pilots were superhuman, I don't think you'll admit to either :D . I do not think the latter is the best explanation.
I mean it wasn't a friendly plane to new pilots , but when considering most kids at late war had only 20 hours of flight training and glider flight traning at best, then going into a high performance 2000hp plane you're gonna have pilots getting killed . If the americans or the british or the russs....wait they did it :D
did the same thing you'd see the same thing happening to their pilots.
Even the "relatively" friendly planes that had great visibility and had wide landing gear, and what have you are as good as the pilot that's flying it has been trained.
No aircraft in WW2 was an easy aircraft to take off from, there were procedures that those aircraft had for take off and landing, they followed those procedures and they made it home, and those that didn't either the plane didn't make it or they did. All of these are and were high performance monsters, ask anyone who was flown at least one high performance single engine airplane and they will tell you.
I'm not particularly a 109 fan....as many posts that I have that mention the words Kurt and Tank can attest to what aircraft is my favorite.
-
Glasses....
I dont disagree with a single point you made above. I never said the 109 was a dog. Simply that by wars end it wasnt a premier fighter. The plane struggled at higher altitudes and required constant pilot vigilance. It was not suitably designed as a bomber interceptor and couldnt fight mustangs up high with the bombers. Seperating out the horrendous conditions facing the germans in late 44/45 the plane itself simply wasnt competitive with the p-51/tempest/spitXIV/Sea Fury. It wouldnt of been competitive with the F4u-4/F8F or F7F either. It simply was a plane pushed beyond its design limits.
I'm constantly amazed by the various claims that the planes overall reputation is tainted by the "victors". No one doubts the panther or tiger were superior to the sherman (or M-26 for that matter). The Ki-84 and other japanese planes are recognized as outstanding designs given the limited raw materials and poor manufacturing the japanese struggled with in 1944-45. The C.205 is widely regarded as one of the better designs of the war and possibly the best midwar fighter of any nation....certainly regarded by the luftwaffe as superior to the 109.
The 109 was one of the truely outstanding designs of the early war period. for whatever reason it never really evolved like the spit, pony, jug, laag-3, yak-1, p-38, p-39 or other planes which truely evolved over time. The 109 was simply modified....a big difference....
-
Hi Glasses,
>No aircraft in WW2 was an easy aircraft to take off from, there were procedures that those aircraft had for take off and landing, they followed those procedures and they made it home, and those that didn't either the plane didn't make it or they did.
Exactly! :-) And the Me 109 procedures were hardly different from those for other high performance fighters.
Here's a summary of Me 109 handling characteristics (relying on the comments by Walter Eichhorn and several other pilots who have rebuilt "Albstadt Me 109G-4" to flying status last year):
Pre-take off check: Tail wheel locked, gear handle down, propeller control on manual, take-off pitch selected, flaps 20°, electric fuel pump on. Radiator flaps manual, fully open (they double as landing flaps, so you want them in a defined position.)
Take-off at 2300 U/min and 1.15 ata (maximum continous power according to war-time settings) takes six seconds until lift-off at 180 km/h. (I once timed a Spitfire take-off and got the same 6 s. Interestingly, the F-16 needs only 6 s, too :-) Power is applied smoothly to avoid a swing. There is a slight tendency to the right at the beginning of the roll and a strong tendency to the left when the tail is raised.
The tail shouldn't be allowed to raise too high as the propeller only has 17 cm ground clearance. Standard lift-off occurrs at 5° angle of attack at 180 km/h.
After raising the gear (which takes 30 s - compared to about 12 s for the Fw 190), flaps are raised and propeller and radiator control are switched to automatic.
Stall in clean condition is very docile. The Me 109 drops to the left at 140 - 150 km/h, control is immdiately restored on releasing elevator and centering rudder. Aerobatics in general are no problem, but Sigi Knoll comments that he avoid to initiate rolls at speeds below 200 km/h. At speeds above 300 km/h, stick forces begin to increase and can require forceful inputs.
Preparation for landing begins with switching radiator control back to normal and opening the radiator flaps fully. At cruise power, speed drops to below 300 km/h then. Propeller control is set to manual and landing pitch is selected. At 250 km/h, flaps are extended to 20°. Gear is lowered at 200 km/h, flaps extended to 40°. Speed for final approach is 180 km/h, a slight turn is advised in order to improve visibility.
Bubi Hartmann (who had originally checked out Walter Eichhorn in the Me 109) recommended to treat the Me 109 like a sailplane for landing. Eichhorn follows that advice and lands with a minimum of throttle changes. Even small throttle movements give large power changes so it's easy to overcorrect and fly a rather unsteady approach with corrections all the way to touchdown. (Interestingly, Jeffrey Quill had a similar experience on the Spitfire, requiring a change of the throttle quadrant to yield longer travel on the Griffon Spitfires in order to retain controllabilty.)
In order to avoid that, Eichhorn just concentrates on a smooth approach, "better 5 km/h on the high side than 5 km/h on the low side".
Wilhelm Heinz considers the Me 109 "lammfromm" (completely docile) as long as it's treated right. However, he also points out that the pilot has to be diciplined and stay within certain defined boundaries because there are not many reserves in the case of a pilot error.
As you already mentioned, 2000 hp planes of any build tend to be rather unforgiving if you take them beyond the limit, so I don't think the Me 109 sticks out here :-) One resource that I found particularly interesting in that regard is Deakin's "Pelican's Perch":
http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/182146-1.html
Note that he treats all Warbirds he has flown with the kind of respect expressed by Heinz, too - including the T-28 Trojan which as a tricycle trainer aircraft of "modest" power doesn't look too intimidating on first sight ;-) Of course, Deakin knows why ...
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
humble, what is a plane that outaccelerates, outclimbs, outturns and almost matches in speed a P51D? Was the 109K a obsolete war machine or a deadly fighter?
-
Originally posted by MANDO
humble, what is a plane that outaccelerates, outclimbs, outturns and almost matches in speed a P51D? Was the 109K a obsolete war machine or a deadly fighter?
Actually a piece of fiction since the 109K didnt do the above.
Again my original comments acknowledge the 109s outstanding vertical performance and the fact that it remained competitive in the hands of the expertain. However the plane wasnt a match for the pony at prevelant combat altitudes. Additionally there was no standardized K model, many of the G10/14 were similiarly configured and not many were fully configured for high altitude.
Given the fact that all high performance aircraft are unforgiving the 109 is significantly more so. I've seen multiple quotes from Galland that it was tough to take off in, Rall said it was horrible to land and its the only plane I've ever heard describes as malicious.
When you consider the E had 1500 crashes alone specific to landing take off it illustrates the problem. These were all experienced pilots who completed full training at a time when germanies was on par or better then any other nations flight training. Even if we assume that only 1/3 resulted in destroyed airframes you have 500 planes lost. When you consider the germans only deployed 217 109s in the invasion of poland it gives you an idea of the numbers. Lets further assume of those 500 severe incidents that 60% of the pilots walked away. Thats 200 badly hurt or KIA pilots...certainly in line with the 5% number I put up earlier and far far worse than any other front line fighter.
The 109 flourished not because it was a great plane but because it had better pilots and better tactical doctrine. By the end of 1943 the plane simply was no longer on the leading edge.
How many of you fly? Do you understand the concept of pilot work load? Even in civilian aviation going from a plane like the 172 to any complex single engine is a quantum leap. Now imagine flying the plane in a combat enviornment....a 200 hour baby seal in a G-10 in 1944 had his hands full just flying the plane ACM wise at alt....so he goes thru recovers from his multiple spins and missed chances and heads for home drenched in sweat...slightly unnerved by the different "feel" coming thru the stick and seat due to the airflow changes provided by a few .50 holes...airfields in sight, he relaxes wipes the sweat from his eyes lines up for final realizes he's a bit short overcorrects and augers....happened all to often. As for combat....he's not gonna put that plane anywhere near the edge at 25,000 to 30,000 ft where the mustangs play...if barkhorn couldnt do it (curious about his thoughts on mustangs since he flew all EF however) who is....
-
Originally posted by Glasses
Izzy can I copy and paste it in another forum?
Sure, why not, I got it the same way ! A google search will probably give you the exact url, too.
-
Originally posted by humble
Personally I think the 109E & F4 were outstanding for their time. THe spit V outclassed them both and the balance wasnt restored till the 190-A3 was introduced.
Spit V outclassing the 109F-4 ? WOW, what interesting new things we learn here ! :rofl
-
Here you go Barbi, some of the guys quotes (won't give you a link since we don't need you as a member:))
Enjoy the read. :)
The only signficant thing the Bf109-G was better at than the P-51 was climbing. In every other relevenant catagory of comparison, the P-51 was superior.
At high-medium to high speeds, the P-51 out manuvered the G-10 substantially at all altitudes.
5 minutes was the recommended limit of WEP usage. But pilots often maintained WEP power for 15 minutes or even longer. The 5 minutes was a recommended limit, nothing prevented longer usage. A properly operating P-51 at good speed had no overheating problems at any power level. The 109 on the otherhand, would overheat after one to two minutes at high speeds (and not necessarily even at full power).
Also, the Packard Merlin was known to be more robust than the RR Merlin. It was built using superior materials, and production quality was generally higher. This is not a dig at the British, they simply did not have as good of alloys and they were more pressed to maximise production quantities at the cost of a little production quality.
The problem with the 109 design is that it was never intended to attain those kinds of speeds for sustained periods. The scoops are subject to boundary layer seperation, and later models even had a boundry layer diverter to avoid turblence from this effect. Once the boundary layer lifts (upside-down) away from the lower surface of the wing at the scoop inlet, there is very little effective cooling from the radiators since they aren't getting a steady flow of air.
An airfoil involves what is referred to as the boundary layer. This is a layer of air molecules that are relatively stationary with respect to the wing (or other airfoil surface). Molecules near the wing move with the wing, then as the distance from the wing increases, there are increasing levels of exchange with fast moving ambient air molecules (though this is still relatively small), and then there is a point further from the wing where there is ambient airflow (ie: still air through which the wing is passing). The faster the plane goes (within the subsonic realm - rules change for transonic/supersonic flight) the thicker the boundary layer.
The issue arises when the air flowing across the bottom of the wing encounters the scoop, which creates a back-flow resistance to the air flow. This tends to lift the boundary layer away from the wing and create boundary layer ingestion, which is turbulent air entering the scoop which diminishes cooling efficiency. As speed increases, the problem gets worse, until finally it becomes chronic and the boundary layer lifts up and flows completely over the scoop, creating a vacuum in front of the scoop. It then slaps down to fill the vacuum, then builds up again and repeats the cycle. Air flow into the scoop is non-existent when the flow is over the scoop, and extremely turbulent when it slaps down and does enter the scoop. This greatly diminishes cooling efficiency.
It was not an issue on the E series, they didn't go fast enough to encounter it except in dives where it was not such a big issue (as power was reduced significantly anyway). It started to become a slight issue on the F series, and it was a significant issue on the G series but was never dealt with, probably because there really is no good solution for wing scoops.
By 1944 the Bf109 was long in the tooth. Its design had never considered 400 mph class level speeds, and its cooling system was not made for such speeds. With the cooling system barely functional, the radiators overheated rather quickly.
Yes... in a climb. It was not power output that was the issue, it was speed. All the German WEP and SEP systems were quite useable for extended periods at the lower speeds utilized while climbing, typically about 180 mph, where the cooling system was at peak efficeincy. This had no relevance to the ability to maintain top speed in level flight.
MW50 could certainly be used for 10 minutes or even more. But not for speed. This was used to support fast climbs, usually at about 180 mph where the cooling system is at peak efficeincy.
-
Originally posted by Kurfürst
Spit V outclassing the 109F-4 ? WOW, what interesting new things we learn here ! :rofl
The spit V decimated the the 109F over europe...the rollout of the 190 A3 reversed the fortunes of war...basically the RAF refused combat as much as possible until the spit IX could be fielded in numbers. From that point on the 109 was on the decline....simple history....
Not that you care about incovienent things like facts and reality...
-
Originally posted by MiloMorai
Here you go Barbi, some of the guys quotes (won't give you a link since we don't need as a member:))
Enjoy the read. :)
The only signficant thing the Bf109-G was better at than the P-51 was climbing. In every other relevenant catagory of comparison, the P-51 was superior.
At high-medium to high speeds, the P-51 out manuvered the G-10 substantially at all altitudes.
5 minutes was the recommended limit of WEP usage. But pilots often maintained WEP power for 15 minutes or even longer. The 5 minutes was a recommended limit, nothing prevented longer usage. A properly operating P-51 at good speed had no overheating problems at any power level. The 109 on the otherhand, would overheat after one to two minutes at high speeds (and not necessarily even at full power).
Also, the Packard Merlin was known to be more robust than the RR Merlin. It was built using superior materials, and production quality was generally higher. This is not a dig at the British, they simply did not have as good of alloys and they were more pressed to maximise production quantities at the cost of a little production quality.
The problem with the 109 design is that it was never intended to attain those kinds of speeds for sustained periods. The scoops are subject to boundary layer seperation, and later models even had a boundry layer diverter to avoid turblence from this effect. Once the boundary layer lifts (upside-down) away from the lower surface of the wing at the scoop inlet, there is very little effective cooling from the radiators since they aren't getting a steady flow of air.
An airfoil involves what is referred to as the boundary layer. This is a layer of air molecules that are relatively stationary with respect to the wing (or other airfoil surface). Molecules near the wing move with the wing, then as the distance from the wing increases, there are increasing levels of exchange with fast moving ambient air molecules (though this is still relatively small), and then there is a point further from the wing where there is ambient airflow (ie: still air through which the wing is passing). The faster the plane goes (within the subsonic realm - rules change for transonic/supersonic flight) the thicker the boundary layer.
The issue arises when the air flowing across the bottom of the wing encounters the scoop, which creates a back-flow resistance to the air flow. This tends to lift the boundary layer away from the wing and create boundary layer ingestion, which is turbulent air entering the scoop which diminishes cooling efficiency. As speed increases, the problem gets worse, until finally it becomes chronic and the boundary layer lifts up and flows completely over the scoop, creating a vacuum in front of the scoop. It then slaps down to fill the vacuum, then builds up again and repeats the cycle. Air flow into the scoop is non-existent when the flow is over the scoop, and extremely turbulent when it slaps down and does enter the scoop. This greatly diminishes cooling efficiency.
It was not an issue on the E series, they didn't go fast enough to encounter it except in dives where it was not such a big issue (as power was reduced significantly anyway). It started to become a slight issue on the F series, and it was a significant issue on the G series but was never dealt with, probably because there really is no good solution for wing scoops.
By 1944 the Bf109 was long in the tooth. Its design had never considered 400 mph class level speeds, and its cooling system was not made for such speeds. With the cooling system barely functional, the radiators overheated rather quickly.
Yes... in a climb. It was not power output that was the issue, it was speed. All the German WEP and SEP systems were quite useable for extended periods at the lower speeds utilized while climbing, typically about 180 mph, where the cooling system was at peak efficeincy. This had no relevance to the ability to maintain top speed in level flight.
MW50 could certainly be used for 10 minutes or even more. But not for speed. This was used to support fast climbs, usually at about 180 mph where the cooling system is at peak efficeincy.
Thanks....not that any of these guys will bother to read it....after all its all lies and propaganda:)
-
Hi Kurfürst,
>Spit V outclassing the 109F-4 ? WOW, what interesting new things we learn here ! :rofl
Don't feed the troll.
http://www.beim-zeugmeister.de/zeugmeister/uploads/pics/_LW_A0001_B001.jpg
Me 109F-4 flight test result: 670 km/h @ 6.3 km, 622 km/h @ 4 km
http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/aa878.html
Spitfire V flight test result (+16 lbs/sqin):
* 595 km/h @ 4 km
Me 109F-4 flight test result:
* 622 km/h @ 4 km
However, the Spitfire V was not cleared for +16 lbs/sqin until about August 1942.
From the flight test of the same aircraft:
Spitfire V (+12 lbs/sqin):
* 587 km/h @ 5 km
Me 109F-4 flight test result:
* 643 km/h @ 5 km
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Who said that Milo?
-
humble,
try to draw a weight/power curve for P51D and 109K from sea level to 20k. This represents acceleration and climb rate from low to medium speeds). You will see how brutally outclassed was the P51D (any P38 or P47 also) from low to medium speeds during combat.
And, do you believe the fantasies about P51s or P47s turning on a dime with wonderful fantasy combat flaps?
-
Some cookie for you Mando.
Try to calculate the P51's force on cruise or climb into Newtons.
Hence lift, or rather force.
Compare it with the 109.
Do the same with a Spitfire in the similar power class as the 109.
The Ideal ones would probably be the Spit IX, the P51B and the 109G2, all in the same old 1943 class.
In this weight/power curve, you should see that the 109 is a power creature while the others are lift creatures. As a total, hauling weight to altitude for instance, the 109 was beaten by the Spitfire in 1940 already. (Newtons to alt, same power(but by Izzy's claim the Spitfire would have been 200 hp behind actually))
I can give the details for this if you like.
So, it's the same with the 190, - dump the 190's performance in here, it's very similar to the U.S. aircraft, - hence the modern 190 is hopelessly outclassed by the 109.
So, at low speeds the 109 has a nicer frame, better power to weight.
It has slats to assist.
Actually good flaps do provide much more lift.....
That was the cookie for now.
-
FYI
Boundary layer problems in P51:
http://yarchive.net/mil/p51.html
109 problems:
"It started to become a slight issue on the F series, and it was a significant issue on the G series but was never dealt with, probably because there really is no good solution for wing scoops."
See: http://109lair.hobbyvista.com/techref/systems/cooling/f_flaps.htm
-C+
edit:
Ty for that Scholzie. :rolleyes:
Maybe you did read the linked pages before your reply? :aok
-
Originally posted by Charge
109 problems:
"It started to become a slight issue on the F series, and it was a significant issue on the G series but was never dealt with, probably because there really is no good solution for wing scoops."
See: http://109lair.hobbyvista.com/techref/systems/cooling/f_flaps.htm
-C+
Your quote is not on that site.
-
Originally posted by Angus
Try to calculate the P51's force on cruise
Cruise? Did I forget to mention WEP?
Lift? Certainly that was not a chocolat coockie. Lets talk about acceleration from 180 to 300 mph and substained climb rate from 0 to 20k, P51D vs 109K. Which outclassed which? Was the P51 able to flee if enough vertical room avaiable to reach hi speeds, yes, that's all.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Your quote is not on that site.
Well naturally it is not because he was quoting from my post. See the 4th last statement.
Just for the record, I don't necessarily agree with everything he says.
-
From other thread, about the P39... this is priceless :D
Originally posted by humble
It was originally designed with a supercharger...in fact had it been rolled out as designed it would of been awful close to the P-63....probably would of been the dominant fighter in the early war set by far for any country....as it was it was great at lower alts...totally dominated the early 109's at lower alts prevalent in eastern front combat...thats why russians loved it so much....
-
Originally posted by Meyer
From other thread, about the P39... this is priceless :D
Actually its something else....the truth
-
That's new to me.
P-39 dominated the 109?
Compared to the P-39 the 109 is a lspitfire for god's sakes.
It was in the EF because it was cheap and it was in stock listis of the Americans that were facing it out in favor of better and faster aircraft, that's why and part of the main reason it was rejected by the brits and the Americans in the ETO, it was much more unstable than the 109, and the higher the poor bird went the worse it got,wasn't until later they fixed some of the performance issues with the P-63 but still the instability and vulnerability of having a rear engine didn't help it be an aircraft that was widely used for most countries, the Rusians paritucalrly liked it because of the lo altitude performance and that it was cheap, comparatively, and they could fill entire squadrons with it.
BTW Mando I think you hit the nail right on the head.
Nos vemos.
-
Hehe....
Pretty obvious you 109 fans have nothing but blanks....you counter fact with fantasy across the board. You simply make statements and expound on them as gosple while demanding "facts" from the counter view. You then ignore those facts and counter with other useless dribble. Show me a single report where the test pilot concludes that the 109 (any flavor) is superior to the P-51. I'm including german ones from WW2 (they had P-51 mustangs they flew to various units for familiarization).
So far I havent see any one of you counter any statement I've made...meanwhile i've backed up every single comment with multiple 3rd party source material and countered everything posted objectively....
so far you guys are in the same league as your beloved plane....back in the pack.
-
in fact had it been rolled out as designed
ie. with the turbo charger
Did you miss this part Glasses?
-
As I understood it even the P-63 wasn't that stellar at higher alts so it remains the same.
Like I said I don't particularly like the 109 but I do not like the fact that the aceleration and climb of the 109 is being left out, the fact that the power to weight ratio of the late war 109s was superior, and also the pilots did say under what conditions the P-51 was better performer than the 109,that's what being left out conviniently by you.
I said before and I said it again, either the 109 was competitive or the Pilots were super human.
-
The Air Fighting Development Unit received a British Airacobra I on July 30. They subjected it to tests and completed their report on September 22. They found the aircraft to be pleasant to fly and easy to takeoff and land. Controls were well balanced and although heavier than those of the Spitfire at normal speeds, did not increase appreciably in weight at high speeds as they did in the Spitfire. It was difficult to hold the aircraft in a dive at high speeds unless the aircraft was trimmed nose-heavy. During a turn, the Airacobra would give ample warning of a high-speed stall by severe vibration of the whole airframe. Handling in formation and formation attacks was good, although deceleration was poor because of the plane's aerodynamic cleanliness. Take-offs and landings in close formation were not considered safe, since there was considerable difficulty in bringing the aircraft back to its original path after a swing.
An the luftluver 109 fanatics talk about myths.:rolleyes:
The AFDU also did some comparative dog-fighting tests with the Airacobra against a Spitfire VB and a captured Messerschmitt BF 109E. The Airacobra and the Bf 109E carried out mock dog-fighting at 6000 feet and 15,000 feet. The Bf 109E had a height advantage of 1000 feet in each case. The Bf 109, using the normal German fighter tactics of diving and zooming, could usually only get in a fleeting shot. The Bf 109 could not compete with the Airacobra in a turn, and if the Bf 109 were behind the Airacobra at the start, the latter could usually shake him off and get in a burst before two complete turns were completed. If the Bf 109 were to dive on the Airacobra from above and continue the dive down to ground level after a short burst of fire, it was found that the Airacobra could follow and catch up to the Bf 109 after a dive of over 4000 feet. When fighting the Bf 109E below 20,000 feet, the Airacobra was superior on the same level and in a dive.
Granted this test was vs a 109E.
The P-63 was faster than a Fw190 above 20,000ft.
-
Hi Glasses,
>P-39 dominated the 109?
>Compared to the P-39 the 109 is a lspitfire for god's sakes.
From http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p39_17.html
"The 31st Fighter Group was provided with Airacobras in Southern England in August of 1942. Between August and October of 1942, the Group participated in missions against enemy targets in France. The Group suffered heavy losses in air-to-air combat against the Luftwaffe, and the 31st FG re-equipped with Spitfire Mk Vs."
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Baugher got that bit about the 31st all wrong. See:
http://www.31stfightergroup.com/31stReference/history/31st.html
Its been a few years since I wrote that, however, the Baugher quote used is wrong on the facts and the insinuation implied in this context is misleading. If memory serves the 31st never met any 109s while stationed in England. Hmmm.. there is no record that they did.
-
Hi Mw,
>Baugher got that bit about the 31st all wrong.
Oops, thanks for pointing it out! From your article, it appears they left the P-39 behind in the states when they came to England - which was the standard procedure early on.
>If memory serves the 31st never met any 109s while stationed in England. Hmmm.. there is no record that they did.
Hm, they were part of the Dieppe air cover (with Spitfires) - if there were any Me 109s left on the channel, Dieppe probably was the place to meet them ;-)
But unfortunately, this doesn't help us with the P-39 comparison.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Originally posted by HoHun
Hi Glasses,
>P-39 dominated the 109?
>Compared to the P-39 the 109 is a lspitfire for god's sakes.
From http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p39_17.html
"The 31st Fighter Group was provided with Airacobras in Southern England in August of 1942. Between August and October of 1942, the Group participated in missions against enemy targets in France. The Group suffered heavy losses in air-to-air combat against the Luftwaffe, and the 31st FG re-equipped with Spitfire Mk Vs."
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
Hohum hohum its off to the land of fantasy again....
"Many Soviet P-39 combat pilots wrote memoirs in the 1970s and 1980s in which they described their wartime experiences, hundreds of pages of descriptions of life in fighter units and of air combat. Other publications released since the collapse of the Soviet Union offer new information on what units were equipped with the P-39 and when, lists of pilots and their total sorties, aerial engagements, and scores. When fully exploited, these sources will reveal an enlarged and much improved picture of the P-39 Airacobra. It will be shown to be an outstanding combat aircraft, as worthy of respect as the P-38 Lightning, P-47 Thunderbolt, and P-51 Mustang"
"The Airacobra was quite popular with its Russian pilots, who appreciated its heavy armament, its excellent low-altitude performance, and its ability to absorb an incredible amount of battle damage. When operating at low altitudes, the Airacobra was often able to hold its own against top-of-the-line German fighters. Some Soviet pilots felt that the P-39 outclassed even the Messerschmitt Bf 109 and Focke Wulf FW 190 at altitudes below 10,000 feet. Some of the users of the type were Guard (ie. elite) Fighter Regiments 16 GIAP, 19 GIAP, 21 GIAP, 72 GIAP, 100 GIAP, 213 GIAP (previously 508 IAP) and Fighter Regiments 196 IAP, 255 IAP, 508 IAP (later 213 GIAP)."
"Aerial warfare over the Eastern Front was particularly suited to the Airacobra. There was no long-range, high-level, strategic bombing, only tactical bombing at intermediate and low altitudes. On this battlefield the P-39 matched, and in some areas surpassed, early and mid-war Bf-109s. And it had no trouble dispatching Ju-87 Stukas or twin-engine bombers. Five out of the ten highest scoring Soviets aces logged the majority of their kills in P-39s. In fact, P-39 jockeys filled the number two, three, and four spots: Aleksandr Pokryshkin (59), Aleksandr Gulaev (57), and Grigoriy Rechkalov (56)."
-
and also the pilots did say under what conditions the P-51 was better performer than the 109,that's what being left out conviniently by you.
I'm waiting....
So far....[
U]"Most of us considered the 109G over-developed. Poor landing characteristics added to its woes." [/U]
"They're fitted with a high altitude supercharger and at anything over 25,000 ft they just play cat & mouse with us. At 28,000 ft the spitifre could turn in an astonishingly narrow radius. We on the other hand, in the thin air of those altitudes had to carry out every maneuver with caution and at full power so as not to lose control"
"However, the tendency to swing on take-off and landing, which had first manifested itself during tests with the early prototypes, continued to plague the Bf 109E and contributed substantially to the Luftwaffe’s high accident rate, some 1,500 Bf 109 fighters being lost between the beginning of the war and the autumn of 1941 in accidents caused by unintentional swings."
"With the phasing out of the F-series, the basic Bf 109 design might be considered to have passed the peak of its development, for with the introduction of the G-series the constant operational demands for increased fire power and additional equipment brought with them a serious deterioration in the fighter’s flying characteristics."
"The Bf 109G could not be flown in a landing circuit with Raps and undercarriage down other than at full throttle, and experienced German operational pilots have described its landing characteristics as “malicious” "
"Despite the advent of the very much superior Focke-Wulf Fw 190 fighter, production of the now elderly Bf 109 was progressively increased"
You already know that Barkhorn on the question about best fighter of WW2 answered: On high altitudes P-51 and low altitudes Yak-9, Surprized?
None of this is my words...Milo was kind enough to post one of the articles i'd read and couldnt find again. I'm not even adding in the other info he found...
-
this thread has turned into
the enema of the Bf-109
-
This is not totally relevant to the topics here but has some value...
"I stayed down on the deck just long enough to photograph two FW-190's burning on the ground but couldn't find the first one I thought had probably gone in. I didn't spend much time searching since it seemed a pretty unhealthy place for a lone gun-less P-51. I started back upstairs trying to figure out where I was. When red marker flak began bursting around me about 24,000 feet, I found out I was right near the target area. I looked at my clock and decided that everyone else had gone home since I'd been there an hour and the radio was very silent. But I put out a call for Playboy Squadron and found that Red Flight was only about ten minutes ahead. They turned around, picked me up and we came home - barely. My crew chief measured the gas in my tanks and just shook his head. But he smiled when he saw I hadn't broken the wire on my throttle quadrant that would have put me in full emergency boost at 72 inches of manifold pressure. (Strangely enough, I never broke that wire during my entire combat tour. I guess I was too much aware of that single engine up front that usually had to get me another 600 miles before I could shut it down.) In briefing, I claimed two FW's destroyed and two damaged."
I left the whole paragraph intact....here's a double ace (11 victories) in the pony and he never even used wep ever during his combat tour...obviously the pony had performance to spare....
http://www.31stfightergroup.com/31stReference/Profiles/Riddle.html
-
Originally posted by Meyer
From other thread, about the P39... this is priceless :D
"The regiment fell into the "oven" of combat over the Kuban and on the second day suffered its first loss: Airacobra 41-38427 with engine Allison V-1710-63 (E-6) no. AAC 42-135031 did not return from its combat mission. This was the first P-39D-2 shot down on the Soviet-German front.
The regiment had to face Luftwaffe aces from Udet, Green Heart, and Mulders squadrons. Already on the following day, 11 March, two P-39D-2s (138433 [11] and 446) went into repair. Nonetheless, the regiment quickly launched into the fight with the stubborn Teutons. On 23 March 8 Airacobras faced off against 30 Messerschmitts and shot down 13, losing 3 of their own. But this victory came at a terrible price. Two pilots, in order to change the course of a badly developing battle, consciously flew their damaged and burning aircraft into enemy airplanes and perished, destroying two Messers in the process. Sergeant N. Kudryashov was 19 years old and Senior Lieutenant I. Shmatko was in his twenties. B. B. Glinka was wounded in this battle-a round came straight through the cockpit of his P-39D-2, no. 138431.
April aerial combats were particularly successful, when the pilots had a firmer grasp on their airplanes and tactics. During that month I. I. Babak shot down 14 fighters, Lieutenant Boris Glinka 3 fighters and 2 bombers, Senior Lieutenant Dmitriy Glinka 5 and 1, Sergeant I. Kudrya 5 and 1, Lieutenant N. Lavitskiy 1 and 2 respectively, and Senior Sergeant V. Sapyan 2 fighters. The regiment suffered losses as well, because its opponents were the "cream" of the Luftwaffe. 15 April 1943 is considered the "black day" of the regiment: D. Glinka and V. Sapyan were shot down at around 1300, and Senior Lieutenant M. Petrov and Sergeant Bezbabnov in the evening at around 1900. Erich Hartmann, a relatively new fighter pilot in III/JG 52, shot down one of the "evening" Cobras (41-38451 or 42-4606). This was the seventh kill (and first Airacobra) of the future top German ace of World War II, who finished his career in Soviet captivity with a score of 352 kills, some 345 of them on the Eastern front.
Altogether during two months of intense aerial combat over the Kuban, pilots of 45th IAP shot down 118 German aircraft, losing 7 Airacobras shot down and 8 damaged in combat or in accidents, 1 P-40E shot down and 1 destroyed in an accident. The regiment had the best results in the theater and was quickly, already by 10 May, re-equipped with new models of the Airacobra: P-39L, M, and N. The surviving intact old P-39D-2s (138416, 429, 456, and 458), P-39K, and P-40Es were handed off to the 16th Guards IAP and 298th IAP."
"The regiment went into combat on 17 March 1943 from Korenovsk airfield, in the Kuban, as part of the 219th Bomber Division, 4th Air Army. The regiment fought in this subordination for the entire extent of the celebrated air campaign over the Kuban. It fought against the best German fighter squadrons: JG 51 (Mulders) and JG 3 (Green Hearts). During the period from 17 March to 20 August 1943, the regiment flew 1,625 combat sorties with a flight time of 2,072 hours. It conducted 111 aerial engagements, in which it shot down 167 and damaged an additional 29 enemy aircraft. Its losses were 30 Airacobras destroyed and 11 damaged.
For combat successes in the Kuban campaign, the 298th IAP was designated the 104th Guards IAP on 24 August 1943. The regiment commander, I. A. Taranenko, received the rank Hero of the Soviet Union and was promoted. Major V. G. Semenishin, who had been awarded HSU on 24 May 1943, was named the regiment commander on 18 July 1943. In August 1943, the newspaper Pravda published a photograph of the four best pilots of the regiment with the inscription, "Fighter pilots who, in the battle for the Kuban, have shot down 60 German aircraft: major V. Semenishin, Captains K. Vishnevetskiy and V. Drygin, Junior Lieutenant A. Vilyamson". V. M. Drygin received the HSU rank on 24 May 1943, Vishnevetskiy at the end of the Kuban campaign on 24 August 1943, and Vilyamson on 27 June 1945"
"The regiment began combat operations on 9 April, at the very beginning of the battle for the Kuban. This campaign is considered pivotal in the history of Soviet VVS. Over the course of two months of intense battles with the best fighter squadrons of the Luftwaffe, Soviet pilots won strategic superiority in the air. Approximately 1100 German aircraft were destroyed, some 800 of them in the air. Western historians call this battle the "Stalingrad" of the Luftwaffe.
The pilots of the regiment fought combat operations of a corresponding nature with German fighters. The outcome of the battles in April: 289 Airacobra and 13 Kittyhawk combat sorties, in which were conducted 28 aerial engagements. Shot down were Bf-109E-14, Bf-109F-12, Bf-109G-45, FW-190-2, Ju-88-4, Do-217-1, and Ju-87-1. Of these, Guards Captain A. I. Pokryshkin shot down 10 Messers, Guards Senior Lieutenant V. I. Fadeev 12-Bf-109s, and Guards Senior Lieutenant G. A. Rechkalov 7 Messers and 1 Ju-88."
"Drawing conclusions, it can be said that the debut of the Airacobra in the Soviet VVS was singularly successful. In skilled hands it was a powerful weapon, fully on a par with the enemy equipment. There was no "special" operational environment for the Airacobras-they were employed as normal multi-purpose fighters that fulfilled the same roles as Lavochkins and Yakovlevs: they contested with fighters, escorted bombers, flew on reconnaissance, and protected our ground forces. They differed from Soviet-produced fighters in having a more powerful armament, survivability, and a good radio, and fell behind our fighters in vertical maneuverability, capability to withstand excessive G-forces, and to execute acute maneuvers. The pilots loved their Airacobras for comfort and good protection. As one P-39 pilot expressed it, he felt like he was "flying in a safe". Airacobra pilots did not burn because the aircraft was metal and the fuel cells were positioned far away in the wing. They were not subject to jets of steam or streams of oil because the engine was behind them. Their faces were not beat up on protrusions of the gunsight. If the airplane should happen to flip over on landing, they were not turned into lump of flesh, as happened to twice HSU A. F. Klubov after transitioning from a P-39 to an La-7. There was a kind of mystical belief that a pilot attempting to preserve a damaged Cobra by belly landing it would almost always emerge not only alive, but also undamaged. But if he bailed out of the same airplane he often was seriously injured or killed by the stabilizer, which was on the same level as the door."
How bout getting a clue....I haven't put up a single comment I cant back up with facts.
-
"From your article, it appears they left the P-39 behind in the states when they came to England - which was the standard procedure early on."
Yes, I'm glad you picked that up. I just popped back in here to edit and clarify my post on that point. I see it wasn't necessary ;)
-
While completing the account of the Airacobra I in Soviet aviation, the following conclusions can be drawn. Despite a number of design deficiencies of this first model of the air frame (undercarriage weakness, engine seizures, inadequate rate of climb, tendency to flat spin), it was a threatening weapon in the hands of skilled aerial warriors. As was written in the summary of the commander of 153d (28th Guards) IAP regarding the combat work in the Voronezh and West Fronts in July-August 1942, "The Airacobra aircraft is considered by the Germans to be the most dangerous enemy and should be engaged in combat only when they [the Germans] have numerical superiority and the advantage in altitude and surprise."
-
Exactly and the same thing applies to the god forsaken 109 .
If the pilots were experienced and knew how to use the aircraft well the aircraft would serve the pilot and would dominate the battle to its strengths.
By the time the Pony came on the scene most of the jagdfliegeren were nothing but inexperienced cannon fodder, that added to the fact the USAAF had mostly a cloud of metal over Western Germany and Europe.
It's retarded, like I said before and I said again, either the 109 had very good perfromance or the pilots were superhuman.
Of course that article has no biased and overciaiming, in "Stubborn Teutons" ? lol
Ho Hun among others have posted numerous original documents about how the aircraft performed in combat it's retarded whenever a thread like this begins becuase the Look our airplnes fed the poor children went to the stratosphere and killed everything by just looking at it by patriotic fervor proves nothing to the fact.
Was the 109? difficult you bet! Did it require skill same... if the pony and the Jug and every other allied aircraft was so easy to fly why is it only that only 1% of the pilots made kills, how many of the pilots that made Ace in a day survived the war or were captured.
You see where I'm getting at it's like saying the 109 couldn't take off the ground and the mgical laminart flow wing which had its strengths and its weaknesses like has been said, was not at all the war ender but production numbers and relative inequality of pilot skill at the end was that proved too much for the 109.
-
Originally posted by humble
The spit V decimated the the 109F over europe...
Oh really? where did that happened? in France? hmm no. Africa? hmmm no. Russia? nope.... perhaps in another TO? :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by GScholz
The top 3 aces (of any conflict) all flew 109's exclusively. Of the 20 top aces (of any conflict) 12 flew 109's exclusively.
Nuf said.
-
Personal attack
-
Personal attack
-
The top 3 aces (of any conflict) all flew 109's exclusively. Of the 20 top aces (of any conflict) 12 flew 109's exclusively
Sigh....the other 40 watt bulb returns.
OK Ace....who is the #1 ace of the Luftwaffe and why?
-
Originally posted by HoHun
Hi Glasses,
>P-39 dominated the 109?
>Compared to the P-39 the 109 is a lspitfire for god's sakes.
From http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p39_17.html
"The 31st Fighter Group was provided with Airacobras in Southern England in August of 1942. Between August and October of 1942, the Group participated in missions against enemy targets in France. The Group suffered heavy losses in air-to-air combat against the Luftwaffe, and the 31st FG re-equipped with Spitfire Mk Vs."
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
"When Alfred Grislawski returned to his unit in early April 1943, it again was based in northwestern Caucasus - where German Army Group A had dug in to hold its positions in the so - called "Kuban bridgehead." The 7. Staffel had received a new Staffelkapitän, Oberleutnant Walter Krupinski, an absolutely reckless fighter pilot who nevertheless took great care in his subordinates.
Grislawski immediately was briefed of the situation. III./JG 52 had recently been shifted to Taman Airdrome from Nikolayev in the Ukraine, where it had been re-equipped after its heavy losses in equipment during the retreat from the Terek sector down south in the Caucasus. II./JG 52, based at Anapa, had held the positions in the air over the Kuban bridgehead since February 1943; its pilots had shot down a large number of Soviet aircraft, but it also had cost the Gruppe severe losses.
One of the II. Gruppe's pilots, Leutnant Helmut Lipfert, later recalled: "Things did not go well for II Gruppe at Anapa. There were few contacts with the enemy but many losses. And it was not just the beginners and young pilots who failed to return, but some of the old hands as well." It was obvious that the Soviets were gaining in on the German fighter pilots' initial advantage in air combat....
On the Soviet side, the Lend-Lease Airacobra fighter planes of 16 GIAP (former 55 IAP, which had been adopted a Guards unit) and 45 IAP were in the forefront during the air combats throughout the day. These unit was two of III./JG 52's old enemies, since the battles over the Mius Front in late 1941, the Kerch Peninsula in May 1942, and the war in southern Caucasus during the previous fall. By now, both units had developed into two of the most experienced VVS regiments. The two most famous 45 IAP aces were the two Glinka brothers, Boris and Dmitriy. The latter, a Starshiy Leytenant, had been shot down by 7./JG 52's Jupp Zwernemann on April 15, 1943. But Dmitriy Glinka soon was back in action again. He had already been recommended to be appointed a Hero of the Soviet Union, and on April 21, he bagged his twenty-first German aircraft. 16 GIAP, mustering the later so well-known Kapitan Aleksandr Pokryshkin, Grigoriy Rechkalov, and Starshiy Leytenant Vadim Fadeyev in its ranks, chalked up fifty-seven victories in the Kuban skies between April 9 and 20, 1943.
-
The top 3 aces (of any conflict) all flew 109's exclusively. Of the 20 top aces (of any conflict) 12 flew 109's exclusively
A.S. Erich Hartmann (the highest-scoring Luftwaffe ace of World War II) acknowledged that on two occasions he avoided combat with A. I. Pokryshkin [second-highest Soviet ace of the war, P-39 Airacobra pilot from March 1943—JG]. Hartmann had the right to choose the time and place of combat, so he did not violate any orders or regulations. But now two points of view are expressed regarding Hartmann’s actions.
N.G. It’s not that simple. One has to look at the situation from two perspectives.
The first—if “free hunters” were to meet in the air, pair against pair or six against six, then Hartmann undoubtedly acted appropriately. It is highly unlikely that Hartmann would have the opportunity to achieve the element of surprise (considering who his foe was), and Hartmann couldn’t even dream of having the kind of preparation for maneuver combat as had Pokryshkin. It is most likely that in avoiding this kind of combat, Hartmann simply realistically considered his own strengths and opportunities. He was not ready for such an engagement.
Our own Safonov several times dropped a message bag on the Germans, challenging any of the German aces, be it Müller, Schmidt, or whomever, to combat. In an I-16! Not once did any of them respond and never did he encounter any of them in the air or in a fight.
Nuff Said...
-
Hi Glasses,
Here is a Russian document on the performance of the P-39Q-15, P-63A-10 and the Bf 109G-4:
http://hometown.aol.de/HoHunKhan/Aircraft-evaluation-3.jpg
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
LOl well according to that Chart Ho -hun the Russians apparently had the best altitude fighters of the war?
Isn't it that the La-7 performance dropped sharply above 3km?
According to that chart the La7 was the best aircraft in the war same goes for the P-63 and P-39, I agree the P-63 was very good but the speeds of the P-39 are suspect.
-
Hi Glasses,
>LOl well according to that Chart Ho -hun the Russians apparently had the best altitude fighters of the war?
Here's another chart with late-war types and an extended altitude axis:
http://hometown.aol.de/HoHunKhan/Aircraft-evaluation-6.jpg
>Isn't it that the La-7 performance dropped sharply above 3km?
Well, the M-82FNV at 2400 rpm supposedly has a full throttle altitude of 4.6 km for high gear (no ram). Compare that the the BMW801D's 5.7 km at 2700 rpm ...
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Originally posted by Glasses
LOl well according to that Chart Ho -hun the Russians apparently had the best altitude fighters of the war?
Isn't it that the La-7 performance dropped sharply above 3km?
According to that chart the La7 was the best aircraft in the war same goes for the P-63 and P-39, I agree the P-63 was very good but the speeds of the P-39 are suspect.
You'd need to look at the report the chart is derived from. The russians operated their aircraft (especially lend lease stuff) at completely different settings and configurations. As an example the P-39 had the wingpods removed as standard practice...engine settings were much more aggressive as well. Bell's "Mil Power" setting was below russian combat cruise setting and Russian Mil Power was beyond anything Bell ever contemplated. Engines had a rated life of 35-50 hrs but were often replaced after 3-4 flights. P-39's in particular threw rods all the time.
"The booklet "Brief technical description and technical exploitation of the Airacobra" was written based on the results of the effort of the team of NII VVS and test flights of the airplane. This booklet was quickly printed and distributed to aviation units that were being equipped with this airplane.
One who has carefully read the material above regarding the Airacobra might logically ask the question, why was this same model of the airplane so bad for British employment and so good for Soviet employment? What can explain this contradiction?
There were several reasons. We will dwell on the most important: First, we received already "reworked" aircraft that lacked the initial deficiencies. Second, our specialists tested the Airacobra for the specific altitude envelope of the Soviet-German front, which corresponded well with the best flying performance characteristics of the aircraft. Third, the aircraft actually were not bad. And fourth, the brief test period did not permit sufficient testing to expose the basic weaknesses of design and construction that were later revealed in the process of mass exploitation. The flat spin, the engine throwing connecting rods, and other manifestations were yet to be discovered."
From the beginning of mass exploitation reports about exposed hidden defects began to emerge from the horn of plenty. In most cases the engine failed, either upon takeoff or during combat. For example, in the 19th Guards IAP, there was one catastrophic failure and four accidents in the first two weeks; in the 153d IAP, one catastrophic failure and one accident. At first everyone blamed the Allison, in general a decent, light, and powerful engine that did not, however, want to work on Soviet-refined oils. It was real "picky", however, only at the beginning, and not without reason. After filtration, which removed dross and other debris, the Allison stopped "self destructing". Another defect required a great amount of investigation, the so-called "throwing of rods". This allegedly occurred when because of frequent running at the engine's operating limits (without which, of course, aerial combat was unthinkable) the aforementioned parts broke loose, came through the crankcase and destroyed everything in their path, in particular the control rods. A number of flight and laboratory tests were undertaken which enabled the test engineers to recommend the most favorable operating regimes of the engine to combat pilots, and succeeded in reducing the level of this type of failure."
A. S. Was the engine capable of high altitude?
N. G. Fully. 8,000 meters without problem, and neither we nor the Germans flew higher than that.
A. S. Nikilay Gerasimovich, could the Cobra really contend with the Bf-109G and FW-190 in aerial combat?
N. G. Yes. The Cobra, especially the Q-5, took second place to no one, and even surpassed all the German fighters.
I flew more than 100 combat sorties in the Cobra, of these 30 in reconnaissance, and fought 17 air combats. The Cobra was not inferior in speed, in acceleration, nor in vertical or horizontal maneuverability. It was a very balanced fighter.
A. S. This is strange. In the words of one American pilot, the Cobra was an airplane “suitable for large, low, and slow circles”. To go further, if we judge by references, then the maximum speed of the Cobra fell below that of the Bf-109F, not to mention the later German fighters. The Allies removed it from their inventories because it could not fight with the “Messer” and the “Fokker”. Neither the British nor the Americans kept it as a fighter airplane.
N. G. Well, I don’t know. It certainly did well for us. Pokryshkin fought in it; doesn’t that say something? [Aleksandr Pokryshkin was the number 2 Soviet ace at the end of the war and flew a P-39 from late 1942 to the war’s end – J.G.]
It seems that everything depends on what you wanted out of it. Either you flew it in such a manner as to shoot down Messers and Fokkers, or you flew it in a way that guaranteed 120 hours of engine life.
Let’s take the speed of the Cobra and the Messer. I had a Q-25 Cobra, with cameras for reconnaissance. Behind the engine were a vertical AFA-3s and two oblique AFA-21s. I simply flew away from a group of Bf-109Gs in this airplane, admittedly in a dive. Perhaps a single Messer could have caught me, but I flew away from a group.
"
-
Since this thread is just a rehash, I'll just rehash some old posts of mine.
Originally posted by GScholz
(http://www.bf109.com/images/stigler4.jpg)
On 20/01/01, Markus and Ryan Muntener met Franz Stigler and had the chance to ask a variety of questions, many of which addressed hotly-debated topics regarding the 109, and the general misconceptions that people have.
Excerpts:
Are the stories true, that the 109 had weak wings and would lose them easily?
He has never heard of a 109 losing its' wings from his experience or others. The wings could withstand 12G's and since most pilots could only handle at most 9G's there was never a problem. He was never worried about losing a wing in any form of combat.
Did you fly the 109 with the wing-mounted guns?
Yes he had, but almost everyone he new got the guns removed (including himself). The 109 handled much worse at low speeds with the guns on the wings, but climb was similar. It only really added some weight to the aircraft.
What's the fastest you ever had a 109 in a dive?
I've taken it to about 680 to 750 km/hr at which point you needed 2 hands to pull it out of the dive.
EDIT: Note that 750 km/h is 468 mph
Did pilots like the slats on the wings or the 109?
Yes, pilots did like them, since it allowed them better positions in a dogfight, along with using the flaps. These slats would also deploy slightly when the a/c was reaching stall at higher altitudes showing the pilot how close they were to stalling....this was also useful when you were drunk!
How did the cockpit feel in the 109?
The cockpit was small, but one got used to it after a while. In the end it felt comfortable since you felt like part of the plane. The spitfire's cockpit did not feel that much roomier to him either. The 262 cockpit however was larger in comparison. It also had a long flight stick, giving the pilot lots of leverage in flight.
Were the guns on the bombers dangerous or worrisome to pilots?
Yes and no (as he points to his head where you can see an indent). If you have 28 bombers with 10 guns each, all pointing and shooting at you they could be very dangerous. He has an indent in the upper part of his forehead from a .5 cal bullet that had smashed through the thick armoured glass in his 109 cockpit. The bullet had lost enough speed by this time that it had only "stuck" into his head. He said he almost never returned home from a bomber attack without bullet holes somewhere on his aircraft.
The K-4, he said was very much like the G yet could leave all other fighters behind in climb. In control feel he said the K felt identical to the G. He described on many occasions where they would just bank away from the fighters and climb away from them (my guess this is probably after attacking them?). He also flew a Spitfire once, saying that he liked the aircraft.
-
Nice Scholzie. Had been looking for this interview.:)
As for this:
"
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by humble
The spit V decimated the the 109F over europe...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh really? where did that happened? in France? hmm no. Africa? hmmm no. Russia? nope.... perhaps in another TO? "
Humble, I don't really know how much you know, but if you know anything, the Spit V was mostly outclassed by the 109F, evening the score when the Mk IX appeared.
As for your complaints of HoHun not providing data, he actually did bring some nice and compilable graphs.
As for the reply, from Meyer, the LW actually got booted out of Africa, the nasty bit of allied fighters were Spit V's, but there were also wicked IX's and evil VIII's around.
Did you know that Heinz Bar got summoned to Göring just to be kicked for the failiure of the LW in N-Africa? A bit unfair actually, for the LW probably had a much better score, but they still lost the fight.
The achivement of the Allies in N-Africa actually should go elsewhere, for the transport route was very much in axis favour if you look at the distance, - but that is yet another story.
I have quite some data on the N-African campaign, although I still miss the main piece (Fighter in the desert from Ring and Shores), but if you like some anecdotes, I'll bring some.
Anyway, what strikes me in this 109 thread is the absence of the 190, and the ever returning precence of the Spitfire. Hatemail, so to speak, say "109" and the answer is "Spitfire" and vice versa.
Anyway, if read from this thread and belived, the 190 is mostly outclassed by the 109 performancevise, and that leaves me with some questions (Finally got to the point)
1. Why bother with a 190 ?
2. Why do most allied pilots refer to the 190 as either the faster or the more dangerous one ?
3. What were the common power settings of the 109 in given timeframes, and depending on fronts may I add. I have a graph from late 1943 when the 109G is being tested on 1.3 ata.
I guess it boils down to this. There are some graphs where TOP performance of 109's are demonstrated, such as 1.42 ata 109F4 going to 670 km/h. So, how common was that usage, and when?
Was the 190 as a "standard" a faster one for instance?
-
Originally posted by Angus
Anyway, what strikes me in this 109 thread is the absence of the 190, and the ever returning precence of the Spitfire.
Really? I do not fid it strange that the 190 is not present in a 109 thread.
Originally posted by Angus
1. Why bother with a 190 ?
2. Why do most allied pilots refer to the 190 as either the faster or the more dangerous one ?
3. What were the common power settings of the 109 in given timeframes, and depending on fronts may I add. I have a graph from late 1943 when the 109G is being tested on 1.3 ata.
1. The 190 was a superior aircraft at low to medium altitudes where the BMW engine could deliver full power. The 190 was perfect for the kind of air-war fought over the Eastern Front. However the 109, simply by having an engine with better performance at high altitude, was better suited to face the turbo-charged US daylight raiders over Western Europe. Not until the Dora arrived in 1944 did a 190 outperform the 109 at high altitude.
2. I don't know what you mean. I have only read one pilot anecdote describing a fight with 190's (P-38's vs. 190's in Italy). It seems to me at least that in most Allied "war stories" the 109 is the feared opponent.
3. Someone else have to answer this one.
-
Angus....
The spitV vs 109 F* is obviously a much more complex and subjective arguement than the P-39 counterpart. To present the context & logic properly would be time consuming and fall on deaf ears anyway. You can look at the historical accounts and raw numbers and see that the P-39 equiped VVS air regiments literally shredded the luftwaffe in 1943 effectively eliminating the germans ability to gain air supremacy anywhere on the eastern front. The relatively ridiculous comments here repeatedly demonstate the lack of understanding between a planes performance and combat envelopes.
However.....
The primary purpose of the luftwaffe was the destruction of the enemy airforce. It was the only air element in the world that operated under a self contained leadership. The german war philosophy centered on the belief that they could not sustain a war of attrition.
The actual seeds of germanies defeat in the air were laid during the 1940 campaigns prior to the BOB. The germans lost 36% of their airforce during those campaigns. They were greatly assisted by the success of the german blitzkrieg on the ground (which they assuredly helped facilitate). Had the ground war been more even its unlikely the germans would have been able to sustain offensive air operations successfully. The luftwaffes inability to project and sustain airpower independent of ground operations was proven again at dunkirk and in the BOB. In effect the 109E was soundly beaten by the hurricane and spit I. Obviously this in part was due to logistics and circumstance. After the BOB when fighter command initiated operations over Europe the role was reversed. Here the luftwaffe had total control of the battlefield. It's intersting to note that the luftwaffe generally refused fighter to fighter combat and only engaged "circuses" when a clear advantage could be obtained. In part this was due to the shift of many units east....but it also was a result of the hit and run tactics forced on the germans by the limited combat envelope of the 109F vs the spitVB. In effect it was a one pass and out system of attack. In this case the raw numbers did favor the germans for a variety of reasons...but the luftwaffes inability to control its "own" airspace was established. The spitIX was rushed into service to counter the 190-A3 not the 109F. For wahatever reason the germans did not address the obvious shortcomings the 109 had. The real strength of the luftwaffe lay in its pilots, operational doctrine and tactics...not in the 109.
Whats funny is that even within AH the relative value of the planes performance envelope is reflected in both relative "value" and the general distain for "B&Z" style attacks. In effect the limited capabilities of the aircraft helped to (or were designed to) facilitate the "cherry picker" style of attack. More importantly it precluded the projection of a forward area of operations. This is easily demonstrated by the luftwaffes inability to project airpower over england at any time from 1941 until D-day. To the best of my knowledge not a single 8th airforce or british base in england was ever attacked from the air with any real success after BOB.
The choice of the word decimate was probably incorrect because it can be interperted to strictly mean destruction (this would of been more appropriate for the P-39). In retrospect the word nueter would be more appropriate. The spitV eliminated both the luftwaffes ability to conduct a forward projection of power and its ability to achieve its primary objective (the destruction of the oppsoing airforce) thru either aircombat or bombardment. That capability was never established at any time on any front after 1940.
Basically the germans lost the airwar in 1941....
-
Originally posted by MiloMorai
Here you go Barbi, some of the guys quotes (won't give you a link since we don't need you as a member:))
Just talk and guesses I can see here... the guy shares his own theories why the 109 had utterly bad cooling. The same guesses could be used for all planes to prove it was wrong. Of course everyone can have his own opinion, and it doesn`t bother anyone if he doesn`t feels the need himself to base his ideas on something factual. Moreover he repeats things which are quite clearly just myths: 'superior alloys' of the Packard Merlins compared to British ones, never-considered 400mph topspeed of the 109 etc. Appearantly he is not even aware of the drastic change in radiator design on the Friedrich..
-
Ah but he does mention the Fs redesigned radiator.
As I said I don't necessarily agree with him. The Packard Merlin being a prime example.
He does 'like' to wave the flag.:)
-
Hi Kurfürst,
>Spit V outclassing the 109F-4 ? WOW, what interesting new things we learn here ! :rofl
Based on data from:
http://www.beim-zeugmeister.de/zeugmeister/
http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/aa878.html
I have prepared a comparative performance analysis:
http://hometown.aol.de/HoHunKhan/Me109F4vsSpitfireVc.gif
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Excellent graphic representation HoHun, as always!
I am looking for f-4 roc infos, and though I have 1.3ata curves, can you share your 1.42ata one?
-
Hi Kurfürst,
>I am looking for f-4 roc infos, and though I have 1.3ata curves, can you share your 1.42ata one?
The curves are mathematically derived from the known data on the Me 109F-4 and the DB601E engine power graph.
I'm afraid I don't have a Messerschmitt factory climb rate curve for 1.42 ata, if that's what you're looking for.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Hi again,
>Personally I think the 109E & F4 were outstanding for their time. THe spit V outclassed them both and the balance wasnt restored till the 190-A3 was introduced.
Anlysis of Me 109E with DB601N vs. Spitfire Vc with +12 lbs/sqin:
http://hometown.aol.de/HoHunKhan/Me109E-NvsSpitfireVc.gif
Turn rate omitted for clarity. Some data points:
Altitude - Me 109E turn rate - Spitfire V turn rate
0 km - 22.2 °/s - 22.9 °/s
2 km - 19.7 °/s - 20.5 °/s
4 km - 16.7 °/s - 18.1 °/s
6 km - 13.9 °/s - 14.3 °/s
8 km - 10.2 °/s - 10.5 °/s
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Personal attack
-
Originally posted by HoHun
Hi again,
>Personally I think the 109E & F4 were outstanding for their time. THe spit V outclassed them both and the balance wasnt restored till the 190-A3 was introduced.
Anlysis of Me 109E with DB601N vs. Spitfire Vc with +12 lbs/sqin:
http://hometown.aol.de/HoHunKhan/Me109E-NvsSpitfireVc.gif
Turn rate omitted for clarity. Some data points:
Altitude - Me 109E turn rate - Spitfire V turn rate
0 km - 22.2 °/s - 22.9 °/s
2 km - 19.7 °/s - 20.5 °/s
4 km - 16.7 °/s - 18.1 °/s
6 km - 13.9 °/s - 14.3 °/s
8 km - 10.2 °/s - 10.5 °/s
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
How about providing the underlying report instead of a graph with no pilot input....
-
Originally posted by humble
The 109 by 1942 was unable to fulfill its primary mission as an air superiority fighter on any front.
please explain why the allies were able to project a forward area of operations over the continent from 1941 until D-day but the germans were unable to contest the skies over england in any meaningful way.
A third area to look at would be the "airwar" over the Med in support of German forces in North Africa.
[/B]
In France Luftwaffe had two squadrons of fighters opposing teh whole RAF and USAAF. What kind of force projection those might be able to do? The two squadrons were "holding the front", and were fighting with a positivive 3-1 - 5-1 kill ratio.
In Africa the Luftwaffe fighters had rather complete air superiority, until the Allied numbers and fuel shortages finally changed that.
And I wonder that the capability of the Me 109 has to do with protecting convoys? That wasn't the job of single seat interceptors. Convoy escort was handled by longer legged two engine fighters like the German Me 110 and Ju 88 and by the Italians, even seaplanes.
The fighting at Kuban is unknown entity to me, but I'd say you're more or less totally incorrect on your assumptions on western or mediterranean fronts, since you seem to lack the larger picture what was actually there and what their missions were.
-
"In France Luftwaffe had two squadrons of fighters opposing teh whole RAF and USAAF"
Emmm, not exactly. Gescwader is AFAIK even bigger than a wing in RAF terms.
Anyway, from the finnish translated manual, there is some data on the 109G6.
Takeoff run 400 m
climb: 1 min to 1 km, 2 mins to 2, 3 mins to 3, 5 mins 15 secs to 5km, 10 mins to 8 km, 17 mins to 11 km, ceiling 11 km.
Speeds: 540 km sl, 650 km at 5 km, top 620 at 8km.
Range 550 km, hence operation radius some 260 km.
Weight is ca 3500 kg.
Engine DB 605, supercharger alt 5,7 km
So, I have a question. Is this a typical Gustav?
-
Sounds fairly average yes. Just over 3000 fpm at normal climb power (Kampf und Steig). 406 mph at ~16k. 387 mph at ~25k.
A Gescwader is approx. the same as a RAF/US wing. A typical Jagdgescwader had 8 to 12 Staffeln (squadrons) all located at one airfield, or at a small number of airfields closely grouped.
-
Well this one is quite outclassed by the 109F presented here then?
-
Right Angus.
A LW staffel = a RAF squadron
A LW Gruppe is compose of 12 (usually) staffels.
A LW JG is composed of 3 (usually) Gruppes.
That gives JG2 and JG26 72 staffels(squadrons).
There was also JG 1 and part of JG 3 in Denmark which would cover Holland.
Angus, did you notice the turn times for the 109?
-
Yes Milo, my mistake. I was thinking of Gruppe, not Geschwader.
Initially a typical Geschwader had three guppen, but later in the war four Gruppen was the normal Geschwader strength.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Yes Milo, my mistake. I was thinking of Gruppe, not Geschwader.
Initially a typical Geschwader had three guppen, but later in the war four Gruppen was the normal Geschwader strength.
I wasn't correcting you since I did not see your post till mine was posted.
-
Originally posted by Angus
Well this one is quite outclassed by the 109F presented here then?
No, nut by much. The G would be the better climber while the F is somewhat faster.
-
Originally posted by MiloMorai
I wasn't correcting you since I did not see your post till mine was posted.
Never the less you were correct and I was wrong, and I wanted to make note of that.
-
Scholzie, I forgot, this 109 from the FAF is optimized for 87 oct.
So, I have no idea how much boost, 1.3 ata maybe?
THe performance looks rather similar to a russian test of a captured 109G.
The faster 109F would be 1.42 ata, and then, later the 109G's were boosted into some whooping numbers, like 1.9?
Anyway, a 109G on 1.42 should then have provided even morew Hp and been equally fast as the 109F, right?
Does anyone have an idea how that worked with engine lifetime?
And when various boost settings became standards?
-
Originally posted by MiloMorai
A LW Gruppe is compose of 12 (usually) staffels.
Definitely not. Typical early war Gruppe had 3 staffels, together around 40 planes.
-
Originally posted by TimRas
Definitely not. Typical early war Gruppe had 3 staffels, together around 40 planes.
me bad ;)
I Gruppe - 1, 2, 3 staffel
II Gruppe - 4, 5, 6 staffel
III Gruppe - 7, 8, 9 staffel
-
So Nine Squadrons in a typical JG right?
A little less, for a complete RAF squadron would run around with 12 servicable aircraft if possible, - which was absolutely not always.
-
Hi Grendel,
>In France Luftwaffe had two squadrons of fighters opposing teh whole RAF and USAAF. What kind of force projection those might be able to do? The two squadrons were "holding the front", and were fighting with a positivive 3-1 - 5-1 kill ratio.
To stay focused on the question of the quality of the aircraft, just ask yourself: "What would the outcome have been with RAF using Luftwaffe aircraft and vice versa?"
This is a technique I discovered in the books of Mike Spick, and it's great to separate strategic and operative questions from tactical performance.
Historically, using the Me 109F the Luftwaffe was able to take on the Spitfire "beehives" with inferior numbers, striking from an advantagous position and withdrawing after the strike.
That the Me 109F-4 had a speed advantage of roughly 50 km/h at operational altitudes undoubtly was a tactical advantage in such a situation:
http://hometown.aol.de/HoHunKhan/Me109F4vsSpitfireVc.gif
Now what about the reversed situation with the Luftwaffe flying Spitfire Vc and the RAF Me 109F-4?
With no advantage but turn rate, any engagement would either have to be hit and run (for which the Me 109 is better suited), or a turning fight against vastly superior numbers (Johnny Johnson, veteran of numerous Circus operations: "Turning doesn't win battles").
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Originally posted by HoHun
Hi Grendel,
>In France Luftwaffe had two squadrons of fighters opposing teh whole RAF and USAAF. What kind of force projection those might be able to do? The two squadrons were "holding the front", and were fighting with a positivive 3-1 - 5-1 kill ratio.
To stay focused on the question of the quality of the aircraft, just ask yourself: "What would the outcome have been with RAF using Luftwaffe aircraft and vice versa?"
This is a technique I discovered in the books of Mike Spick, and it's great to separate strategic and operative questions from tactical performance.
Historically, using the Me 109F the Luftwaffe was able to take on the Spitfire "beehives" with inferior numbers, striking from an advantagous position and withdrawing after the strike.
That the Me 109F-4 had a speed advantage of roughly 50 km/h at operational altitudes undoubtly was a tactical advantage in such a situation:
http://hometown.aol.de/HoHunKhan/Me109F4vsSpitfireVc.gif
Now what about the reversed situation with the Luftwaffe flying Spitfire Vc and the RAF Me 109F-4?
With no advantage but turn rate, any engagement would either have to be hit and run (for which the Me 109 is better suited), or a turning fight against vastly superior numbers (Johnny Johnson, veteran of numerous Circus operations: "Turning doesn't win battles").
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
Here the luftwaffe had total control of the battlefield. It's intersting to note that the luftwaffe generally refused fighter to fighter combat and only engaged "circuses" when a clear advantage could be obtained. In part this was due to the shift of many units east....but it also was a result of the hit and run tactics forced on the germans by the limited combat envelope of the 109F vs the spitVB. In effect it was a one pass and out system of attack. In this case the raw numbers did favor the germans for a variety of reasons...but the luftwaffes inability to control its "own" airspace was established.
Think I said about exactly what you did.....
Now...
1st the #'s were not as disparent as you said....spick gives as high as 3-1...the only hard numbers given are 48 german to 80 british from June 14 to july 4 1941...just under 2 to 1. He also notes that the germans paid a high price in expertain while the british were rotating a high percentage of new pilots into action.
Lets compare this to BoB where spick notes that only 4 pilots from III/JG52 even survived...he indicated a very high lose rate for most units involved.
Your question regarding what if was answered in BoB...the german attempts to project airpower were trounced...on the other hand the british never ceased air operations over europe. Further when stategic bombing started in earnest the germans never even attempted to attack the bases directly...they were incapable of a forward projection of airpower.
Historically, using the Me 109F the Luftwaffe was able to take on the Spitfire "beehives" with inferior numbers, striking from an advantagous position and withdrawing after the strike
This illustrates the problem in your thinking....the germans didnt take on anything....they made a B&Z pass and ran....and yes the expertain often scored and rarely did the british get a chance to respond...but when the germans tried to stay and fight they normally died...
Now....
in the 1st ever major engagement 8 P-39s took on 30 109's and shot down 13 for a loss of 3 of there own
That represents a unit with inferior #'s taking on an enemy and beating them into submission. There is a big big difference.
The british STOPPED the germans in the BoB and inflicted terrible loses....the german didnt stop fighter command over europe and they never inflicted casualties sever enough to force a stoppage on a tactical level.
-
You can have a discussion without resorting to name calling. There is absolutely no justification anyone can use which makes it allright to abuse other members of this board.
That goes for the lot of you.
Now, get back to the discussion, it is interesting.
-
You do mean claimed 13 for a loss of 3 right?
I'd divide 13 by at least 2.5 to try to arrive at a more accurate number.
-
Just dug up some analysis of the BoB.
It had pretty good numbers of claims of the RAF squads vs the book-keeping of the LW.
Seems like the RAF pilots overclaimed quite a bit, actual LW MIA and KIA's due to enemy a/c were close to 45% of the claims.
The period in question is July to october, but the LW AFAIK suffered rather nastily in November (take it with a grain of salt, have still to find that darned source)
Anyway, BRB with some nice numbers and the source, gimme 10 mins or so.
-
Ok, here we go, the BoB.
Analysis from the souvenir issue of aeroplane, July 2000.
John Alcorn's Top Guns article.
His sources are many, including Shores, Price, and the LW losses listed by FRancis K. Mason (Battle over Britain).
So, to the Guns of RAF fighters in those months in questions, there fell 1194 aircraft with little doubt, another 34 may be added, unknown alltogether 102, with various others (landing accidents NOT included) which all are BoB related, the sum is 1.609 aircraft.
Often have 1.700 been mentioned, and I actually belived it was then for the period ca 10th of June to Christmas or so. But that may not be it since the number would then be higher.
Anyway, the author mentions losses of batle engaged units whose fate could not be traced, as well as some other uncertain losses not listed by the quartermaster's records.
RAF losses are less detailed, but his number is 830, not broken down at all. It is the highest I have heard so far, but not by far.
I belive the RAF lost like 400 crew.
THe top scoring RAF squad is 603 with 57 kills, there off are 47 109's.
The wicked 610 who had given JG52 some bad time has only 24 109's to their credit.
One Hurricane squadron performed nicely, 501 sqn has 40 in the bag, there off 30 109's.
Top 109 killers: Brian Carbury 15, Lock 13, Lacey 13, Gray 11, etc.
LW lost a lot of 110's apparently, 208, thereoff 80 to Spits, 128 to Hurry's.
As a comparison, the Spits bagged some 282 109's while Hurris did 222.
Anyway, the BoB boils down to many results, such as it being the first time the LW met a properly organized airforce which in the following they failed utterly to subdue.
Or, the bad days they had, making 10% of their bomber force shot down or unusable in a day.
AFAIK the LW lost more aircraft from June to Dec 1940 than on the eastern front in 1944, now that's rather interesting wouldn't you say?
-
Originally posted by Urchin
You do mean claimed 13 for a loss of 3 right?
I'd divide 13 by at least 2.5 to try to arrive at a more accurate number.
No they shot down 13...all were accounted for. The russians were actually much better than anyone else in that regard. They actually had both plane and engine #'s from most of their awarded kills. Most occurred over the front and were recovered....as a general rule russians didnt even claim kills on german side of the lines. The battle of Kuban is pretty well documented. Germans were just mauled by VVS air regiments....
-
Originally posted by Skuzzy
You can have a discussion without resorting to name calling. There is absolutely no justification anyone can use which makes it allright to abuse other members of this board.
That goes for the lot of you.
Now, get back to the discussion, it is interesting.
Probably my fault more than anyones....my apologies to all for nay rocks I may have chucked:o
-
From Humble
"No they shot down 13...all were accounted for. The russians were actually much better than anyone else in that regard"
I'd take their total claims with a wee salt.
You see, when the commisar comes around and demands results, sometimes they must be somehow provided :D
Oops, may have started a flamefest
-
Originally posted by humble
The british STOPPED the germans in the BoB and inflicted terrible loses....the german didnt stop fighter command over europe and they never inflicted casualties sever enough to force a stoppage on a tactical level.
So far as I can tell, the Battle of Britain was the only time in the war when the aerial defense prevailed over a determined aerial offense.
- oldman
-
Anyway, the BoB boils down to many results, such as it being the first time the LW met a properly organized airforce which in the following they failed utterly to subdue
If you look thru some of the various analysis from different milatary think tanks the general take is that the luftwaffe didnt really "win" the original campaigns either. totally losses for the initial campaigns in the west were 36% of total forces fielded. The airwar really stopped due to the airfileds being overrun....not thru the use of airpower itself. Thats one reason so many "free" so snd so units were able to be formed for the BoB and after. There is strong speculation that the luftwaffe would not have been able to achieve and maintain air superiority had the ground war in europe dragged out. The germans lost over 1100 aircraft in two months over the kuban bridge head. This battle mimicked the BoB in many ways. The germans were unable to gain local air superiority and their tactical bomber and fighter forces were mauled. Whats interesting is that we had 109 G6/190 A4/5 vs Laag 3, yak-1, P-40 and P-39 D-2's. My understanding is that overall numbers were almost dead even (at least in the beginning:))......
-
Originally posted by Oldman731
So far as I can tell, the Battle of Britain was the only time in the war when the aerial defense prevailed over a determined aerial offense.
- oldman
Look up the Kuban bridgehead in april 1943....made custer look like an even fight....
-
OOps, guess what I found, cortesy of Google.
LW losses by theater 1944
"1944 - All Combat Types
Total West
Eastern Front
West/East
Sorties
182,004
342,483
0.53
Losses
9768
2406
4.06
Losses/Sortie
0.0537
0.00703
7.66 "
Wish I had 1942 and 1943, will definately look different, but I guess I was not far off.
1944 was probably the "biggest" year of them all, and I remember some anecdotes from old German aces that the West was a worse sky to stay in.
-
Incredible, all the posts edited by Skuzzy for personal attacks and no one banned!! :D
-
Originally posted by Angus
From Humble
"No they shot down 13...all were accounted for. The russians were actually much better than anyone else in that regard"
I'd take their total claims with a wee salt.
You see, when the commisar comes around and demands results, sometimes they must be somehow provided :D
Oops, may have started a flamefest
Not at all, truthfully thats what I'd think to....till you start to realize they have serial numbers & pilot for an awful lot of their awarded kills. I'm not pro russian about much of anything. But the more you read the more impressed you become with them. I put a couple quotes up from the german side regarding the Kuban bridge head. I'll add 1 more....
Grislawski knew that the first period at the frontline after a home leave was hazardous-that he had become slightly "rusty" - and he decided not to take any risks. He was very cautious during his first combat sorties after his return from his home leave. Most missions were free hunting or Stuka escort against the Soviet bridgehead at Myshako, behind the German main line west of Novorossiysk on the Kuban Bridgehead's southern coast. Although the Germans had concentrated a powerful air corps in the Kuban Bridgehead, achieving a numerical superiority, they were unable to assume control of the air as during the previous years.
I./JG 52 was stationed at the other end of Taman Airdrome. Grislawski grabbed a bicycle and rapidly made it to the first Gruppe's command post, located in a bus. He found his old friend Kabisch waiting for him outside. They hugged, and it felt as if the past four years were gone. Grislawski felt tears in his eyes, but not tears of joy.
"Man, Kabisch!" he gasped. "Why have you come here?"
Kabisch just shrugged his shoulders. "You know-war. . . I volunteered for pilot training, just like you. . ."
"But that's different!" Grislawski exclaimed with discontent.
Kabisch looked hurt.
"What do you mean? I'm a Feldwebel now, and. . ."
"That doesn't matter!" Grislawski interrupted him. "How many sorties have you made?"
"About twenty-five."
Grislawski shook his head.
"Helmut," he almost whispered. "You stand with one foot in the grave. This is no game, and things are no longer what they used to be here in Russia."
"Oh, come on, Alfred!" Kabisch patted Grislawski's back: "I just got my seventh. . ."
Feldwebel Helmut Kabisch, the old recruit trainer who had become a fighter pilot, was immensely proud of his seven first victories. The last one had been achieved against a LaGG-3 at 1620 hours on 20 April 1943.
But his rash attitude only increased Grislawski's preoccupation. "These damned greenhorns," Grislawski thought. "And now Kabisch too!"
"Look, Helmut!" Grislawski yelled. "Forget about all that rubbish with easy victories! You have to be damned cautious!"
Then he pulled Kabisch, who looked both disappointed and surprised, aside. When he was sure that no one was listening, he said:
"I have a suggestion, and I hope you will follow it. This is no place for a beginner! But I've got some connections. I can contact Hermann Graf, and he will use his influence to have you transferred to my gang. There I will be able to watch over you! You have to get at least fifty combat sorties before you've got any chance at all!"
But Kabisch wasn't intrigued at all by his old friend's suggestion. "Come on, Alfred," he said and sighed. "I don't need any babysitter. And besides of that, I've been with the second Staffel for a couple of weeks, and they all are swell guys."
With a feeling of hopelessness, Grislawski made another try: "Helmut, those swell guys will all be gone in fourteen days, or you will be gone! You might just as well go pick a suitable coffin right now. I guarantee that only under my wings will you be able to survive fifty sorties!"
But Kabisch's pride would not allow him to accept the proposal. Grislawski felt deeply sad when he returned to his biletting.
Kabisch did not survive the Kuban campaign....
-
1st I'd like to apologize again to Hohun Gsholz (sp?) and anyothers who I might have lobbed rocks at....skuzzies right it was uncalled for....
Discussing the Luftwaffe these are the elements of the equation I see as self evident....
1) they had the "best" cadre of pilots at the beginning of hostilities....
2) they had the only true "airforce" in the world.
3) they had the best operational doctrine....
a) the rotte/Schwarm vs the ketten
b) best pilot leads vs highest rank
c) The Kcmarek
d) The "finger four"
4) They had the best tactics, many aviation "experts" expected the "classic" swirling dogfights of hells angels....even though very few top aces on any side a "dogfight" unless they had to. The germans were the only airforce who trained and focused on vertical envelopement. Compared to the french, italians and japanese who were accomplished acrobatic pilots. This combined with the typical "vic" basically gauranteed a "free for all"....
So....
How and why did the luftwaffe fail so miserably in the projection of "pure" airpower. The only logical conclusion I can reach is the tools being utilized. It's obvious to see that the germans didnt have the correct "tool" for strategic bombing...less evident but I believe also true is that the Bf-109 was suprisingly ill suited to the role of air superiority fighter.....
-
Originally posted by Oldman731
So far as I can tell, the Battle of Britain was the only time in the war when the aerial defense prevailed over a determined aerial offense.
- oldman
Malta?
-
"How and why did the luftwaffe fail so miserably in the projection of "pure" airpower. "
During BoB:
It is so easy to be wise afterwards...
Stupid choice of targets (cities, made by high command ->Hitler et al. Think of Churchill in direct lead of RAF? He would sure have been better than Hitler, I'm sure, but still...)
Stupid choice of tactics ->eg. Close escort for bombers negating the reaction speed of fighters. Even the bad tactics of Stukas flying in formations and relying on their miserable defensive weapons is a good indication of this. They (JU87s) fared much better in the eastern front when they changed tactics.
The Germans fought an offensive campaign after the great victory in France (spiced by optimistic propaganda I'm sure). Whereas the Brits surely felt that they almost fought for their existence and surely their national pride was so high that the invasion of their home island was not an option in their minds.
It was stupid of Hitler to imagine that he could force the Brits to surrender with their back against the sea (and USA being behind that sea!). Hitler did not provide the Brits with a sensible political way out of the situation but challenged one of the oldest empires of the world into war which proved to be a very bad strategy added with war against Russia and USA at the same time. (Think about the resources and manpower for example...)
Historically the WW1 was a radical change in how technology was utilized in warfare. This continued still in WW2 where airpower was utilized in massive scale for the first time so the effective use of airpower had to evolve through experience in a very short time.
The BoB was one of the first major air campaigns ever and the situation the two opposing forces were put were different, but nevertheless they had to learn, and quickly, too, to come out as victor. Using bad tactics over enemy territory IS stupid in the long run. Every minor failure in aircarft leads to loss of both a/c and pilot whereas for defender even a major failure in a/c isn't disastorous.
"The only logical conclusion I can reach is the tools being utilized."
Then your logic fails. Maybe U should read more (or grow older perhaps)? Using the outcome of BoB as a statement to back up the claim that german aircraft were inferior is rather..stupid? Or then again you are probably intentionally just trolling, aren't you?
BTW I personally do not value M. Spick very high as a source of information. Or to define: his info may be right but the conclusions are sometimes :rofl .
-C+
-
During BoB:
It is so easy to be wise afterwards...
Stupid choice of targets (cities, made by high command ->Hitler et al. Think of Churchill in direct lead of RAF? He would sure have been better than Hitler, I'm sure, but still...)
The Luftwaffe had already lost the BoB by the time they switched their daylight attack to cities.
Stupid choice of tactics ->eg. Close escort for bombers negating the reaction speed of fighters.
Again, this only came about later in the BoB, after the Luftwaffe had lost. In fact, Goering ordered all Geschwader leaders to determine their own escort patterns, and emphasised frei jagds.
From Goering's orders, 19th August:
"In the actual conduct of operations, commanders of fighter units must be given as free a hand as possible. Only part of the fighters are to be employed as direct escorts to our bombers. The aim must be to employ the strongest possible fighter forces on free-lance operations, in which they can indirectly protect the bombers, and at the same time come to grips under favourable conditions with the enemy fighters"
Even the bad tactics of Stukas flying in formations and relying on their miserable defensive weapons is a good indication of this. They (JU87s) fared much better in the eastern front when they changed tactics.
Stukas fared better on the eastern front because they had a large area to operate in and usually managed to avoid interception.
They failed during the BoB because of the RAF's integrated warning network, which meant they were usually intercepted.
Stukas were provided with generous air cover during the BoB, they still got shot to pieces.
Goering's orders, 15th August:
"The fighter escort defences of our Stuka formations must be readjusted, as the enemy is concentrating his fighters against our Stuka operations. It appears necessary to allocate three fighter Gruppen to each Stuka Gruppe, one of these fighter Gruppen remains with the Stukas, and dives with them to the attack; the second flies ahead over the target at medium altitude and engages the fighter defences; the third protects the whole attack from above. It will also be necessary to escort Stukas returning from the attack over the Channel."
-
"The Luftwaffe had already lost the BoB by the time they switched their daylight attack to cities. "
Nash, what is the turning point when you consider the battle was lost for Luftwaffe?
Some would say by the time they launched their first attack..but what do you say? :D
-C+
-
Originally posted by Charge
"The only logical conclusion I can reach is the tools being utilized."
Then your logic fails. Maybe U should read more (or grow older perhaps)? Using the outcome of BoB as a statement to back up the claim that german aircraft were inferior is rather..stupid? Or then again you are probably intentionally just trolling, aren't you?
There is some merit to humble's statement to which I will add, 'not being utilized'.
Up til BoB, the front line of the combattants was together. During BoB, it was seperated by at least 20 mi. of water. Drop tanks, which the Germans had used in the SCW, would have made some difference. 1 'tool' not being utilized. Later when heavy bombers appeared, and the Germans knew of the Allied 'heavies', there was only the 190 that could effectively attack them and still do combat with enemy fighters. Adding gunpods to the 109 to make it bomber attack capable degraded its performance. The 190C that could have been around in 1943 but was not developed (until to late as the D-9 and Ta 152C) and produced. Another 'tool' not being utilized. It would have been a better fighter than the 109. Only when it was too late did Germany start to develope heavy fighters that were dual purpose (fighter and bomber attack capable) and high altitude rated.
The 109 production should have been cut back after the F/early Gs and eventually stopped with it being replaced by the 190C and/or a new 'heavier' dual purpose fighter.
In the beginning, the Germans were farsighted but after BoB they could not see past their noses. Willey had too much 'influence' in Berlin while Tank did not. Hence the 110 is produced over the better Fw187. Another 'tool' not being utilized.
Did the Germans put up a hard fight? Yes, but it would have been a harder fight if the 'tools' had been utilized better.
charge, Germany and the LW might be your love but please open your mind.
-
Nash, what is the turning point when you consider the battle was lost for Luftwaffe?
Some would say by the time they launched their first attack..but what do you say?
I don't think there was a "turning point", as such, although it's possible to those observing at the time that a particular day might have seemed like a turning point.
I think as the battle wore on, it increasingly tilted in favour of the RAF, which managed to build up it's strength whilst the Luftwaffe were losing theirs.
Certainly by the time the Luftwaffe switched attack to London, they were very understrength, whereas the RAF was still pretty much at front line strength.
As to the turning point being the day the Luftwaffe launched the battle, clearly the Luftwaffe lost, and clearly, with the same circumstances run again, they would still lose.
That wasn't clear at the time, of course. If the Luftwaffe had inflicted higher losses on the RAF, or managed to sustain less losses themselves, things could have been different, but with the balance of forces, and the performance of both sides, the Luftwaffe couldn't win.
To get a win for the Luftwaffe, you either have to change the balance of forces, or the performance of one side or the other.
Stephen Bungay in The Most Dangerous Enemy has a couple of tables showing first the best kill/loss days for the Luftwaffe:
19 July Raf losses 10, Luftwaffe losses 4
7 August Raf losses 4, Luftwaffe losses 3
11 September Raf losses 27, Luftwaffe losses 21
14 September Raf losses 11, Luftwaffe losses 8
28 September Raf losses 16, Luftwaffe losses 4
and second the days of heaviest fighting:
11 August RAF losses 17, Luftwaffe losses 20
12 August RAF losses 20, Luftwaffe losses 27
13 August RAF losses 13, Luftwaffe losses 47
15 August RAF losses 32, Luftwaffe losses 75
18 August RAF losses 34, Luftwaffe losses 69
30 August RAF losses 23, Luftwaffe losses 23
31 August RAF losses 37, Luftwaffe losses 33
7 September RAF losses 23, Luftwaffe losses 41
15 September RAF losses 28, Luftwaffe losses 56
27 September RAF losses 29, Luftwaffe losses 57
It's clear that on quiet days, the Luftwaffe could occasionally "win", but on the days of heavy fighting, the RAF almost always won.
You can't win a battle by a few individual combats, and I think the Luftwaffe, wth the emphasis on the "experten", was barking up the wrong tree.
War isn't a game of AH, where kill/death and "score" are what matters. It's about team performance.
-
Angus & Nashwan,
did you ever consider to compare the LW BoB losses to the RAF losses of the circus operations in 1942?
I know that the BoB involved a larger number of planes, but in both cases you have an attacking force going up against a well prepared defender that can choose when and were he will counterattack.
Currently i am not sure if the Spit & Hurricanes involved in those air raids to france in '42 were outfitted with droptanks or if they had the same limited combat time over france as the Bf109 had over england.
-
Naudet, it was both ways I belive, some of the RAF had drop tanks.
As for the 109 drop tanks already available before the BoB, I belive they were wooden (wood pulp?) ones, considered to be somewhat of a hazard.
Now, the Circus stuff was IMHO a rather silly campaign.
It gave the LW experts a sporting chance of plonking down RAF aircraft that were mostly waiting to be attacked, while causing hardly any damage whatsoever to the LW.
So, the KD number for the RAF was very appalling.
However.......the RAF blooded many young pilots which would go on fighting to the end of the war, while the LW simply ran out of good crew. A bit of a rough school it was.
I will later type in a story of a young Spit driver who got himself into a 1 vs 2 against 109's over the channel in his first combat mission. Now, he lived to fight another day, become ace, then instructor, then fighting on again almost to the end of the war.
That itself is a victory on its own, for there were hundreds alike.
As Nash pointed out, it's not all about KD....
Anyway, if the claim presented on these boards of the LW only having 6000 pilots of single engined fighters KIA during the whole war, how the #### did they manage to be manning their aircraft with newbies in the late half of the war?
-
THen, Naudet, this here:
"I know that the BoB involved a larger number of planes, but in both cases you have an attacking force going up against a well prepared defender that can choose when and were he will counterattack. "
There is a good difference. The RAF over France and the lowlands is going against an enemy which is well stuck onto non-enemy territory. So there is not exactly bombing and stafing anything, and no territory bombing is possible. This never shows well enough in comparison IMO, but the fact remains that the LW only had to hop over the channel to hit the UK, while they had literally hundreds of miles of conquered territory as their shield before Germany would be hit. So, they could play cat and mouse forever over France, as well as hide and seek.
But, when a single engined fighter (P51) appeared over Hamburg, Göring is told to have said "Now it's all over".....
-
Milo, you did dig pretty much hidden agenda out of that "'tool' not being utilized" comment. Considering the success the 109 had in hands of capable and less capable pilots and strategic situation where that "inferior tool" was utilized until 1945 I tend to disagree with you.
"charge, Germany and the LW might be your love but please open your mind."
Now that is a bit too thick. I don't like BS may it come LW or RAF/USAF luvers.
I love WW2 aviation and like to have it without too much cream, ty.
edit: Pretty far fetched, Angus. What is your point?
-C+
-
Tell me what is far fetched Charge and I will explain the point better :)
-
I did not dig deep at all, charge. There was available 'tools', and better, Germany could have used but kept the 109 around too long.
Think how much better those 'capable and less capable pilots' could have done with better 'tools' than the 109.
Sorry, your are being myoptic.
-
The Germans fought an offensive campaign after the great victory in France
Great victory by who? Certainly not the luftwaffe, the airwar was nowhere near as lopsided as the ground war. As more and more of france was rolled up many french aviation units lost their will to fight. However, those that did continue to fight gave the germans all they could handle. Again the germans lost 36% of their forces....thats a very high casualty rate considering the advantages they had.
I'm not trolling at all, in fact what I'm stating isnt anything other than the prevailing thought from military historians. The measure of a fighter is its ability to control its own airspace and project a foward area of operations over the opponent...the luftwaffe could do niether. A good counterstudy is the deployment of the F4 over Vietnam. The Us got locked into roughly a 1-1 trade off. They quickly determined that the problem was a combination of a poorly designed airframe and poor pilot training/tactics. The airframe wasnt changable but they did add cannon (part of the problem). They also instituted what became "top gun" to teach both ACM and ACM specific to the matchup . You'll note that the F-14 was configured as a double superior plane as a result. It had both the tremdous E fighting capability the F4 had but also was very capable as a turnfighter.
-
Originally posted by Charge
Milo, you did dig pretty much hidden agenda out of that "'tool' not being utilized" comment. Considering the success the 109 had in hands of capable and less capable pilots and strategic situation where that "inferior tool" was utilized until 1945 I tend to disagree with you.
"charge, Germany and the LW might be your love but please open your mind."
Now that is a bit too thick. I don't like BS may it come LW or RAF/USAF luvers.
I love WW2 aviation and like to have it without too much cream, ty.
edit: Pretty far fetched, Angus. What is your point?
-C+
I've provided both 3rd party opinion and some measure of data on everything I've said. Again you yet to provide anything meaningful. Please document any "success" you see the 109 as having. It's funny, but gameplay in AH actually creates a great lab enviornment. Yes a gifted pilot can "cherrypick" a kill or two (hartmanns style)...but he's not going to stop the "mission". Bottom line is simple....the British stopped the luftwaffe cold at BoB. THe Russians stopped them Cold at Kuban. The 109 led luftwaffe never stopped any allied air offensive on any front.
-
In the Bf-109G6 manual Milo posted it lists the turning times at various altitudes. You might find it interesting.
http://www.airwar.ru/other/bibl/bf109g-6.html
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Emm, not so good at Russian Crumpp, so could you perhaps provide a more accurate link.? :)
-
Angus, I mean this: "So there is not exactly bombing and stafing anything, and no territory bombing is possible."
Do you think (or know) that the Brits did or didn't strafe or bomb anything in lowlands or France (ie. "Ramrod" mission)? I'm pretty sure they did and unfortunately in the process caused casualties to locals too. But thats unavoidable. They were there to bomb something to force the fighters to take action and I believe they did.
Humble, that is once again one view to that matter. Eg. F4 was a remarkable a/c for its time and a true multirole fighter. Top Gun was there to teach navy pilots how to use best their weapon after that disastrous beginning: Not to turnfight MiGs but to use wingman tactics and the better speed the F4 had. The "engagement rule" was later effective to negate the BWR ability of F4, not that the Sparrow was very effective, but nevertheless it was a further handicap. Leading edge slats were also introduced to aid turning ability and later export models were all equipped with them. So it was a constantly developing airframe just as the 109 was and I think it did serve quite long in US and abroad just as the 109 did.
-C+
-
Hi Charge,
>During BoB:
Don't fall for the trolling technique of distraction.
The outcome of the Battle of Britain has nothing to do with the qualities of the Me 109 as a fighter compared to its contemporaries.
If the Luftwaffe had flown Spitfires, they would have lost the Battle just the same.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Hi Nashwan,
>The Luftwaffe had already lost the BoB by the time they switched their daylight attack to cities.
Good post!
I'd like to add that in my opinion the attacks on cities actually were no change in the Luftwaffe strategy, but actually the implementation of the German plan to force Britain to sue for peace by the application of air power coupled with the threat of a seaborne invasion - which was a bluff.
It was not the tactical blunder it's usually portrayed as. I'd rather see the Battle of Britain as a fully-fledged strategic air war conducted with insufficient resources against a well-prepared enemy.
As you already point out, I agree that it was attrition that decided the Battle in favour of the RAF.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
I'd rather see the Battle of Britain as a fully-fledged strategic air war
That's right, but germany tried to fight a strategic air war with a tactical oriented airforce.
If you consider how "inefficient" the strategic campaign of the 8.USAAF and the RAF Bomber command was, beside the fact that these airforces were build up for a strategic airwar, who wonders that the LW had to fail in the BoB.
-
If the Luftwaffe had flown Spitfires, they would have lost the Battle just the same
I couldnt disagree more, had the germans had spitfires and the british 109's the germans would have fared much much better (IMO)....
The reasoning is as follows, the germans were tied to the bombers to a high degree. This totally negated the advantages the plane had (primarily a hit & run style of plane). Since the defender always has the ability to pick the time of attack the british would have had no greater initial advantage but would have been less successful in prosocuting multiple attacks...as it was the germans were forced into a style of fight that didnt suit their equipment or tactics. Meanwhile the british were able to "mix it up" in the bomber stream. Since the spitfire retains E very well it's lower performance #'s were not an issue once the fights turned into a melee.
-
Hi Naudet,
>That's right, but germany tried to fight a strategic air war with a tactical oriented airforce.
Old myth. The Luftwaffe was centered on strategic warfare and had absolutely neglected tactical warfare.
Galland wrote the book on tactical warfare based on his Spanish Civil War experience just before the outbreak of WW2.
Good source on Luftwaffe doctrine: "Spearhead for Blitzkrieg" by ex-Luftwaffe General Deichmann, edited by Alfred Price. Cheap too, pick one up :-)
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Well, if I'd run into enemy over his territory and we both had planes with identical performance I wouldn't "mix it up" but make one pass and bug out if things seemed to go bad, not to stay and figure it out whether or not he is better than me...
-C+
-
Emm, not so good at Russian Crumpp, so could you perhaps provide a more accurate link.?
Click on the blue Cyrillic writing with the "Bf-109G6" written in it Angus. It will download a .pdf file that contains the a translated version of the Finnish Pilots Operating Handbook.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Since the spitfire retains E very well it's lower performance #'s were not an issue once the fights turned into a mele
Says who the Spitfire retains E very well? I think you are confusing energy retention with a lower sustained turn threshold.
The Spitfires Energy retention was unremarkable and rather poor in the vertical.
1. It was not a low parasitic drag design.
2. It was lightweight and lower on inertia. So it required a lot lower braking forces to stop its momentum.
3. It's induced drag efficiency was far from optimal and the differences in it and it's contemporary adversaries are miniscule at best.
Honestly do some calculations on the Spitfire. It was angle fighter pure and simple. There is a very good reason Merlin Powered Spitfire pilots did not fight their aircraft in the vertical.
That is NOT to say it was not a good fighter. Its strengths just did not lie in the vertical fight.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Charge
Well, if I'd run into enemy over his territory and we both had planes with identical performance I wouldn't "mix it up" but make one pass and bug out if things seemed to go bad, not to stay and figure it out whether or not he is better than me...
-C+
Which is why they lost...
-
Originally posted by Naudet
That's right, but germany tried to fight a strategic air war with a tactical oriented airforce.
If you consider how "inefficient" the strategic campaign of the 8.USAAF and the RAF Bomber command was, beside the fact that these airforces were build up for a strategic airwar, who wonders that the LW had to fail in the BoB.
The key difference is in the evolution of the escort fighters...in 40 the Allies had the spitfire, the P-40, the hurricane and the P-39. Can you imagine any of those planes carrying the fight over berlin. Then came the P-47,P-38,P-51B & Typhoon. Also the F4F/F4U were available....finally came the P51D. Now in 4o the germans had the 109...and then the 109...and then the 109...finally the 190....and the 1o9....and the 109...and the 190.
Now had we stuck with the P-40V and the P-39Z the war might have been different....
-
Diablo
The Me109, when it appeared in 1935 I believe, was the best fighter of the world. It remained such until the Spitfire came along, I believe first flight in 1938.
Even so, early Spits, up to MKIX IMO ,were just equal to their contemporary 109 variants.
Basically, the 109 was updated with better armament and more powerful engines throughout its career, while handling deteriorated as weight increased.
STtill, up to the end of the war it remained better than the P40, P38,P47,Hawker Typhoon and many other fighters of WW2.
In conclusion, I don't agree with your evaluation of the 109 being of average quality.
-
Originally posted by spitfiremkv
Diablo
The Me109, when it appeared in 1935 I believe, was the best fighter of the world. It remained such until the Spitfire came along, I believe first flight in 1938.
Even so, early Spits, up to MKIX IMO ,were just equal to their contemporary 109 variants.
Basically, the 109 was updated with better armament and more powerful engines throughout its career, while handling deteriorated as weight increased.
STtill, up to the end of the war it remained better than the P40, P38,P47,Hawker Typhoon and many other fighters of WW2.
In conclusion, I don't agree with your evaluation of the 109 being of average quality.
I'd agree the 109 is outstanding as an early war fighter....average as a midwar fighter...personally I feel it was severely hampered in late44/45 vs the the late war "uber planes"
-
Originally posted by DiabloTX
HoHun-
My thoughts exactly about the comparison with the Spit.
It was not my intention to downplay the capabilities of the 109 but to illustrate in the literature that I have read that the 109 shouldn't have been as good as it was at the end of its career but it was. It seems that they write things as "Its airframe was too small for developement" or "Its landing gear strained at the added weight" or things to that effect. I guess it just amazes me that this little airplane could take on all the modifications and still kick ass.
I don't want this to turn into an endless 109 vs. XXXX thread, technicalities isn't what this is about. In no way do I think it's an inferior fighter, that's just my point. It seems like it should be but the 109 obviously was a winner throughout its lifetime.
I also like the 190 better for purely aesthetic resons only. But that is a completely different subject.
What part of this is where I say it's of "average quality"?
-
(http://hometown.aol.de/HoHunKhan/Me109E-NvsSpitfireVc.gif)
Look at this.
What model 109E is this ?
The Spitfire presented is probably the "Malta" version, - a 4 cannon ship or?
There were faster MK V's around, but not likely to have met Emils, since the 109E was out at that time.
-
Oh, forgot, graph is from HoHun ;)
-
109E4/N or E7 1020hp?
edit: By mid-1940 the new Daimler-Benz DB601N had been developed and was beginning to replace the older and less powerful DB601A. Externally, both engines were identical; the only distinguishing mark was the letter N cast into the top of the DB601N engine casing. Unlike its predecessor, which had concave piston heads, the DB601N was developed with flattened heads to increase engine compression. The DB601A produced 1175hp for take-off at 2480rpm with a maximum output of 1020hp at 2400rpm at 14675ft. In comparison, the DB601N provided 1200hp for take-off at 2600rpm with full boost available for 1 minute, plus a maximum emergency output of 1270hp for a similar period at 16400ft. This improved performance necessitated the use of a higher 100-octane fuel as opposed to the 87-octane required by the DB601A.
From: http://www.lesbutler.ip3.co.uk/jg26/white4_peter.htm
-C+
-
Old myth. The Luftwaffe was centered on strategic warfare and had absolutely neglected tactical warfare.
Maybe in the textbook, but the equipment list surely looks the other way around.
I cannot see were Bf109s, FW190s, HE111, JU87, JU88 & DOx17-Series where ever suited for strategical warfare, they simply lacked range and payload.
The planes that had the range Bf110 and FW200 were poor performers by any means.
Instead of the Bf110 the FW189 would have been the right choice for a long range heavy fighter.
And as a bomber the HE177 should have been properly developed, getting away from the entirely senseless dive bombing capability this huge plane had to possess and switching from the 4-eng-2-prop design to a more conventional 4-eng-4-prop design.
Additionally any air operations by the LW on the eastern front and the mediterenean theatre were of tactical nature.
Or maybe i just have a different view of what i consider to be tactical and what strategical airwar. :)
-
The LW was designed around the principle of combined arms warfare. The LW was meant to follow the army in the field moving from airfield to airfield (whom the LW ground personnel prepared). Close cooperation between the army and LW was a major contributor to the success of the Blitzkrieg doctrine.
During the Battle for Britain the LW was forced to operate as a strategic airforce; something they were never designed for, and ill suited to do.
-
Hi Naudet,
>I cannot see were Bf109s, FW190s, HE111, JU87, JU88 & DOx17-Series where ever suited for strategical warfare, they simply lacked range and payload.
Well, Europe isn't that big :-) The bombers had the range to cover all adjacent countries, and the Bf 110 had been specially developed as long-range escort so the Luftwaffe appeared well prepared for strategical warfare.
The payload wasn't limited by tactical requirements but by the state of the technology.
The very long range bombing role was left vacant in the German arsenal due to the high cost. Its 1930's name "Uralbomber" indicates that it was not meant for Western Europe, and probably not considered necessary for Western Europe either.
Considering all twin-engined bombers "tactical" is the 1940s' USAAF language, but not the 1930s' reality.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Hi GScholz,
>The LW was designed around the principle of combined arms warfare.
Well, not really. The Luftwaffe was meant as weapons branch contributing to the victory in coordination with Heer and Marine.
That didn't meant they were focused on close support - in fact, the Luftwaffe doctrine actually considered battlefield interdiction much more effective than direct support in the combat zone.
Large-scale army support (including interdiction) was to be provided only after the enemy air force had been neutralized.
To clarify: The Luftwaffe was not a strategic air force in the sense that it was meant to win wars by the application of air power alone.
The Battle of Britain was a deviation from doctrine as just such an attempt was made. However, pre-war thinking had actually admitted the necessity for such a move if a stalemate on the ground was reached. The requirement for strengthening the Luftwaffe beyond its normal size was realized before the war, but could not be implemented in 1940.
Just as outlined by pre-war doctrine, the Luftwaffe's first action in the Battle of Britain was a serious of all-out strikes against the enemy air force to neutralize the opposition, followed by attacks on strategical targets to break the enemy's will to fight.
The switch from RAF airfields to the city of London was not a sudden change in tactics, but rather an integral element of aerial warfare according to the established Luftwaffe doctrine.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Hey, Scholzie, from you
"The LW was designed around the principle of combined arms warfare. The LW was meant to follow the army in the field moving from airfield to airfield (whom the LW ground personnel prepared). Close cooperation between the army and LW was a major contributor to the success of the Blitzkrieg doctrine.
During the Battle for Britain the LW was forced to operate as a strategic airforce; something they were never designed for, and ill suited to do."
So spot-on! Absolutely the nutshell. In the combined arms warfare, they were whooping. Mind you though that they were not exactly totally unique, - the French airforce was controlled by the army for instance, - but they never went offensive anyway.
However, regarding the BoB, they weren't that ill suited, - the channel is down to 30 km wide you see, and distance to target definately not more than in many places in Europe, say alone in N Africa and the eastern front.
So for that, I slightly disagree. I think the LW could perhaps have won the BoB by not making many of the mistakes they made, - however providing that the Brits would still have made all the mistakes they made.
But so it went. They met a determined opposition and got beaten in their effort of multiple goals, basically 4
1. Subdue English ports
2. Destroy the RAF
3. no. 2 and prep for invasion.
4. Force the British to surrender with intensive bombing.
-
And yet it was still considered obsolete even up to its last days.
What I am getting at is how did a plane with seemingly so little to offer in it's initial production become such a well respected and highly coveted fighter through it's career in WWII? Even with all of it's short comings?
[/B]
I might have missed something in your post :)
you imply that it was 'always' obsolete.
and that even initial versions 'offered little'
maybe i'm nitpicking here, but from your initial post I inferred that you considered the 109 to not have been a great fighter, from its initial debut up to the end of the war.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
The LW was designed around the principle of combined arms warfare. The LW was meant to follow the army in the field moving from airfield to airfield (whom the LW ground personnel prepared). Close cooperation between the army and LW was a major contributor to the success of the Blitzkrieg doctrine.
During the Battle for Britain the LW was forced to operate as a strategic airforce; something they were never designed for, and ill suited to do.
Show me that in writing will you....
The luftwaffe's primary mission was the destruction of the opposing air capability. It had no inherent combined arms philosophy. It was the only thru "airforce" at that time and had a completely seperate command structure specifically to eliminate any possibility of aviation assets being redirected away from the primary mission. The bombers were perfectly suited to attacks on enemy aviation. Now this is not the current thought of "stratigic bombing" a concept that didnt exist in the mid 30's accept in Doolittles mind. The Luftwaffe's vision of strategic bombing was the elimination of aviation assets and interdiction of supply & troop movement.
All that being said it obviously worked as needed (and was practical) with the german army...but the army had no control over luftwaffe assets.
"Luftwaffe Regulation 16, Luftkriegsführung (Conduct of Aerial War), directed that “the enemy air force is to be fought from the be-ginning of the war . . . . An offensive execution of the battle in the enemy’s territory is indispensable. The aerial battle will gain the initiative over the enemy.”9 Offensive action by bomber units was intended to destroy
enemy air units on the ground, simultaneously disrupting sortie generation and command and control. Fighter units would then hunt down units that were able to get airborne.10 Defense was not emphasized. In order
to avoid diluting the air offensive, defense was left to flak units. This offensive counterair (OCA) effort was concentrated in time to neutralize the opponent’s air force as quickly as possible."
The first Luftwaffe chief of the general staff, Gen Walther Wever, listed the need “to combat the enemy air force” among the Luftwaffe’s priority tasks.6 Prior to the Polish campaign, Gen Hans Jeschonnek, a later chief of staff, wrote that the most proper and essential task is the battle against the enemy air force, and it must be executed vigorously and at all costs. The second task, the support of the army, in the first days of the war cannot claim the same level of importance.
. . . What may be achieved in the first two days by using one’s own air force against an opposing army does not compare with the damage an enemy air force may inflict if it remains battleworthy."
"
-
Germany's airwar visionary during this period was Walther Wever, head of the Luftwaffe until his death in 1936. Wever studied Douhet's teachings but believed that a broadly based air strategy was superior to "strategic" bombing, [18] and he argued that the air force should complement the army and navy.[19] his death left the Luftwaffe with less capable men in charge. Nonetheless, the doctrine governing Luftwaffe air power was formulated by Wever before he died. Fundamentally, the three military services were to co-operate in order to achieve the foremost goal of any war, that of destroying the enemy armed forces. "It is the task of the air force in leading the war in the air within the wider framework of the whole war to serve this goal." [20] More specifically, Luftwaffendienstvorschrift 16: Luftkriegsführung (Luftwaffe Service Regulation l6: Conduct of the Air War) laid down three points: (l) subjugation of the enemy air force in order to achieve and maintain air superiority; (2) support of the army and navy; (3) attack against the enemy industry.[21]
These three points implied that the Luftwaffe should destroy the enemy air force over its own territory, if possible when it was still on the ground. For good measure aircraft factories ground installations, and air fields were also to be bombed. Secondly, support of the army was critical. Bombers were to clear the way for tanks and infantry by destroying depots, harassing enemy troops, and disrupting communications. Already, Luftwaffendienstvorschrift 16 hinted at the future subordination of the Luftwaffe to the Army. Once these two primary tasks had been accomplished, airplanes were to bomb production centers, food supplies, railroads, ports, traffic centers, military recruiting centers, and Government administrative centers.[22]
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v07/v07p133_Oppenheimer.html#ftnref19
-
Continued...
The Polish Campaign (1 September - 27 September 1939)
In many ways, the Polish campaign justified the principles which had been enumerated and developed in Spain. The first of these principles was the concentration of all available effort on one task at a time. The second principle was the elimination of any obstacle that might hamper the movement of the ground forces.[102] The German Air Staff planned the military operations against Poland, Fall Weiß (Case White), largely according to these principles, and was rewarded with a spectacular success.
The strategy and tactics applied in Poland to implement the two principles elucidated above were taken from Condor Legion experience in Spain. Basically, the Luftwaffe supported infantry, and mechanized armor units, clearing the path of obstacles and seeking to achieve air superiority. The Polish Campaign demonstrated the efficacy of the lessons learned in Spain: close ground support tactics, air transport, and dive bombing. The Polish Campaign also provided the first opportunity to combine the full might of the Army and the Luftwaffe. Blitzkrieg (lightning war), as this new type of warfare was termed, was the close cooperation between tactical air and mechanized ground formations to penetrate deeply and rapidly into enemy territory.[103] The basic elements of Blitzkrieg had been developed in Spain. In Poland, they were fully implemented for the first time.
-
I]The first Luftwaffe chief of the general staff, Gen Walther Wever, listed the need “to combat the enemy air force” among the Luftwaffe’s priority tasks.6 Prior to the Polish campaign, Gen Hans Jeschonnek, a later chief of staff, wrote that the most proper and essential task is the battle against the enemy air force, and it must be executed vigorously and at all costs. The second task, the support of the army, in the first days of the war cannot claim the same level of importance.[/I]
The support of the Army was NOT a luftwaffe priority at the beginning of the attack on poland. In fact the luftwaffe only had a single ground support plane (the JU-87) during the course of the entire war.
The first of these principles was the concentration of all available effort on one task at a time. The second principle was the elimination of any obstacle that might hamper the movement of the ground forces
This is a false statement, the luftwaffe was never focused on ground support as its primary focus during the initial stages of the war.
1 The Luftwaffe was organized, equipped, and successfully employed to gain air superiority in short-offensive campaigns. This impressive offensive air strategy featured all-out independent operations against opposing air forces as the means to achieve air superiority
To the German airmen, it was widely accepted that defeat of the enemy air force was the best means to attain this all-important goal of air superiority.
From the opening minutes of a campaign, German air units focused the bulk of their efforts on the destruction of the enemy air force
This offensive counterair (OCA) effort was concentrated in time to neutralize the opponent’s air force as quickly as possible.
More significantly, the Luftflotten were commanded by airmen, free from the army chain of command. This independence enabled the Luftwaffe to minimize diversions in support of secondary
http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/andrews.pdf
This is pretty typical of modern thinking by military historians on this topic...
-
Originally posted by humble
The support of the Army was NOT a luftwaffe priority at the beginning of the attack on poland.
Air superiority is always a priority, but this is by no means the only purpose of an airforce. Once air superiority is established (note: air superiority is not the same as air dominance), the air force is free to to operate in the best deemed way to achieve victory.
Originally posted by humble
In fact the luftwaffe only had a single ground support plane (the JU-87) during the course of the entire war.
Ummm ... no.
Ju87
Hs123
Hs126
Hs129
Fw189
Fw190F
Fi156
Fi256
Ka430
Go242
Go244
Me321
Me323
These were all planes designed to assist the army in attack and/or support roles, and I'm sure I've missed some.
Originally posted by humble
The first of these principles was the concentration of all available effort on one task at a time. The second principle was the elimination of any obstacle that might hamper the movement of the ground forces
This is a false statement, the luftwaffe was never focused on ground support as its primary focus during the initial stages of the war.[/B]
Nor does that sentence state that. The LW would, if possible, focus on one task at a time. First counter-air operations. Second battlefield interdiction and support.
-
Originally posted by spitfiremkv
I might have missed something in your post :)
you imply that it was 'always' obsolete.
and that even initial versions 'offered little'
maybe i'm nitpicking here, but from your initial post I inferred that you considered the 109 to not have been a great fighter, from its initial debut up to the end of the war.
I can see your point. I was a little vague in my first post so I tried to clear it up in my second. When I said "offered little" I meant it as not having alot of room for further developement. That's why I tried to focus my intention in my second post, the one I quoted earlier.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Air superiority is always a priority, but this is by no means the only purpose of an airforce. Once air superiority is established (note: air superiority is not the same as air dominance), the air force is free to to operate in the best deemed way to achieve victory.
Ummm ... no.
Ju87
Hs123
Hs126
Hs129
Fw189
Fw190F
Fi156
Fi256
Ka430
Go242
Go244
Me321
Me323
These were all planes designed to assist the army in attack and/or support roles, and I'm sure I've missed some.
Nor does that sentence state that. The LW would, if possible, focus on one task at a time. First counter-air operations. Second battlefield interdiction and support.
Once again I'm utterly amazed...
The Hs123 was replaced by the Ju87. 126 was was an offshoot used as a recon plane primarily...
The Hs 129 was only real attack aircraft and it was romanian...not german.
The rest are transports gliders etc....except for the 190F...which is simply a fighter modified for the ground support roll. Not a plane designed for the task. The stuka was obsolite in 1940 but the germans never developed a true gorund attack plane to replace it...tells you just how important they thought ground support was.
-
Actually no airforce was further from functioning as a combined arms force. Simply looking at its inventory of planes establishes that fact.
In reality the 110 is the single best "JABO" plane the luftwaffe has although it was originally designed as a "heavy fighter" not a ground attack plane. At no time in any way was any plane except the Ju-87 designed with ground attack capability in mind...let alone as a primary focus.
Lets compare this to the "real" combined arms "airforce"...the US army air corps. This was truely an extension of the US Army. Many planes (the P-39 is a good example) were dramatically altered to better suit there "real job" of supporting ground troops. Others (The P51) started as attack aircraft (A-36) and were reworked as needed. Regardless of any planes role it was designed to have a strong ground support capability. In fact as the war progressed interceptors like the P-38 and P-47 transitioned seemlessly from their original role to a ground support function.
I've found this to be a fun diversion for a few days. The reality is that facts & history wont stand in the face of fantasy here so I dont see any reason to keep batting the ball around.
Best wishes to all ....
-
The Hs 129 was only real attack aircraft and it was romanian...not german.
WRONG
Henchel is a German a/c manufacturer and the design was developed to a German spec for a ground assualt a/c issued in April 1937 from experience in the SCW. The prototype flying in May 1939. The BV141 was designed to the same spec.
The prototype was constructed at the Henchel factory at Schonefeld, near Berlin.
The Romanian Hs129s came from German production.
Others (The P51) started as attack aircraft (A-36) and were reworked as needed.
The A-36 was developed from the P-51, not the other way around. The P-51 had been in production for a year before the A-36 came along. The A-36 did not see combat until April 1943. The British flying the first P-51(Mustang I) mission in May 1942.
-
(http://www.hostedimage.com/usr/770/hijacked.gif)
-
Thank god.
-
Nice input Kegger, I'm sure that is the best you can do. Now go back to some of your PXX worship threads.
It was good as long as it lasted on topic Diablo. Sorry for HJ on my part.
-C+
-
Originally posted by Charge
Nice input Kegger, I'm sure that is the best you can do. Now go back to some of your PXX worship threads.
It was good as long as it lasted on topic Diablo. Sorry for HJ on my part.
-C+
Someone got up on the wrong side of the bed this morning. And in the words of the the Eagles, Get over it.
-Keg
-
"Get over it."- "And don't stumble as you may get your mouth full of it." The Mighty Rubber Ducks.
NP, just tired of fan boys pouring smart remarks on treads they have not participated.
:)
-C+
-
Originally posted by Charge
"Get over it."- "And don't stumble as you may get your mouth full of it." The Mighty Rubber Ducks.
NP, just tired of fan boys pouring smart remarks on treads they have not participated.
:)
-C+
Hardly a fan boy. :)
-Keg.
-
Hi Charge,
>It was good as long as it lasted on topic Diablo. Sorry for HJ on my part.
Not your fault, really.
In fact, the digression highlighted accurately why the Me 109 has such a bad reputation - not because of any fault of the aircraft itself, but just because the Luftwaffe lost the air war.
When reasons for the defeat are sought, what is more natural than to blame the aircraft?
(Not that the Luftwaffe pilots ever saw it that way.)
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Originally posted by Charge
"Get over it."- "And don't stumble as you may get your mouth full of it." The Mighty Rubber Ducks.
NP, just tired of fan boys pouring smart remarks on treads they have not participated.
:)
-C+
More like spammers than f-boys.
-
Humble is going back on ignore. Simply not worth the effort.
-
Humble you really have a shown a great deal of simple factual ignorance in your last few posts especially about simple and obvious things such as the orgin of the P51 or the Hs129.. But hey if it doesnt have be true if it matches your preset views...
Then I must mention your amazing contradictions like prasing the P47 and P38 for their "seamless transition" to ground attack while deriding the Fw190F as some half hearyted attempt at ground support as evdience of US superioroty in ground support ideology..
:rofl
-
So, let's skip Humble while he reads up shall we?
Anyway, since this thread has been half-way hijacked into BoB and Spits and god know's what, I'll start a BoB-Spit-109-Dunkirk whatever thread elsewhere, so this may carry on uninterrupted
-
It was never my intention to have a flame war (again) using the 109. All I was trying to do was illustrate my admiration for an airplane that seemingly had so little to offer in terms of improvement from it's initial form.
May this thread die in peace.
(http://www.flightjournal.com/fj/images/plane_profiles/me109/me109_03lg.jpg)
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Humble you really have a shown a great deal of simple factual ignorance in your last few posts especially about simple and obvious things such as the orgin of the P51 or the Hs129.. But hey if it doesnt have be true if it matches your preset views...
Then I must mention your amazing contradictions like prasing the P47 and P38 for their "seamless transition" to ground attack while deriding the Fw190F as some half hearyted attempt at ground support as evdience of US superioroty in ground support ideology..
:rofl
Sigh....
The NA-73X Was tested in Oct 1940, The A-36 was also ordered in 1940. But yes, the allison engined P-51 was ordered 1st...my bad.
Realistically a somewhat trivial point....but obviously alot more important than something like the fact that 853 HS129s were built all all were in romanian service...none with the luftwaffe.
As for the 190F8 vs US anything...look at the ordinance loadouts and tell me they compare:).
Considering the factual ignorance preceeding me here I'm doing pretty well:)
-
Originally posted by humble
Sigh....
The NA-73X Was tested in Oct 1940, The A-36 was also ordered in 1940. But yes, the allison engined P-51 was ordered 1st...my bad.
Realistically a somewhat trivial point....but obviously alot more important than something like the fact that 853 HS129s were built all all were in romanian service...none with the luftwaffe.
As for the 190F8 vs US anything...look at the ordinance loadouts and tell me they compare:).
Considering the factual ignorance preceeding me here I'm doing pretty well:)
You really are that ignorant, and for a moment I thought you were just kidding...
(http://www.luftwaffepics.com/LCBW/Hs129-4s.jpg)
(http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/LRG/images/hs129-3.jpg)
to thpose brave rumanian pilots in the LW! Especially that poor guy who had to fly LW marked Hs129 in north africa in the second pic... Of course now you will say these were the only 2 or 3 HS129 in LW service or some such desperate nonsense...
:rolleyes:
As for the 190F there are tons more ord options for it that are not in AH. Then there was also the G series light bombers with yet more options. You really have no clue. And your bias is ridiculus, you praise high alt interceptors/fighters like P47 for their adaptability to attack ground targets as evidence of US support ideolgy while yoiu deride the Me110 for doing the same thing, eing adaptable from escort/intercept to ground attackl as evidence of poor LW ideolgy. And then of course there were the Me210/410 built with ground attack as a possible mission from the start. Or the Ju88 with its emphasis on divebombing as many LW bombers had from the design stage. Why, because dive bombing was useful for precision strikes ahead of the ionfantry. Or even the whole blitzkried doctorine which demanded cooperation of air and land arms as one of the main iideas and so on and so on...
You are just plain ignorant and biased and it's really showing...
-
Originally posted by humble
Sigh....
The NA-73X Was tested in Oct 1940, The A-36 was also ordered in 1940. But yes, the allison engined P-51 was ordered 1st...my bad.
Realistically a somewhat trivial point....but obviously alot more important than something like the fact that 853 HS129s were built all all were in romanian service...none with the luftwaffe.
As for the 190F8 vs US anything...look at the ordinance loadouts and tell me they compare:).
Considering the factual ignorance preceeding me here I'm doing pretty well:)
OMFG, humble.:rolleyes:
The Romanians received between 200 and 250 Hs 129s out of the production of ~1160.
Here is a cheap ($$$) book you should buy to increase your knowledge on the Hs129. In it are the W.Nr. Lots of pics of German Hs 129s and what units.
(http://www.squadron.com/images/large/SS1176.jpg)
More bs humble.
On April 16, 1942 , the Army finally ordered 500 NA-97s. The NA-97 was a ground attack version and was designated A-36A. Serial numbers were 42-83663/84162.
GRUNHERZ, has already answered on the Fw190F.
Keep digging humble, that hole you are digging is getting deeper.
Doing well? :D :D You just blew any credibility that you had with the bs, considering it is basic info, in your last 2 posts.
-
The engines were French right?
And flight performance something in the neighbourhood of a brick?
Durability good, ordnance and firepower EVIL, mostly used on the eastern front, such as KURSK.
Now, can we get back to 109 stuff ;)
-
Yes the engines were French. The Hs129 was kind of like a cross between a Beaufighter and an Il-2.
-
Originally posted by HoHun
If the Luftwaffe had flown Spitfires, they would have lost the Battle just the same.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
Indeed it wouldn`t give them any advantage, in fact it would only make the situation worser. 1940 Spits lacked a LOT of things that contributed to the 109s success over europe . They didn`t have the altitude performance. They didn`t have working cannons. They didn`t have any pilot armor. They didn`t have a single lever engine control. Many still flew with two pitch propellors. Roll rate was absolutely horrible at speed, quick dives an impossibility because of R-R couldn`t design a negative G carburrator, even in 1943 it was a problem.. what is probably even more important from tactical factors, the Merlin consumed more fuel and the Spit`s tank was slightly smaller, unarmored, and as it initially designed as even self sealing, it was more prone to damage even after s-s tanks were introduced. The placement of the fuel tank was rather awkward imho, pretty good chance of making the pilot soaking wet of fuel if it was holed.. range wasn`t any better than the Emil, while endurance even worser. Funny that if you swap the two fighters, the british would benefit, they would have the 109 which HAD the thing they missed the most in `40 : effective cannon armament to take down bombers.
-
Cough, Izzy.
The LW lost almost 1700 aircraft in the space of 4 odd months, there from some 1200 aircraft to the RAF pilots, in 99% cases or so armed only with .303.
Those were the scores, but on to performance.
They lacked altitude performance to the DB at the time, that is correct, and that was the case untill 1942 or so.
Roll rate was absolutely horrible at top speeds for both the 109 and the Spitfire, with little to choose between, - however the Hurricane rolled nicely.
BTW, the horrible 8 seconds often quoted occurs well over the Spitfires max speed, where the 109 is also pretty much stuck.
Now on to the bunt. My great uncle was flapping around with a neg-G carburettor in 1941, so I do not know where you have your 1943 figure from. Anyway, bunting is an evasive maneuver and was used with some success by the 109 pilots since turning and rolling didn't get them out.
But don't bunt at too high speed, for -3G could be the max. And, - while gaining distance, altitude will be lost.
Then on to the fuel tank. The Spit I and the Hurry BTW had more than one, I presume you refer to the header tank, which IMHO is a rather bad thing. So I agree.
Same with cannons, I agree.
-
Originally posted by Kurfürst
Indeed it wouldn`t give them any advantage, in fact it would only make the situation worser. 1940 Spits lacked a LOT of things that contributed to the 109s success over europe . They didn`t have the altitude performance. They didn`t have working cannons. They didn`t have any pilot armor. They didn`t have a single lever engine control. Many still flew with two pitch propellors. Roll rate was absolutely horrible at speed, quick dives an impossibility because of R-R couldn`t design a negative G carburrator, even in 1943 it was a problem.. what is probably even more important from tactical factors, the Merlin consumed more fuel and the Spit`s tank was slightly smaller, unarmored, and as it initially designed as even self sealing, it was more prone to damage even after s-s tanks were introduced. The placement of the fuel tank was rather awkward imho, pretty good chance of making the pilot soaking wet of fuel if it was holed.. range wasn`t any better than the Emil, while endurance even worser. Funny that if you swap the two fighters, the british would benefit, they would have the 109 which HAD the thing they missed the most in `40 : effective cannon armament to take down bombers.
You read to much Goebbels.
-
LOL, Barbi complains about the myths of the 109, yet he has his own myths about the Spit. :rolleyes:
The BoB Spits had 70lbs of armour in front and behind the pilot. Most 109s shot down examined during BoB were devoid of armour protection.
What he also forgets that a mixture lever allows the pilot to lean down the mixture and thus increase the a/c's range. With the 109, not possible.
Spit/109 facts
service ceiling: 37,400'/35,200'
operational ceiling: 34,000'/31,900'
time to OC: 21'33"/21'23"
time to 30kft: 15'42"/17'12"
time to 25kft: 11'33"/11'39"
Speed
@ SL equal
@5kft equal
@15kft Spit +4mph
@ 20kft Spit +8mph
@ 25kft Spit +12mph
The Spit had the capability of mounting 30gal wing tanks from 21--5-40 (#233).
-
Your Spit figures are from what Spitfire and from what 109?
I have studied this rather much, and come to the conclusions that the 109 was generally in a given timeframe SLIGHTLY faster, while the Spitfire was better off in climb and turn, as well as making high G turns and banking climb MUCH better.
Now, Izzy is always focused on the 109's range, again it seems to be really similar while range in time seems to favour the Spit.
(Various anecdotes as well as drop-tankless operation radius).
When it comes to high alt performance, one must bear in mind that a BoB Spit was not just one sort, there were all things from 2 bladed props on 87 oct running engines up to 100 octs and a CS prop, and there were many 109 categories in the air also.
The best of the BoB Spits should be able to outperform the bulk of the 109's, the Spit II's also at high alt.
The sorriest Spits get the other end if you see what I mean.
Hehe, the killer of BoB could have been the Hurry IIC had it been there in time. Quad Hizooka is something else than them riflebullets. But, the guns were apparently not reliable enough.
-
What he also forgets that a mixture lever allows the pilot to lean down the mixture and thus increase the a/c's range. With the 109, not possible.
I am sure you are all aware that both the 109 and the 190 had full manual control of all normal engine functions.
The difference is the 109 had the standard VDM automatic propeller control system linked to a manifold pressure regulator. It was set on the ground and did not adjust for realtime conditions. At "x" manifold pressure the prop would adjust to "y" rpm.
This same system was a subcomponent of the 190's Kommandogerat which integrated it into the rest of the engine function along with airspeed and barometric conditions.
Both systems could be switched to full manual control. However this was not recommended in the Fluzeug-Handbuchs.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Angus
Cough, Izzy.
The LW lost almost 1700 aircraft in the space of 4 odd months, there from some 1200 aircraft to the RAF pilots, in 99% cases or so armed only with .303.
[/B]
Hmm, the RAF written down some 1600 fighters if I recall correctly from 'Fighters', which gives some idea about the damage done by cannons - many airframes that could even return to base had to be written off. Otoh, the fact how many planes were lost to damage isn`t as telling as how many could return to base despite full magazines were emptied into them... and there were a LOT. .303s weren`t damaging enough, they couldn`t penetrate pilot/crew armor, effect on the airframe was negligalbe. btw, tony has just posted some numbers on that, a large percentage of rifle caliber rounds 'lost' when just passing through a blenheim`s airframe, w/o hitting any amor... again in 'fighters' there are several examples early in the battle an entire flight of Spitfires firing the entire ammo load into a single Dornier which got away despite of that. Griehl has a photo of a He 111 that was holed by over 1000 (!!) .303s and still returned to base with the crew alive - had to be written off, but still.. there are escaped 109s with 300+ holes from .303s, and Moelders wouldn`t give hell to Hurris in October if Malan had something bigger than just the peashooters.
They lacked altitude performance to the DB at the time, that is correct, and that was the case untill 1942 or so.
yep.
Roll rate was absolutely horrible at top speeds for both the 109 and the Spitfire, with little to choose between, - however the Hurricane rolled nicely. BTW, the horrible 8 seconds often quoted occurs well over the Spitfires max speed, where the 109 is also pretty much stuck.
i am too lazy to look up the report on ring`s site, but it doesn`t give too good scores to the hurri for rolls either. The spits problem was duplex, too high stickforces, and the ailerons ballooning at high speed. the latter was solved after bob, but a recent article of a restored Emil notes that it had some 50% higher roll rate than even the spit5 with metal ailerons. At high speed the peak roll was indeed very much the same, but the spit`s stikforces were more uncomfortable.
Now on to the bunt. My great uncle was flapping around with a neg-G carburettor in 1941, so I do not know where you have your 1943 figure from.
From an 1943 report on the Griffon engined Spit XIIs that still had this problem for some time.
Anyway, bunting is an evasive maneuver and was used with some success by the 109 pilots since turning and rolling didn't get them out.
But don't bunt at too high speed, for -3G could be the max. And, - while gaining distance, altitude will be lost.
The point is that every time a 109 pilot was stupid enough to convinently boom and zoom the hurris, he got another chance just because of this technical fault of the Merlins - a sure kill lost for an RAF pilot.. almost unfair, undeserved advantage.
-
Oh, Izzy, you still have digestional problems about the outcome of the BoB.
The finest and BTW rather LW friendly figures I have is from loss reports, the LW loses rough 1200 aircraft DIRECTLY to RAF guns with some 500 for BoB related reasons, totalling with 1700 aircraft in a 4 months period.
The RAF BoB related figure goes with about 800.
Scrapping, cannibalizing etc of both sides is NOT included, and LW landing accidents aren't either. (Which is quite a figure)
I can post the breakdown and source. It is from 20 years of work actually!!!
I will then post it in the Dunkirk/BoB thread.
Anyway, I have some stuff about the 109 slats incoming, that's why I looked in.
All the best
Angus
-
Angus, Barbi is so funny.
He mentions the odd a/c that returned full of holes but FORGETS the 100s that did not return. He really is too much.
Also he forgets that those a/c have to be fixed and given a complete checkout for any hiden damage before they can go on another op.
His selective, or is that faulty memory ;), forgets that RAF fighters increased in numbers while LW decreased in numbers during BoB.
BoF
Number Type On-hand Svcble
45 2/3 Kampfgruppen 1607 1093
10 Stukagruppen 378 316
1 Schlachtgruppe 49 38
29 Jagdgruppen 1266 897
10 1/3 Zerstörergruppen 319 219
BoB, 13 Aug
Number Type Strength Svcble
42 1/3 Kampfgruppen 1482 1008
9 Stukagruppen 365 286
1 Schlachtgruppe 39 31
26 Jagdgruppen 976 853
9 Zerstrergruppen 244 189
3 Nachtjagdgruppen 91 59
14 Seefliegerstaffeln 240 125
BoB, 7 Sept
Strength Summary
Number Type Strength Svcble
43 Kampfgruppen 1291 798
4 Stukagruppen 174 133
2 Schlachtgruppe 59 44
27 Jagdgruppen 831 658
8 Zerstörergruppen 206 112
18 Fernaufklärungsstaffeln 191 123
6 Seefliegerstaffeln 52 33
-
Nice breakdown Milo.
Could you mail some of that stuff to me?
info@gardsauki.is
or burns@isholf.is
Thanks anyway :)
-
Originally posted by Kurfürst
From an 1943 report on the Griffon engined Spit XIIs that still had this problem for some time.
Just to clarify, the first Spit XIIs that arrived at 41 in February 43 did not have the modified carburator. This was quickly rectified before they moved back to Hawkinge on Ops while 91 squadron transitioned to the XII.
To state they had the problem for some time is not accurate.
It does not indicate that the rest of the fighter command Spits were suffering from the problem.
Dan/Slack
-
Originally posted by MiloMorai
Angus, Barbi is so funny.
He mentions the odd a/c that returned full of holes but FORGETS the 100s that did not return. He really is too much.
I'm not sure what u guys are arguing about but waht u mention strikes me as pretty standard for how people try to promote the toughness of thier favorite planes...
-
Not only was the 109 among the most produced and longest lived WWII fighters, it now is among the most viewed and longest lived threads in Aces High.
-
AMEN :D
-
Originally posted by humble
I]The first Luftwaffe chief of the general staff, Gen Walther Wever, listed the need “to combat the enemy air force” among the Luftwaffe’s priority tasks.6 Prior to the Polish campaign, Gen Hans Jeschonnek, a later chief of staff, wrote that the most proper and essential task is the battle against the enemy air force, and it must be executed vigorously and at all costs. The second task, the support of the army, in the first days of the war cannot claim the same level of importance.[/I]
The support of the Army was NOT a luftwaffe priority at the beginning of the attack on poland. In fact the luftwaffe only had a single ground support plane (the JU-87) during the course of the entire war.
They had more than one ground support aircraft, they also had
the HS-123 dive bomber. If memory serves correctly none other
than Adolf Galland served in this type during the Polish campaign.
-
Milo, in later Merlins and Griffons manual leaning was not possible as the mixture was either OFF (no fuel flow) or ON (fuel flows but not adjustable by pilot).
Basically, advantages of manual mixture control is not worth the disadvantages in fighters.
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
I am sure you are all aware that both the 109 and the 190 had full manual control of all normal engine functions.
The difference is the 109 had the standard VDM automatic propeller control system linked to a manifold pressure regulator. It was set on the ground and did not adjust for realtime conditions. At "x" manifold pressure the prop would adjust to "y" rpm.
This same system was a subcomponent of the 190's Kommandogerat which integrated it into the rest of the engine function along with airspeed and barometric conditions.
Both systems could be switched to full manual control. However this was not recommended in the Fluzeug-Handbuchs.
All the best,
Crumpp
Crumpp, at least on the 109G there was no manual mixture control expect for stopping the engine. I don´t see that as a problem. Later Merlins and Griffons adopted the same principle. For some reason Americans kept putting 4-position mixture controls on their fighters even in 1945. Though e.g. the Hellcat is a favorite of mine, I have no envy for the pilot who has 8 engine related controls (throttle, prop, blower gear change, mixture, carb air inlet, oil cooler doors, cowl flaps and intercooler flaps) to manipulate in flight!
-
Crumpp, at least on the 109G there was no manual mixture control expect for stopping the engine. I don´t see that as a problem. Later Merlins and Griffons adopted the same principle. For some reason Americans kept putting 4-position mixture controls on their fighters even in 1945. Though e.g. the Hellcat is a favorite of mine, I have no envy for the pilot who has 8 engine related controls (throttle, prop, blower gear change, mixture, carb air inlet, oil cooler doors, cowl flaps and intercooler flaps) to manipulate in flight!
Your absolutely correct. My point was only that the VDM automatic prop and manifold pressure were not the same level of detail or efficiency as the Kommandogerat.
The VDM system certainly did however cut down on the pilots work load in relation to many fighter aircraft of the day.
The Bf-109 manual does warn the pilot to switch to manual control when diving form all out level cruise as the automatic control does not react fast enough to prevent over-reving the motor. It also warns the pilot to constantly check his clock style pitch indicator to ensure it is working.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
Your absolutely correct. My point was only that the VDM automatic prop and manifold pressure were not the same level of detail or efficiency as the Kommandogerat.
[/B]
I doubt you know the 109`s kommandogereat very well... your previous post demonstates it very well... a automatic/CS propellor not taking into account airspeed, just MAP ? Hello? Anybody at home, did you even think b4 typing this?
The 109`s automatism performed the exact same functions as the 190`s, the difference being that the 109`s was a mechanic solution, whereas the 190`s was electro-mechanic - and thus more elegant, modern, but the functionality is the same.
The Bf-109 manual does warn the pilot to switch to manual control when diving form all out level cruise as the automatic control does not react fast enough to prevent over-reving the motor.[/B]
In fact it says the exact opposite, which also makes sense... A pilot would find hard to adjust rpm in dive using the thumb switch.
It also warns the pilot to constantly check his clock style pitch indicator to ensure it is working.[/B]
Can you show this part about 'constant checking' or make a reference to it? Besides - that pitch indicator was usual thing in almost all German planes, just as in the FW 190.
-
I think Crumpp assumed that everybody would know this (that airspeed affects prop pitch)! BTW, which factors determined the mixture ratio in the DB 605? I know them, just a test. BTW, don´t use any refs, just your memory.
-
doubt you know the 109`s kommandogereat very well.
The 109 does not have a kommandgerat, Barbi. It has the VDM automatic propeller and manifold pressure regulator, both SUBCOMPONENTS of the FW-190's Kommandogerat.
See the Ladedruckreglar:
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1110136450_bmwkommandogeraet.jpg)
The 109`s automatism performed the exact same functions as the 190`s, the difference being that the 109`s was a mechanic solution, whereas the 190`s was electro-mechanic - and thus more elegant, modern, but the functionality is the same.
Not even close. The 190's system did it all in real time adjusting the engine per real time conditions for optimal efficiency. It really is a marvel of engineering. If you make it to the museum, you can check out a real one yourself and compare it to the 109's system in the shop.
http://www.white1foundation.org/parts/kommandogerat1.jpg
http://www.white1foundation.org/parts/kommandogerat2.jpg
The 109's was adjusted on the ground and it's output was table based as per it's ground adjustment.
In fact it says the exact opposite,
You are correct and I misread it. It warns that when you dive to be careful as you will be dangerously close to over-revving the engine.
Manual must be used when:
When flying at economy cruise manual settings must be used. If you are going to dive then you must switch back to automatic.
Flying a 0 pitch (descent setting) or if the governor fails.
Can you show this part about 'constant checking' or make a reference to it? Besides - that pitch indicator was usual thing in almost all German planes, just as in the FW 190.
You are right it is a standard instrument. The warning is in the take off run up portion and mentioned several times throughout the manual Barbi.
Your 109 paranoia is evident here. All pilots constantly check their instruments to ensure they are working. Only you would take it as slight!
I thought you had me on the ignore list? You made it, please use it.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by pasoleati
I think Crumpp assumed that everybody would know this (that airspeed affects prop pitch)! BTW, which factors determined the mixture ratio in the DB 605? I know them, just a test. BTW, don´t use any refs, just your memory.
iirc boost, outside temperature and atmoshperic pressure. I`ll look it up now. The whole mixture system was fully automatic, no manual override at all, single lever operated!
Maybe crumpp can list us what functions could not the 109`s single lever system handle what the 190`s could.. ;) He seems to think that BMW`s kommandogereat was some early form of an artificial intelligence, not even needing any adjustment just thinking them out on it`s own. :D
-
He seems to think that BMW`s kommandogereat was some early form of an artificial intelligence, not even needing any adjustment just thinking them out on it`s own.
Feel free to fantasize and make things up as you go.
Maybe Barbi you should read the following report on an early Kommandogerat and see for yourself.
http://naca.larc.nasa.gov/reports/1945/naca-wr-e-192/
It was a lot more than mixture settings or the simple manifold pressure combined with VDM automatic prop of the 109 series.
The major difference is real time adjustment for the current conditions all combined into one control box. In other words the systems balances itself to optimal conditions under real time. Not just one system functioning independantly of another. Something the 109's did not have at all.
And yes, it is an engineering marvel.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Crumpp it is just plain obvious that you don`t know how the 109`s engine control system worked at all, you just automatically assume that it was totally inferior to the BMW kommandogereat... as usual, you make your fantasies and then repeat them.
Last chance, crumpp : what engine functions did the system on the 109 controlled ? If you can`t answer, that`s an answer by itself : you have no idea.
-
Barbi,
The DB605 series did posses many of the same functions.
In the DB series all of these "automatic" functions worked independantly, each regulating it's piece of the pie.
The Kommandogerat of the 801 series tied them all together so that each system could be balanced off the others to achieve optimum performance. ALL of these were done in real time.
Notice all that stuff connecting everything together in the diagram?
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Shut up Kurfürst. You working too hard on making the 109 the stunninghunk-ride of Aces High.
-
Crumppy,
just keeping repeating that the BMW 801 could do it in real time, and automatically assuming that the DB 605s was entirely different, and repeating that again isn`t any convincing.
You couldn`t answer my question.
Would you please list your references on which you based your statements regarding the 109`s single level control operation methods?
Is there any?
-
I think Crumpp was wasting his time with his answers, for what I can see they are pretty solid.
Now go and browse the Zundersite Barbi.
Goodnight :D
-
Angie, it`s already bedtime, you still up? Leave now and let the adults discuss things seriously, you are not grown up enough yet to participate in such. :D
-
It may be bedtime for you Izzy, but an Angus is a rather waking creature.
Pity that there are people in my computer room, ooops.
Go to sleep yourself little girl, for the clocks in Hungary are not set the same as in Iceland :D
-
P.S.
Can you please put my name on your ignore list in bold?
TY in advance :D
-
Schwarze man said this in the LEMB:
Further to the Kommandogerate question. No, the 213 had full automatic engine and propellor control which was far better than the BMW KG system. The BMW system was not the be all/ end all that is portrayed! It suffered from design weaknesses and was an over-complex system which was out-performed by the less complex systems of DB and Jumo!! The Jumo 213 had a single-lever power control with automatic propellor. AFAIK it worked better than the BMW system. You can look it up on the NACA history site!
-
Accoding to Gosshawk (Yellow 10) and Bendix, the 213's KG and the BMW KG were the same thing made by the same company (Bendix). The one that rebuilt ours at White 1.
Now it was very much improved over the 1942 version that the NACA tested. The design was constantly improved upon and the KG found in the FW-190A8 is not the same KG as found in the FW-190A3.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
That`s Meyer, thanks for posting. Crumpp, you should really take this post into account, schwarze mann is the one responisble for the restored G-10`s engine of the Mtt Stiftung.. he knows his way around old engines.
Btw, what was the difference between the early and late KG systems, the NACA report and also the USN notes things like malfunctioning due to loosing oil pressure. Were only the child diseases cured, or there were other changes as well?
-
Accoding to Gosshawk (Yellow 10) and Bendix, the 213's KG and the BMW KG were the same thing made by the same company (Bendix). The one that rebuilt ours at White 1.
Do you understand that the company that built the KG states they are the exact same thing?
If Schwarzeman works for Motobende then I know of him.
http://www.motobende.de/
The KG was constantly improved upon. After Kurt Tank had a 190 get thrown into a spin at the top of a loop because the KG changed supercharger gearing violently at low speed, he told BMW to get it right or get it out.
The KG that goes on the 213 is the exact same device as is found on the FW-190A8/A9. Only difference is the mechanical interface vs hydraulic switches. In fact the hydraulic switches were developed for the FW-190A10 program that eliminated the electrical motors for hydraulics.
The DB system is not the same thing. It did not tie everything together under one engine management system. Some of its subcomponents performed similar function independently of each other. Many of those subcomponents are the same exact parts that can be found in the Kommandogerat.
Crumpp
-
Crumpp, what are you using as a reference for the engine management systen of the DB ?
-
DB system worked OK and it did provide single lever control like the KG did. There is no reason to argue on details here as their meaning is nil.
DB´s greatest fault lies in its poor overspeed limit, i.e. the difference between max usable rpm (i.e. Start-und-Notleistung) and max allowed rpm, 2856 rpm. That is only 2 %, when e.g. the Merlin was cleared for 20% overspeeding (3000 rpm TO/3600 rpm max allowed). This coupled with VDM prop´s slow pitch changing, no good.
Kurfurst, DB mixture control senses atmospherical pressure, manifold pressure and manifold air temperature (not outside air temp).
-
So, it the DB had a poor overspeed limit and the propellor was slow to adjust they probabaly broke up many engines with that kind of combination?
-C+
-
Never heard that happening. Somewhere I read the VDM prop automatism was quite satisfactory in limiting the RPM, and as for the Merlins overspeed limit, the Spit II manual is the only one mentioning such high rpm of 3600, but its noted that it tolerates it for 20 secs only. http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/spit1pn2-a.jpg
The Merlin equipped P-51D`s flight manual by the USAAF notes on page 65 :
"The maximum diving engine overspeed is 3300 rpm"
and
"Overspeed between 3300 and 3600 rpm neccessiates an inspection of the engine before further flight. If rpm exceeds 3600 rpm, the engine must be removed for overhaul."
Appearantly R-R was willing to take more risks when authrozing max. limits of the engine than DB.
-
Well that would explain why fuel consumption charts for German fighter engines are so flat compared to the American ones. I was not aware of this, although I guess I should have given their use of fuel injection systems.
-Blogs
Originally posted by pasoleati
Crumpp, at least on the 109G there was no manual mixture control expect for stopping the engine. I don´t see that as a problem. Later Merlins and Griffons adopted the same principle. For some reason Americans kept putting 4-position mixture controls on their fighters even in 1945. Though e.g. the Hellcat is a favorite of mine, I have no envy for the pilot who has 8 engine related controls (throttle, prop, blower gear change, mixture, carb air inlet, oil cooler doors, cowl flaps and intercooler flaps) to manipulate in flight!
-
Blogs, that is not the explanation for the flatness of the curves. First, these curves are relatively flat with only Jumo and DB engines, that of the BMW 801 resemble American curves in shape. The real reason for the flattish curves of the first two is that they, for some reason never satisfactorily explained as far as sources available to me are concerned, is that they don´t use overrich mixture as a means to prevent detonation. For example, DB 605A´s minimum sfc is around 205 g/hp/hr, i.e. around the same as that of the Allison. At WER, the figure (all info at sea level) is around 240 g/hp/hr while the Allison´s corresponding sfc goes over 300 g/hp/hr. Since according to Allied post war studies (e.g. Ministry of Power report on German fuels) German fuels had very good rich mixture qualities for liguid cooled engines, it is indeed surprising that it wasn´t taken advantage of.
-
Well then I remain at a loss too.
-Blogs
Originally posted by pasoleati
Blogs, that is not the explanation for the flatness of the curves. First, these curves are relatively flat with only Jumo and DB engines, that of the BMW 801 approach American curves in shape. The real reason for the flattish curves of the first two is that they, for some reason never satisfactorily explained as far as sources available to me are concerned, is that they don´t use overrich mixture as a means of detanation preventing. For example, a DB 605A minimum sfc is around 205 g/hp/hr, around the same as with e.g. the Allison. At WER, the figure (all info as sea level) is around 240 g/hp/hr while the Allison´s corresponding sfc goes over 300 g/hp/hr. Since according to Allied post war studies (e.g. Ministry of Power report on German fuels) German fuels had very goof rich mixture qualities for liguid cooled engines, it is indeed surprising that it wasn´t taken advantage of.