Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Virage on March 03, 2005, 06:42:35 AM
-
http://www.aeroscientists.org/aircraft.html
-
Nice.
Seems a bit 109 biased though. Some statements do not correspond with what I've read in interviews and books and on this forum. I do think the 109 was a pretty good fighter though.
Kind regards,
Ronald
:D
-
Yep, its a bit one sided, though not as much as the Mike Williams fictions. What I liked about the site is that it gives the reasons ho Willy Messerschmitt could build an airplane that was small in dimension etc with little drag, yet by using advanced aerodynamic devices, it could still be highly manouverable.
-
Personal attack
-
The spit couldnt do negative turns until 1943 :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
and more crap
-
Negative G's are the only way to win a dogfight.
:D
-
I wonder why the RAF/LW losses weren't listed for '40....
-
Hi Virage,
>http://www.aeroscientists.org/aircraft.html
Hm, I'd not use that as a reference.
While the Clmax for each aircraft matches the weight, wing area and stall speed given in the table, it has to be power-on, flaps-down Clmax that is not directly related to manoevrability.
The turn rate is mostly determined by the power-off, flaps-up Clmax, which is considerably lower than the values quoted in the table.
For example, I consider 1.48 for the Me 109 and 1.22 for the Spitfire as realistic, based on the material I have found. I haven't seen good data for the P-51, but it might be around 1.2, too.
That's a 21% advantage for the Me 109 (not almost 100% as you'd believe from the quoted site), and the Spitfire's 40% larger wing makes more than up for that.
(Of course, it's possible to turn at lower speeds with flaps down, and the Me 109 due to its slats and camber-changing flaps might actually gain more by dropping flaps than the Spitfire with its relatively ineffective split flaps. That's the extreme edge of the envelope, though.)
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
From the site in question:
The performance of the Me 109 and the Spitfire is almost the same. However, the Spitfire had an average 25-20%C plain aileron with little aerodynamic balance which, despite differential control, gave it a very heavy stick force in roll compared to the light stick force of the Me 109. With a 50% span and narrow chord, Frise, aileron, the Me109 stick forces were very low in roll. It could do a complete roll in less than 3 seconds. This was much quicker than any Allied fighter. The Me109 was more evasive than the Spitfire or the P-51 which were slow in roll and much less agile.
Where can I get some of whatever they are smoking?
The Spitfire Mk I and Mk II and the Bf109E series were very comparable in roll, both in rate and stick forces. The Spitfire Mk V and up was markedly superior in roll to the Bf109 series. The P-51 series was markedly superior in roll to the Spitfire series.
I think they've combined the best traits of all the German fighters into one super fighter, called it a 109, and proceeded to compare it to the Allied fighters.
I also noted that their fansite lists the Bf109G, in 1941, at 413mph.
Linking to delusional fansites does not make for a good argument.
-
Arant spitfire flapsbessientaly one position airbrakes? They come down almost 90 degress...
-
Originally posted by Karnak
I also noted that their fansite lists the Bf109G, in 1941, at 413mph.
Linking to delusional fansites does not make for a good argument.
The site is quite over the top, but the Bf109G from early 42 was capable of such speeds. Even 109F was a 410mph fighter in reality.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Arant spitfire flapsbessientaly one position airbrakes? They come down almost 90 degress...
Yes. What does this have to do with the article though? Flaps, contrary to what AH and IL-2 would have people believe, are not a primary flight control.
Regarding the Bf109F, I've seen that claim, but I do not believe it. Too many things happened in the war that would not have had the Bf109F been a 410mph fighter. Unless I see some very hard proof of that, I'll continue to chalk it up to more Luftwaffefanboism.
-
Why does it have to do with the article? I was just asking the question..
Yep, the flight tests that show those 410mph early 109G and 109F were just lies made for LW fanbois to gloat over 60 years hence...
And it's not hard to belive at all, the worst possible data for a pudgy Bf109G6 shows 390mph. A G2 is much cleaner, an F4 even more so. I have also seen several other sources showing 408mph for the G2 clean.
And why would that be so unbelible to youthat a summer 1942 Bf109 is able to do 410mph? Maybe a case of Spitfire 9 fanboism that doesnt dare admit thew possibilirty that the current Bf109s were just as fast or faster?
And really few things would have changed the war outcome - a 109 being 10mph faster than the incorrect sterotype is certainy not one of them.
-
Hi Karnak,
>Regarding the Bf109F, I've seen that claim, but I do not believe it. Too many things happened in the war that would not have had the Bf109F been a 410mph fighter. Unless I see some very hard proof of that, I'll continue to chalk it up to more Luftwaffefanboism.
Hm, have a look at
http://www.beim-zeugmeister.de/zeugmeister/index.php?id=21&L=1
It's documented pretty well there.
Some of the data sheets are independendly available here:
http://www.lanpartyworld.com/ww2/files/109f/109f.html
Speeds around 660 km/h are about what one should expect from mounting an engine in the class of the DB601E on the sleek Friedrich airframe.
Here's a calculation I prepared in December, based on the Zeugmeister site:
http://hometown.aol.de/HoHunKhan/Me109FTopSpeed.gif
Note that in contradicton to my comment on 1.30 ata/2500 rpm, the keeper of the Zeugmeister site has recently uploaded a manual page dated 24.2.1941 showing 1.42 ata/2700 rpm as emergency power:
http://www.beim-zeugmeister.de/zeugmeister/index.php?id=38&L=1
This higher power setting is not indicated on my graph, but of course it would further boost the speed.
I don't believe there's any good technical reason to doubt the 410 mph figure.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
GRUNHERZ,
Sorry, but if the Bf109F could do 410mph we're not looking at a mid 1942 fighter, we're looking at an early 1941 fighter.
Also, this has naught to do with the "Spitfire Mk anything". I couldn't care less if the Bf109F was faster than a Spitfire F.24.
If the Bf109F was capable of 410mph, why did it not have absolute dominance over the Spitfire Mk V? I know that it was faster and climbed better, but the margin was not that large. If the Bf109F was a 410mph fighter the introduction of the Fw190A would not have been the shock to the RAF fighter pilots who suddenly faced a fighter that could disengage at will. If the Bf109F was a 410mph fighter the RAF fighter pilot's morale would have plummeted when facing it, not only when the Fw190A appeared. Instead the RAF fighter pilots were confident in the Spitfire Mk V's ability to meet the Bf109F on equal footing (personally I think they were being a tad optimistic), but they did not feel this way about the Fw190A which is functionally, when compared to the Spitfire Mk V, not significatly faster than a 410mph Bf109F. If the Bf109F was a 410mph fighter the photorecon Mosquito PR.Mk IV would have been unable to run from them, yet it did so on numerous occasions, instilling in it's aircrews a confidence in their aircraft that they had lacked prior to it's introduction. This included outrunning Bf109s that were first noticed co-alt and closing from astern, yet the 380mph Mosquito PR.Mk IV was able to accelerate and escape from the Bf109 on numerous encounters. A 30mph advantage should have easily overcome any chance that a unarmed PR.Mk IV could have escaped.
I'm sorry, but the historical record of events does not back up a in service 410mph Bf109F.
-
So you are saying that the Bf109F wqas slower than 380mph???
-
Hi Karnak,
>This included outrunning Bf109s that were first noticed co-alt and closing from astern, yet the 380mph Mosquito PR.Mk IV was able to accelerate and escape from the Bf109 on numerous encounters. A 30mph advantage should have easily overcome any chance that a unarmed PR.Mk IV could have escaped.
The Me 109F achieved its top speed at 6.2 km while the Mosquito was fastest at 12000 ft, so the advantage of the Me 109 at the Mosquito's best altitude was much smaller than you think :-)
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
So you are saying that the Bf109F wqas slower than 380mph???
No, but they had differing best altitudes. If the Bf109F did do 410mph at it's best altitude, the Mosquito's best altitude would still be in the Bf109F's favor by a good margin, if I am recalling the Merlin 21's best altitude correctly.
IIRC the Bf109 always peaked at near 22,000ft. When I get home I'll post the Mosquito PR.Mk IV's best alt. I'm pretty sure it is higher than 12,000ft. The FB.Mk VI with Merlin 25s had a best alt of 13,000ft and it was optimized for low altitude performance.
-
Ok, looking at my data the Mosquito B.Mk IV had a top speed of 380mph at 21,000ft without flame dampers. With the flame dampers it had a top speed of 367mph at 21,000ft.
That is what De Haviland's test results with Mosquito B.Mk IV DK290 resulted in.
If the Bf109F could do 410mph at 22,000ft then it would certainly do at least 400mph at 21,000ft.
No, I'll stand by my position that the service Bf109Fs could not do 410mph. Probably more in the 385mph to 390mph range. I can see a perfectly tuned, cleaned and factory fresh one doing 410mph perhaps, maybe with a few tweaks to get higher boost and then that being reported, but I cannot believe that the common service machines did that.
-
I would have to ask what makes the 109F-4 go 40mph faster than a Spit V with both types having similar hp engines and clean lines.
Why no other a/c book has ever given 410 mph as the top speed of the 109F-4.
Why no book on the LW has accounts of LW pilots in the JGs discussing how the Fw 190A-3 was no faster than the 109F-4. Which is what is being claimed here. The Fw 190A-3 could do @400 mph tops. This is the most damning evidence that it never did 410 mph. I kinda think somebody in the LW fighter arm might have mentioned it in passing? Somebody in RAF fighter command? They all get amnesia?
Why the 109E-4 does 355 mph with an engine that is 1100 hp DB601A and the 109F-4 gets a 50 mph increase? in speed with a 1350 hp DB601E? an increase of only 250 hp. Those tail struts on the 109E-4 must have had some major drag I guess huh?
The Spitfire L.F. IXc with a 1650 hp Merlin 66 engine could reach @405 mph, I find it somewhat questionable that a 109F-4 could get that with an engine of 1350 hp, to say the least.
Sorry, but somebodys physics do not add up. This is in the same category as the claims of the P-38L doing 440 mph and a lot of other overblown speed claims by those that are big fans of one ac type.
I can see an overboosted "speed trials" 109F-4 doing that speed, just like a Spitfire V, but not an operational fighter.
-
"I don't like this evidence, so I'm not gonna believe it "
-
The Fw190A3 was a 420mph plane.
There are ton of differences between the Bf109E and the Bf109F... You thinking its just tailstruts pretty much says you dont really know what was done.. Lets see... Entirely new fuselage, entirely new wings, entirely new low drag radiator with boundry layer bypass, far fewer bumps and intakes, ram air for the air intake, far less drag on the fuselage, far less drag on the oil cooler, far less drag from the new flap design compared to old fabric coveed flaps of 109E, entirely new props, much cleaner landing gear instalation, retractible tailwheel, much cleaner wing due to no bumps from the wing cannon and so on and so on all working to drastically reduce drag over the Bf109E while adding significant power and the prop to transfer it into thrust and speed...
Why dont books have better data? Because most all of them draw from and repeat the same bad old research done 30 years ago - MG151 15mm cannon in the Bf109K anyone? It's basically laziness where people are simply content with putting up something like this - Bf109G speed 389mph and leaving it at that because nobody really has done the research.
-
" I will beleive anything as long as it makes my favorite plane go faster" You guys jump all over anybody else that would dare list an allied fighter as faster than published stats, but when it comes to your favorite ride, all that is forgotten.
-
Originally posted by Squire
Why no book on the LW has accounts of LW pilots in the JGs discussing how the Fw 190A-3 was no faster than the 109F-4. Which is what is being claimed here. The Fw 190A-3 could do @400 mph tops.
But there is just that, JG2 comparing 109F4 to Fw190A2 - the very version that so scared the RAF in 1941... The Bf109 is faster at alt... And yes squire its in a big shiny respectable book published by schiffer...
The Fw190A3 on other hand was a 420mph fighter...
But hey its nice that you make this some sort of allied/axis pissing contest, I'll take it as a sign of surrender on the issue. Surprsing though, coming from such an emminent expert on the 109 as you... Tail struts only....
-
"The Bf109 is faster at alt... "
Ya by @ 20 mph to a Spit Vb. @370 to @390.
Seems the formula being used is "take published figures and add 15-20 mph" if its LW.
Show me a book that quotes any member of JG2 giving the 109F-4s top speed within 10 mph of the 190A-2 or 190A-3. I will be waiting.
You are just throwing out anything you can but have ZIP for evidence excpet internet sources. "Mr expert".
-
Now you are getting really idiotic. I answer your question directly of comparsion between Fw190 and 109F4 done by a JG and published in a big shiny book and thats the best yu can do? Ignore it and try to make a stupid joke?
-
Big Shiny Book.
Author and publisher please. Also quote directly from it giving the comparison.
-
Oops it was Jg26..
This is the offical LW report that was reprinted in the follwing big shiny offical book...
Quote from the publisher bookdescription on following webpage:
"Book Description
This book deals with the development history and testing of this fighter aircraft and production of the early variants of the Fw 190 A. An interesting comparison between the Bf 109 and the Fw 190 shows the strengths and weaknesses of the two aircraft"
And now, The big shiny book:
http://www.schifferbooks.com/newschiffer/book_template.php?isbn=076431940X
The 109F4 190A2 JG26 comparsion report report quated in the book:
http://www.beim-zeugmeister.de/zeugmeister/index.php?id=23&L=1
http://www.beim-zeugmeister.de/zeugmeister/index.php?id=23&L=1
http://www.beim-zeugmeister.de/zeugmeister/index.php?id=25&L=1
You are now free to ignore it... Bad data, baaaaad...
-
I heard that p51 was good at high alt and not realy good at low,is that true?
-
Originally posted by ATA
I heard that p51 was good at high alt and not realy good at low,is that true?
NO the P-51 went Mach 2 climbed at 5k feet [er minute and last but not least could out turn a zero, and a bumblebee.
All in time top bring food to starving children in 3rd world countries.
:D
-
sounds just like the pony we have in the game
-
Hmmm.
420mph is a little faster than I have read the Fw190A-2 was. Not much, but a little.
Meyer,
It isn't that I don't like the evidence, it is that it does not match up with actual events. Not even close. GRUN and HoHun both picked on my Mossie comments (which I provided some backup for), but they didn't address why the Spitfire Mk V pilots would have seen the Fw190 as anything new when they were already facing an aircraft so far out of the Spitfire Mk V's league as to make the Foker Scourge seem mild.
Why didn't the Bf109F cause the Spitfire pilot's morale to plummet and even more, why did they feel the Spitfire Mk V actually had the advantage in a meeting of the two? Then when the Fw190A shows up morale plummets. It doesn't make sense because if the Bf109F can do 410mph the Fw190A doesn't really change anything at all.
I think the Bf109F had the edge on the Spitfire Mk V due to it's superior climb and speed, but I also think that it was a lot closer than the Fw190A was.
-
Hi Karnak,
>That is what De Haviland's test results with Mosquito B.Mk IV DK290 resulted in.
How about posting Mosquito data of the same quality than the Zeugmeister's Me 109F data?
>No, I'll stand by my position that the service Bf109Fs could not do 410mph.
Then prove your position. Zeugmeister doesn't make a silly claim, but he has posted hard evidence. Where is yours?
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Hi Squire,
>I would have to ask what makes the 109F-4 go 40mph faster than a Spit V with both types having similar hp engines and clean lines.
Pretty obvious:
1) Superior full throttle height
2) Superior radiator
3) Even cleaner lines
>Why the 109E-4 does 355 mph with an engine that is 1100 hp DB601A and the 109F-4 gets a 50 mph increase? in speed with a 1350 hp DB601E? an increase of only 250 hp.
The Me 109E tops out at 572 km/h @ 5 km at 1020 HP. The Me 109F-4 achieves around 670 km/h @ 6.3 km at 1370 HP.
>Sorry, but somebodys physics do not add up.
Then do your own, like I did :-) You basic numbers are wrong, so I'm not surprised your conclusion is wrong, too.
>I can see an overboosted "speed trials" 109F-4 doing that speed, just like a Spitfire V, but not an operational fighter.
The boost is noted in the tests. No need for speculation.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Interesting data. The 635 km/h quote from July of 1942 would give it @392 mph top which is the fastest figure I can find in any other source.
The author does not claim with any absolute certainty that the "standard" 109F-4 went faster than that, and both the LW and RAF/US data is somewhat contradictory.
Author-
"Still some important pieces of mosaic are missing in the chain of evidence. For the German sources these are the instruction or correspondence with the prohibition of use of the take-off/emergency power of the DB 601 E, as well as the instruction for the abolition of this prohibition."
"3) Even cleaner lines" Yes, seeing that the Spitfire had that big radial engine in it...
-
Originally posted by Karnak
Hmmm.
420mph is a little faster than I have read the Fw190A-2 was. Not much, but a little.
Meyer,
It isn't that I don't like the evidence, it is that it does not match up with actual events. Not even close. GRUN and HoHun both picked on my Mossie comments (which I provided some backup for), but they didn't address why the Spitfire Mk V pilots would have seen the Fw190 as anything new when they were already facing an aircraft so far out of the Spitfire Mk V's league as to make the Foker Scourge seem mild.
Why didn't the Bf109F cause the Spitfire pilot's morale to plummet and even more, why did they feel the Spitfire Mk V actually had the advantage in a meeting of the two? Then when the Fw190A shows up morale plummets. It doesn't make sense because if the Bf109F can do 410mph the Fw190A doesn't really change anything at all.
I think the Bf109F had the edge on the Spitfire Mk V due to it's superior climb and speed, but I also think that it was a lot closer than the Fw190A was.
High speed handling and manouverability, roll rate, visibilty, firepower, all those things favored the 190 over 109F and were very imortant aspects in combat. Remember whast they said about 190 , that it could outmanouver spit V in every way save the tight horizontal turn. Heck even the 190A2 test which showed Bf109F4 to be faster at alt seems to prefer the 190 as a combat aircraft. JUst think what 190 was in 1941, a 4 20mm canno armed plane with unheard of high speed manouverability cominbg less than a year after the BOB. So even if the 109F was a 410mph plane as the data shows it does not neccesarily mean it could get as much out of that speed as the better handling and better armed 190 could... Compare the P51 and the Bf109G10, the G10 is faster and climbs better at alt but the 51 is much easier to get kills in because of its flight charactersitics and gun setup.
-
Hi Squire,
>"3) Even cleaner lines" Yes, seeing that the Spitfire had that big radial engine in it...
Oh, aerodynamics are that simple? Fantastic what you can learn from big shiny books! ;-)
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
El stupido question what is cruise speed for the 109F4 and the 190A3 ?
And fuel consumption and range for each ?
A contrario to AH max speed is not used from take off to landing IRL :)
-
Off the top of my head 190 cruise speed is noticably highrer than 109s, so yes it's another real life tactical advantage of 190A2 over the messerchmitt independant of the 109F4s high alt top speed advantage.
-
Ok so it's not improbable that the mossie were not caught just because they cruised faster and by the time a 109 increase her speed the mossie get out of range ?
At least for the tyffi it was often the case (when not caught jaboing)
-
Originally posted by BUG_EAF322
The spit couldnt do negative turns until 1943 :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
and more crap
INTRODUCTION
1. ..........On instructions from Headquarters, Fighter Command, a production Spitfire XII, No. EN.223, was collected from A & A.E.E., on 21st December 1942, for tactical trials.
[....]
3........... The Griffon III engine has two speed manually operated superchargers, giving full throttle heights at about 6,000 feet and 18,000 feet. It is fitted with a standard Claudel Hobsen carburettor and cuts fairly easily under negative acceleration forces. In the early models .45 reduction gear is fitted; later aircraft will have .511 reduction gear which will improve the rate of climb, especially at low altitude. The Coffman method of starting is employed. No automatic radiator shutter is at present fitted.
[....]
AFDU/3/21/3
5th June, 1943
-
Originally posted by Karnak
Where can I get some of whatever they are smoking?
The Spitfire Mk I and Mk II and the Bf109E series were very comparable in roll, both in rate and stick forces.
They weren`t, the Emils roll rate was much better at lower speeds, and equally bad at higher speeds. But the emils stickforces were FAR lower - some 37lbs vs. 60 lbs iirc.
The Spitfire Mk V and up was markedly superior in roll to the Bf109 series. [/B]
Pure fiction. NACA`s report doesn`t show this. In fact, an article of recently restored Emil states it`s roll rate is 50% superior to the Spit V w. metal ailerons. The F/G/K rolled even better. Not particularly surprising, if you consider the aileron forces were rather light on the post-Emil 109, and excessive on all Spitfires.
The P-51 series was markedly superior in roll to the Spitfire series.[/B]
That`s interesting, as if this correct, what would be the final conclusion if we add Mark Hanna`s notes :
"I like it as an aeroplane (the 109G), 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. "
:p
But it`s only half correct. British reports praise the roll rate of the p51 over the Spitfire at high speeds.. but at the same time they mention the Spit`s advantage in roll rate at low speeds, where the p51 was rather poor (its aileron deflection angle was very low).
I think they've combined the best traits of all the German fighters into one super fighter, called it a 109, and proceeded to compare it to the Allied fighters.
I also noted that their fansite lists the Bf109G, in 1941, at 413mph.[/B]
Yes, that date is wrong, but 413mph is absolutely correct for the 109G or F-4 in 1942. In fact some high alt 109G variants were happily wentover 430mph at that time, with GM-1.
-
Originally posted by Kurfürst
INTRODUCTION
1. ..........On instructions from Headquarters, Fighter Command, a production Spitfire XII, No. EN.223, was collected from A & A.E.E., on 21st December 1942, for tactical trials.
[....]
3........... The Griffon III engine has two speed manually operated superchargers, giving full throttle heights at about 6,000 feet and 18,000 feet. It is fitted with a standard Claudel Hobsen carburettor and cuts fairly easily under negative acceleration forces. In the early models .45 reduction gear is fitted; later aircraft will have .511 reduction gear which will improve the rate of climb, especially at low altitude. The Coffman method of starting is employed. No automatic radiator shutter is at present fitted.
[....]
AFDU/3/21/3
5th June, 1943
We all know you are intellectually dishonest concerning spitfire but using the shortcoming of a 100 batch and extend it to the whole 1943 spitifire is the worst you've made IMO.
-
Originally posted by Squire
I would have to ask what makes the 109F-4 go 40mph faster than a Spit V with both types having similar hp engines and clean lines.
[/B]
Maybe because the 109F
a, has cleaner lines - just look at radiators, nose etc.
b, MUCH smaller - less drag
c, engine putting out more HP at altitude.
Why no other a/c book has ever given 410 mph as the top speed of the 109F-4.
Why do many a/c book note the 109G as a 386mph plane, when REAL life tests give at 413mph plane? Maybe the books are wrong?
Why no book on the LW has accounts of LW pilots in the JGs discussing how the Fw 190A-3 was no faster than the 109F-4.
There are such books, but you never read them.
"The FW 190 A-2 is not as fast as the Bf 109 F-4... etc" - qoute from trials between the two types in Rechlin, 10th December 1941...
Why the 109E-4 does 355 mph with an engine that is 1100 hp DB601A and the 109F-4 gets a 50 mph increase? in speed with a 1350 hp DB601E? an increase of only 250 hp. Those tail struts on the 109E-4 must have had some major drag I guess huh?
Perhaps because the E-4 didn`t need 1100 HP to reach 355mph, for reason a, 1100HP was a special WEP, speeds are listed for 990HP. reason b, the 601E had much better altitude output than the 601A.
The Spitfire L.F. IXc with a 1650 hp Merlin 66 engine could reach @405 mph, I find it somewhat questionable that a 109F-4 could get that with an engine of 1350 hp, to say the least.
Spitfire was one of the most draggy fighters of the war - and MUCH larger size than the 109. Looky again on the radiators. They were bad enough on the MkV already. Smarty brits doubled them on the MkIX. :p
Sorry, but somebodys physics do not add up. This is in the same category as the claims of the P-38L doing 440 mph and a lot of other overblown speed claims by those that are big fans of one ac type.
I can see an overboosted "speed trials" 109F-4 doing that speed, just like a Spitfire V, but not an operational fighter.
Trouble is the 410mph figures is the official data used by the LW. For some odd reason, I trust the hard evidence over your denial.
-
Personal attack
-
Personal attack
-
Off topic
-
Originally posted by Kurfürst
Who extended it to the whole 1943 spitifire, don`t mix things up mister, if you failed to grasp the meaning of what I have actually written, then don`t blame your own lacking mental state on me, would you? It`s boring to discuss anything with such idiots who can`t even get the meaning of simple statements.
you answered to this :
Originally posted by BUG_EAF322
The spit couldnt do negative turns until 1943 :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
and more crap
And this cover the whole 1939-1943 period.
Like your answer.
-
Personal attack
-
So when you answer a question you don't care of the context ? interresting...
-
Personal attack
-
Personal attack
-
Off topic
-
The Spitfire IX carbs on the Merlin 61 and 63 were not fuel injected, but they were "negative-g" float carbs. The Spit F.IX did not suffer from neg-g cutout. No version of the Spit IX (or later varients) did.
The neg-g carb problem was fixed on the Mark Vbs with the introduction of the anti-g float carbs. The Royal Aircraft Establishment at Farnbourough came up with the fix. You can find the info in any book on the Spit V series, or any # of internet sources.
-
Non responsive/Off topic
-
Originally posted by Squire
The Spitfire IX carbs on the Merlin 61 and 63 were not fuel injected, but they were "negative-g" float carbs. The Spit F.IX did not suffer from neg-g cutout. No version of the Spit IX (or later varients) did.
" It would have been easier for the Spitfire IX to follow the Fw190 in a diving turn if its engine had been fitted with a negative 'G' carburettor, as this type of of engine with the ordinary carburettor cuts very easily."
[Spitfire IX-Fw190 tactical trials, Alfred Price: Fighter Aircraft]
" The problem of engine cutting under negative g had also been a great disadvantage in combat. The excellent Miss Schilling at the RAE, Farnborough, had already achieved a substantial amelioration of this problem but no means a full solution. I had no idea what the final answer would be but was sure I should press very hard it to be found ( It was, with the Bendix Stromberg carburettor, but it took a long time)."
[ Jeffrey Quill: Spitfire]
-
Originally posted by Kurfürst
For people like Karnak, Angus or Squire, the Spitfire was just flawless, perfecto, best in everything. They`ll never change their mind.
Yes, so flawless that I have stated multiple times in this thread that I thought the Bf109F series was a better fighter than the Spitfire Mk V series.
Yeesh.
HoHun,
Sorry, but I don't have a scanner so I cannot post the chart that I got the Mosquito Mk IV performance off of. You'll either have to take my word for it, or I might as well just say "Whatever HoHun says just has to be true because there is no way I can even provide evidence otherwise." I have posted charts from that book before, but focused on Mk VI charts as we don't have a Mk IV in AH. If you want to believe that the Mk IV peaked at 12,000ft so be it.
-
Wotan a float type carburateur is not enought to forbid inverted flight for exemple.
Injection is a contrario a sure indication of this ability.
Exemple on a pretty primitive aircraft and engine :
Stampe moteur Renault
(http://www.bea-fr.org/docspa/1999/f-ub990627/htm/dessincouleur.gif)
And no I was not involved in this incident :)
http://www.bea-fr.org/docspa/1999/f-ub990627/htm/f-ub990627.html
-
HoHun
The Me 109F achieved its top speed at 6.2 km while the Mosquito was fastest at 12000 ft, so the advantage of the Me 109 at the Mosquito's best altitude was much smaller than you think :-)
The Mosquito B IV chart I have shows 370 mph at 15,000 ft in low gear (FTH), 385 at 22,000 ft in high gear (again FTH) at 12 lbs.
(I don't know where I got the chart, but it's the one that compares the Mossie against the figures the RAE got from Faber's 190)
-
Personal attack
-
Off topic
-
There would have been little point to installing the "neg-g carbs" if they didnt do anything to help fix the problem, since they were fitted to the a/c. I have no doubt that the strombergs were the best solution in the end.
http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/spit9tactical.html
"The Spitfire IX is a Spitfire VC modified to incorporate a Merlin 61 engine fitted with the latest negative 'G' carburettor".
-
straffo,
Read what Timras quoted from Price.
Here I will re-quote it:
" It would have been easier for the Spitfire IX to follow the Fw190 in a diving turn if its engine had been fitted with a negative 'G' carburettor, as this type of of engine with the ordinary carburettor cuts very easily."
[Spitfire IX-Fw190 tactical trials, Alfred Price: Fighter Aircraft]
" The problem of engine cutting under negative g had also been a great disadvantage in combat. The excellent Miss Schilling at the RAE, Farnborough, had already achieved a substantial amelioration of this problem but no means a full solution. I had no idea what the final answer would be but was sure I should press very hard it to be found ( It was, with the Bendix Stromberg carburettor, but it took a long time)."
[ Jeffrey Quill: Spitfire]
-
Barbi,
Would you like an eneumeration of the Spitfire's failings?
Cramped cockpit
Poor visibility over the nose.
Poor visibility to the rear
Imbalanced controls.
Insufficiently rigid wing
High stick forces for aileron controls, particularly above 350mph indicated
Narrow track landing gear
Short fuel endurance
Rudder pedals excessively low in the cockpit
Insufficiently rigid cannon mounting points
Excessive radiator drag
Excessive cockpit drag
Mk Ia, IIa, Va: Insufficient firepower
Mk I, II, early V: Cloth ailerons very significantly reduce aileron effectiveness
Mk Ib, IIb: Completely unacceptable rate of jamming in the Hispano cannon installation
Mk I, II, early V: Float Carburator causing immidiate fuel starvation when negative Gs are applied
Mk V, F.Mk IX: Improved float carburator that only slightly staves off fuel starvation when negative Gs are applied.
Mk XIV: Excessive torque
Yup, I sure think it is flawless. :rolleyes:
-
Then I just wonder about the reasoning behind your extreme reactions when I note the same flaws - if you are just as well aware of them as I am.
-
Hi Karnak,
>Sorry, but I don't have a scanner so I cannot post the chart that I got the Mosquito Mk IV performance off of. You'll either have to take my word for it
I'll gladly take your word :-) But I'll still try to convince you that the Mosquito was faster than you think!
> If you want to believe that the Mk IV peaked at 12,000ft so be it.
First, I'm a bit confused about the PR. IV - I only know the B. IV series 1 reconnaissance variant which was called PR I. It seems the German edition of David Donald's "Bomber" accidentally omitted the PR IV , so I have been unable to figure out the characteristics of that version.
Since you mentioned the Merlin 21 engine, I thought it must have been boosted to more than +12 lbs/sqin, and full throttle height drops with altitude. I've got one scan from Air Publication 2019E, I & T indicating +14 lbs/sqin in M gear and +16 lbs/sqin in S gear for Merlin 21/23 which meets my expectation.
I have found another downloaded scan from an unidentified book listing Mosquito IV DG290/G (sic!) with Merlin 21 as getting 364 mph @ 11700 ft with 3000 rpm/+12 lbs/sqin - but that's carrying 2 x 1000 lbs. Obviously, it's a B. IV, but I figure the bombload was experimental and probably carried externally. The full throttle height again matches my expectations.
(Generally, the Mosquito could lose a larger percentage of its take-off weight than the single-engined fighters, so its top speed would vary considerably depending on the current weight status.)
For the B. IV, I've got the chart Nashwan mentions, though in supercharger high gear the boost is just +9 lbs/sqin at 22000 ft.
The good news: With +16 lbs/sqin, the full throttle height will drop but the Mosquito will go way faster :-) From very rough graphical extrapolation, I'd say at +16 lbs/sqin it should get something like 395 mph @ 13500 ft.
That's 636 km/h @ 4.1 km - the 670 km/h top speed "Rechlin" graph (which is simplified and not entirely accurate at that altitude) gives the Me 109F-4 speed at 4.1 km as about 625 km/h - less than the Mosquito's.
I hope you'll now accept the well-documented 670 km/h top speed as perfectly realistic :-)
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Henning a Mossie website, http://www.home.gil.com.au/~bfillery/mossie02.htm
-
Barbi,
Because my position has nothing to do with the Spitfire. I'm much more interested in getting the facts right and the facts being presented in this thread do not match the facts of the historical events.
Henning,
I've never seen any numbers that high for a Mosquito Mk IV, PR or B models. The De Haviland chart I have (at home, I'm at work) indicates low gear peaks at just over 15,000ft and high gear peaks at 22,000ft with the top speed of 380mph being achieved at 22,000ft.
I've never seen anything that indicates that a pre B.Mk IX Mosquito ever broke 385mph, even the lighter prototype, though it did easily out pace the Spitfire Mk V.
That your calculations arrive at 395mph at 13,500ft makes me wonder if your calculations might not be a bit optimistic.
-
Barbi, you might what to have a talk with your good bud Bergström and straighten him out for he doesn't agree with your view of uber German a/c.
"The Allied fighters generally were superior to the German Bf 109 G and Fw 190 A in service in 1944."
:)
-
Originally posted by MiloMorai
"The Allied fighters generally were superior to the German Bf 109 G and Fw 190 A in service in 1944."
:)
Nahh.There were just more of allied fighters i think.
-
Hi Karnak,
>I've never seen any numbers that high for a Mosquito Mk IV, PR or B models. The De Haviland chart I have (at home, I'm at work) indicates low gear peaks at just over 15,000ft and high gear peaks at 22,000ft with the top speed of 380mph being achieved at 22,000ft.
Well, here's a graph indicated 385 mph @ 22000 ft:
http://hometown.aol.de/HoHunKhan/mosquito_speed.jpg
Note that this is for 3000 rpm, +9 lbs/sqin.
Here is a graph showing the dependence of boost on altitude:
http://hometown.aol.de/HoHunKhan/boost.jpg
(Static pressure, so all altitudes are a bit lower than in level flight with ram effect.)
You can see that for +16 lbs/sqin, the full throttle height is 7000 ft lower than for +9 lbs/sqin at 3000 rpm.
So you can now draw the speed curve from 22000 ft down to 15000 ft. Depending on how you judge the curvature, you end up at 390 - 395 mph.
(Graphical extrapolation is a rather crude tool here, but if you do the complete math, you'll get better accuracy but not vastly different figures.)
Here's the manual page showing that the Merlin 21/23 could indeed be operated at +16 lbs/sqin in an emergency situation:
http://hometown.aol.de/HoHunKhan/mosquito_notes.jpg
I have to admit I'm a bit suprised by the results, too :-) I really paid too much attention to the first speed graph when I analyzed Mosquito performance last year, probably because I didn't realize the impact of the data from the manual page.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Hmmm. I'll have to go over my books again. That first graph looks very similar to one in the book I have.
I'll admit that I have mostly given up on the Mosquito. I spent as much as I could afford to and never was able to find anything that could explain how the Mosquito was ever seen as anything other than cannonfodder by the Germans. All the official data I have managed to find says the FB.Mk VI aircrews who reported running away from 109s and 190s that couldn't catch them on the deck were smoking something narcotic. The absolute best data I've seen for the Mk VI was 338mph on the deck and 378mph at 13,000ft, and that was with Merlin 25s which are much more powerful than the Merlin 21s or 23s on a B.Mk IV.
From reading the historical accounts I would guess the Mosquito FB.Mk VI would do 355mph on the deck. That is, in any case, the claim made by it's crews. Some claimed 375mph, but De Haviland says there was a known error in some airspeed indicators that caused it to read too high and that those claims were wrong.
I am less familiar with the B.Mk IV except axs a basis of comparison for the FB.Mk VI.
-
Karnak it was simply a matter of tactics. I think the mossies were so effetive be ause they kept their speed up and attacked unexpextedly. With speed in the same range as defending fighters it's not at all surprising that they could get away so often even a roving enemy fighter tried to engage them.
I think the perfect world of AH overemphasizes the importance of 5mph top speed differences.
-
Hi Karnak,
>The absolute best data I've seen for the Mk VI was 338mph on the deck and 378mph at 13,000ft, and that was with Merlin 25s which are much more powerful than the Merlin 21s or 23s on a B.Mk IV.
Well, the Merlin 25 could go to +18 lbs/sqin, so if the 21/23 was cleared for +16 lbs/sqin in high gear, that was actually not so far. The B.IV also benefitted from slightly better streamlining and was faster on the same power.
The key probably would be to find out the dates for the clearance of the +14/+16 lbs/sqin boosts. The Fw 190A-3 comparison chart is rather strange because it indicates +14 lbs/sqin in low gear, but only +9 lbs/sqin in high gear.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Henning, according to Mossie "FB VI, FB XVIII & FB 26" pilot´s notes Merlin 25 was cleared for +25 boost with 100/150 fuel (giving some 2000 hp). Any info on sea level speed with that boost?
-
According to the A&AEE tests, the FB VI with Merlin 25 did 353 mph at sea level at 25 lbs boost, but that's with external tanks and ducted exhausts fitted.
The report notes that tests on other Mossies showed ducted exhausts reduced speed by 13 - 15 mph at 9 lbs boost.
The report notes speed is increased by 22 mph due to the use of 100/150 fuel.
I've also got a snippet of RAF figures for the NF XIX (Merlin 25s) that gives the speed at 2,000 ft as 377 mph without N2O injection, 394 mph with N2O.
-
How nice.
From Barbi:
"For people like Karnak, Angus or Squire, the Spitfire was just flawless, perfecto, best in everything. They`ll never change their mind."
Well Karnak pretty much sums this out, i.e. I pretty much agree with his listing.
That does not however put the 109 as the angel for the Problems are pretty much similar.
Such as....
Poor rollrate in the same period.
Insufficient firepower...in the same period even.
Even more sandwichboxed cockpit.
Even worse view to the rear.
Short endurance
Narrow landing gear.
Hight torque, - from 109D onwards (hehe, you want that quote, still have to translate it, - 109 taxiin and takeoff)
Anyway, on to Karnak.
Anything I red about the Mossies goes into the direction of the Mossie usually being able to outrun anything with a propeller.
My thought goes to the engines. There was a special emhasis on keeping the Mossie very fast, and those engines wore out quite quickly. (gradual power drops?) That was also a problem in the LW. So, maybe the Mossies in front line service were just a wee more fit in the muscle.
Makes me wonder, - if they had been contra-rot, how much faster would they have been?
-
Angus,
We're dragging this far off topic, but the Mosquito B.Mk XVI had contrarotaing props like the P-38 and topped out at 416mph. The NF.Mk 30 did not and topped out at 424mph.
GRUNHERZ,
As I understand it the Fw190 revision we're getting will reduce the Fw190A-5's climb rate, but put it over 350mph at sea level. That will be nearly 20mph faster than the Mosquito In AH (and 40mph faster than the Mosquito in WarBirds 3). If these speeds are accurate there is no way that a Mosquito could have excaped in a long chase on the deck as so many aircrews reported doing.
In actuall air combat the results are predictable. I have the results of an Mosquito FB.Mk VI squadron engaging in a dogfight with a Fw190 squadron: 6 Mosquitos destroyed and 3 Fw190s destroyed.
-
Hey Karnak, nice info.
I remember of a recent account on these boards where Mossies escaped 190's on a deck run. From Denmark I belive.
Anyway, the anecdotes usually say:
Spitfire = Fast
109 = even faster
190 = faster yet
Mossie = Bloooooody fast
;)
-
As I understand it the Fw190 revision we're getting will reduce the Fw190A-5's climb rate, but put it over 350mph at sea level. That will be nearly 20mph faster than the Mosquito In AH (and 40mph faster than the Mosquito in WarBirds 3). If these speeds are accurate there is no way that a Mosquito could have excaped in a long chase on the deck as so many aircrews reported doing.
Mosquito's were routinely intercepted in daylight incursions. Adi Glunz got several of them and used to volunteer for the morning recon flight over England.
All the best!
Crumpp
-
JAPWNED! :lol
-
Addi Glunz only shot down 3 Mosquitos. Does 3 mean 'several'?
His 28th and 29th kills came about 1 min apart on 28.3.43 south of Lille.
The were Mossies from 105 Sqn (RAF)
On 14.11.43 he shot down his 3rd and last. A Mosquito of 1409 Flt (RAF) 'near Lens'. It was his 45th kill claim.
Only the last could be considered 'morning' and was claim at 10:06.
The other 2 were around 6 pm in the evening.
None of them were over England.
Adolf "Addi" Glunz (http://www.luftwaffe.cz/glunz.html)
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
Mosquito's were routinely intercepted in daylight incursions. Adi Glunz got several of them and used to volunteer for the morning recon flight over England.
I said nothing to contradict this. An Fw190 diving from a bit of alt would clearly, and easily, over take a Mosquito.
That does not change the fact that on numerous occasions Mosquito aircrew reported having seen German fighters closing from astern, but being able to out run them after putting the throttles through the gate. However, if the Fw190A-5 is remodeled to do 355mph on the deck the Mosquito Mk VI in AH will never have a chance in such scenarios as it is A) 19mph slower, B) has half the WEP duration and is C) a much less capable air-to-air fighter. If this is historically accurate the Mosquito Mk VI should have been seen as a death trap by its aircrews. Somehow it failed to be seen that way.
-
Originally posted by Angus
That does not however put the 109 as the angel for the Problems are pretty much similar.
Such as....
[/B]
Indeed some problems were similiar, some were invert images, ie. aileron/elevator control forces on the Spit/109.
What is common in them is that in the 109 these negative effects are far less pronounced than in the Spitfie.
Poor rollrate in the same period.
False, all acounts I have seen yet praise the roll rate characteristics. Beuvais explicitely says it was only 25% slower in roll than the FW 190... certainly it appears to be better than the Spitfire at higher speeds.
Insufficient firepower...in the same period even.
It was sufficient to shoot down more enemy aircraft than any other fighter in history. Insufficent compared to what? Pretty avarage firepower, equal to that of most US, UK or USSR fighter. And the MK 108 having insufficent firepower btw? :lol
Even more sandwichboxed cockpit.
Pictures that Guppy posted shows Spit pilots could barely close the canopy, so your statement is extremely doubtful.
Even worse view to the rear.[/]
False again, the Erla cabin provided BY FAR better rear view than the odd Malcolm hood of the Spit. Basically no rearview there. Wanna a qoute on earlier 109 hoods? Here`s one for 109D :
"Along with its delightful flight characteristics, the visibility in this Messerschmitt is all that a fighter pilot could reasonably ask. "
Here`s what he says on takeoff distances ;)
"The take-off was normal, and I estimated that the ground run was fully one-half the distance used by the Hawker Hurricane and about one-fourth the distance used by the Supermarine Spitfire."
From Major Al Williams' Test Flight With Bf-109D .
Short endurance
False, 6 hour endurance, WAY more than the Spitfire, longer ranged, too.
Narrow landing gear.
True - and the Spit`s was even more narrow.
Hight torque, - from 109D onwards (hehe, you want that quote, still have to translate it, - 109 taxiin and takeoff)
Torque was similiar as on other ww2 fighters - yes, that means high.
-
Originally posted by Nashwan
According to the A&AEE tests, the FB VI with Merlin 25 did 353 mph at sea level at 25 lbs boost, but that's with external tanks and ducted exhausts fitted.
[/B]
Was 25 lbs boost introduced to FB Mosquitoes in operational service or it was just an experimental plane? If yes, when?
The report notes speed is increased by 22 mph due to the use of 100/150 fuel.
[/B]
Is there evidence 150 grade fuel ever issued to Mosquito units, if yes, from when?
I've also got a snippet of RAF figures for the NF XIX (Merlin 25s) that gives the speed at 2,000 ft as 377 mph without N2O injection, 394 mph with N2O. [/B]
Was N2O ever introduced to nightfighter Mosquitoes in operational service or it was just an experimental plane? If yes, when?
From the books I have read, when the Mosquitoes were first introduced, they had TWICE the loss rate than Blenheims in daylight raids... Maybe that`s why most Mosquito sorties were at night, to hide from LW fighters as other RAF bombers were forced to after 1939?
-
I smell leather groupies.
they stink like goulash
-
The other 2 were around 6 pm in the evening.
Let me clarify your confusion Wotan.
Adi volunteering for the Morning Recon flights has nothing to do with Mossies.
Facts are when the ground controllers could vector the FW-190 to visual ranges, they caught the mosquito.
The success of the Mosquito at penetrating German airspace has more to to with the difficulty of locating a single or double ship formation than it's performance. Big Sky, small plane.
These problems are ten-fold at night or limited visibility.
Very rarely on those morning recon flights did Adi Glunz make contact. Those flights were flown every morning by a small element and rarely intercepted as well.
Nothing to do with plane performance. Everything to do with looking for a small plane in a big sky.
That does not change the fact that on numerous occasions Mosquito aircrew reported having seen German fighters closing from astern, but being able to out run them after putting the throttles through the gate.
Anecdotal. Which German fighters and at what altitude?
If this is historically accurate the Mosquito Mk VI should have been seen as a death trap by its aircrews. Somehow it failed to be seen that way.
Depends on the role. If the Mosquito tried to act like an airsuperority fighter and engage in direct combat then yes it would be a deathtrap. Fortunately it was never used in this role.
I have no doubt that a Mossie at altitude and speed would be extremely difficult if not impossible for any fighter to climb up and catch given realistic visual ranges and ground control.
Are we seriously trying to argue that the Mosquito should be a competative daylight airsuperiority fighter? Frankly your fears about the FW-190 changes are completely unfounded. The FTH airspeed does not change and in fact maybe reduced by a few MPH.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Very much agree. The same conclusion was arrived at on LEMB by others - the problem intercepting the Mossie had to do with the reaction time and problems vectoring the interceptors on an accurate interception course. For the same reason it was difficult to intercept any single fighter-recon plane of the war. Too fast, leaves too little time, too hard to find even if the vectoring is 100% perfect. But if intercepted the Mossie was unlikely to escape only due to performance - simply it could not afford to burn the engines running at full power and running out of fuel all the time... besides, it`s performance was below the single seater fighters - especially with bombs and external stores.
-
LOL Barbi at it again.:(
quote:
"From the books I have read, when the Mosquitoes were first introduced, they had TWICE the loss rate than Blenheims in daylight raids... Maybe that`s why most Mosquito sorties were at night, to hide from LW fighters as other RAF bombers were forced to after 1939?"
How many of those Mossies were shot down by Flak compared to those shot down by fighters? And, losses dropped continually from then on which you failed to mention (so typical). Seems your uber LW was not up to the task, :)
Mossies from #105 and #139 had no trouble bombing Berlin, in broad daylight :eek: at the end of Jan 1943 for the loss of only one a/c. A 1000mi flying over enemy territory with the loss being in the target area. Goering was so mad he formed two special units, JG25 and 50, which had nil success. Make up any excuse you want for failure.
Oh yes Barbi, I would not mention the RAF BC going to night bombing for after being rebuffed, sent packing like a dog with its tail between its legs, during BoB, the LW went hiding at night for bombing.:eek:
-
Originally posted by Kurfürst
Was 25 lbs boost introduced to FB Mosquitoes in operational service or it was just an experimental plane? If yes, when?
[/B]
Well, if the Air Ministry Pilot´s Notes A.P. 2019E for "Mosquito FB VI, FB XVIII & FB 26" dated January 1944 is of any meaning, it must have been introduced not later than January 1944.
-
You should check out the LEMB thread, Milo. Even British posters agreed that the Mosquito as a bomber was little more than 'high profile nuisance' to the LW. The RAF needed a propaganda weapon, that didn`t neccesarily had to damage the enemy, but make the British public believe the RAF was actually achieving something over Germany - apart from 55 000 dead brits from the B.C. Sending a handful Mosquitoes over Berlin in daylight had as much effect as the fighter-bomber 109s in 1940 dropping bombs on English cities - absolutely nothing, but the RAF was extremely unsuccessful intercepting them just the same. Same reason of sending Mosquitos to bomb Berlin after early 1944, when the heavies and their crews of the BC were decimated, and the Harris needed find some excuse for his clear defeat.
-
Poor rollrate in the same period.
False, all acounts I have seen yet praise the roll rate characteristics. Beuvais explicitely says it was only 25% slower in roll than the FW 190... certainly it appears to be better than the Spitfire at higher speeds.
Do you have rate of roll curves for the 109? Beauvais´s comments seem to be in complete disagreement with AFDU pilots.
.
Narrow landing gear.
True - and the Spit`s was even more narrow.
Yes, but the problem is not narrowness, but Willy´s stupid design having so much toe in. Finnish tech reports make it clear that consumption of 109 tyres was extremely high due to just that toe in. That same toe in is the culprit behind that swinging tendency on landing. OTOH the Spit had NO tendency to swing on landing. Read Dave Southwood´s report on Black 6 in Warbirds Worldwide for the landing behaviour. He is far more qualified on the 109 than your beloved Mark Hanna.
Hight torque, - from 109D onwards (hehe, you want that quote, still have to translate it, - 109 taxiin and takeoff)
Torque was similiar as on other ww2 fighters - yes, that means high. [/B]
-
If as you claim you are writing a book then you should understand that the responsibility is on the author make himself clear.
Here's you statement:
Mosquito's were routinely intercepted in daylight incursions. Adi Glunz got several of them and used to volunteer for the morning recon flight over England.
This sentence leaves the clear impression that:
1. Addi Glunz shot down a number of Mosquitoes. He only claimed 3 out 70+ claims all together. That hardly seems worth mentioning in the context of the thread.
2. You combined the following into a single sentence:
Adi Glunz got several of them and used to volunteer for the morning recon flight over England.
Why add the superfluous:
used to volunteer for the morning recon flight over England.
When it has nothing to do with the subject or your point?
My reply was to point out to others, who maybe left with the wrong impression after reading your post, that in fact Addi Gluz did not claim a significant number of Mosquitoes and he didn't claim any on 'morning recon flights over England'.
Regards,
Wotan
-
Addi Glunz shot down a number of Mosquitoes. He only claimed 3 out 70+ claims all together. That hardly seems worth mentioning in the context of the thread.
Mosquitos make up what percentage of the Allied Air Forces? Are you trying to create the impression there where thousands of them penetrating German Airspace at will before spring 1944?
As a night fighter the mosquito is unmatched. It was the fastest thing in the night sky just about. The chances of encountering one of the very few nightfighter varients who were just as fast is pretty slim.
As for daylight. Mossies were fast and when they flew low under the radar with a good route just about impossible to intercept. Your relying on visual location from second hand sources reporting. Intercepting at the target would be the best shot provided you guessed at the correct target that are in a light bombers ability to damage. So you have to choose between not only the strategic targets but tactical ones as well. Lets not forget the Gestapo prison attack, I am sure that one did not show up on any target matrix. It's on the order of looking for a needle in a haystack.
that in fact Addi Gluz did not claim a significant number of Mosquitoes
Wow,
Struck a nerve with you Wotan. Whole point of my previous post was to clear up the confusion.
Excuse me for replying in a few seconds. Haven't had the time to waste on these boards, lately.
There is no "wrong" impression about Adi Glunz's mosquito victories. They are significant.
He shot down every Mosquito he came across. In other words, every one he saw, Adi Glunz ran down and destroyed.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Maybe you should re-read the LEMB thread Barbi.
some quotes:
"what other aircraft had a loss rate of only 0.63% over 39,795 sorties."
"I guess I'm thinking about Knoke's chasing a Mossie at low level, and eventually having to quit because he was boiling off his coolant. So, although the Fw 190 and Me 109 could achieve speeds as great as that of the Mossie, they could do it for only a short time -- as I recall."
As usual, you only see what you want to see. :)
-
He shot down every Mosquito he came across. In other words, every one he saw, Adi Glunz ran down and destroyed.
yep offcourse just because he said so, hail hail.
-
So, although the Fw 190 and Me 109 could achieve speeds as great as that of the Mossie, they could do it for only a short time -- as I recall."
Without knowing the boost limits of the Mossie, I would say that is absolutely correct.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by pasoleati
Do you have rate of roll curves for the 109? Beauvais´s comments seem to be in complete disagreement with AFDU pilots.
You mean those AFDU reports that were done with gondola carrying 109s, and which reports note the ailerons were not fully deflected during rolls? It`s pretty hard to get good roll rates without using the ailerons.
Besides I tend to trust one the chief Mtt test pilots on the 109s than some RAF one who spent half hour in them in total. The actual data I have points to better roll rate on the 109. The Spit simple had so excessive control forces on the ailerons that rules out rapid rolling.
Originally posted by pasoleati
Narrow landing gear.
True - and the Spit`s was even more narrow.
Yes, but the problem is not narrowness, but Willy´s stupid design having so much toe in. Finnish tech reports make it clear that consumption of 109 tyres was extremely high due to just that toe in.
AFAIK this toe-in was eliminated on the 109 design on late g-2s and G-4s and all later variants. I just noted the Spit`s undercarriage was even more narrow than the 109. Narrowness is directly related to the stability on the ground, which certainly put the Spit into disadvantage on rough airfields compared to others. The Hurricane ie. was noted to be much more simple to take off and land.
That same toe in is the culprit behind that swinging tendency on landing. OTOH the Spit had NO tendency to swing on landing. Read Dave Southwood´s report on Black 6 in Warbirds Worldwide for the landing behaviour. He is far more qualified on the 109 than your beloved Mark Hanna.
I think the swinging tendency (btw, ALL planes swing on t/o and landing, just to a different extent) was caused by the 109`s weak directional stability, and that it was tail heavy, plus it`s powerful engine coupled with the light airframe. Much of this was cured on later models with longer, more stable tail wheel, larger stabilizer and tires. The Spit on the other hand was longitudally ustable, and nose heavy - it liked to nose over instead of swinging, being especially problematic on the latest Griffon models.
-
He shot down every Mosquito he came across. In other words, every one he saw, Adi Glunz ran down and destroyed.
Nonsense, post your source for this claim...
No where has anything be writen that states Glunz only ever 'saw' 3 Mosquitoes.
How do you know how many 'got away'?
You are just making that up aren't you?
3 is not 'significant' at all.
Do you want the number of Mosquito sorties flown by year? I am sure that data is available.
Nashwan, Karnak I have seen this posted some where along with an estimated total amount of ordnance delivered by Mosquitoes. If either of you have it please post it. It will save me some time.
-
I've got figures for Bomber Command Mosquito operations, but not any of the other forces (afaik).
BC's Mosquito figures were:
28,639 bomber sorties
11,036 other operations
110 sea mining sorties
39,795 total sorties with BC
26,867 (long) tons of bombs dropped
Losses were 169 failed to return on bombing ops, 2 on mining operations, 83 on other operations.
Note this doesn't include write-offs after returning to base, just aircraft that didn't make it back.
Total 254 failed to return from 39,795 sorties with bomber command.
-
LOL Nashwan, that is along way from Barbi's claim that the Mossies was 'cannon fodder'.
Your numbers give a 0.64% loss rate and that includes losses to Flak, no doubt.
Or, to put it another way, a Mossie lost every 157 sorties.
-
Crump,
The altitude in question, as I have repeatedly stated, is Sea Level.
I find it funny how on this board the German aircraft just get better and better and the Allied aircraft, particularly British, get ever worse and slower. Now we have the much loved by its aircrews (more so than even the Spitfire) Mosquito being portrayed as a slow deathtrap and the statements from myself an others being intentionally misinterpeted as claiming it to be a great air superiority fighter despite by specific example to the contrary. I specifically said that the Mosquito was not a match in aerial combat. All it had over the German fighters in 1943 and early '44 is the ability to run, and that was a near thing. As to boost duration, the Mosquito was limited to the typical five minutes of emergency boost, though its crews undoubtedly ignored that at times as pilots of all aircraft in all nations ignored such things. In AH it is strictly limited to five minutes whereas the German fighters, besides being faster to begine with, are given 10 full minutes of emergency boost.
At the 2001 AH Con there was a pilot there who spoke. He flew Spitfire Mk Vs, Mk IXs, Mk XIVs and P-47Ms in combat. He flew a Mosquito once, service trials after it had been repaired. He said that what he remembered was that it was very fast. When flying Spitfire Mk IXs his squadron was once tasked with excorting Mosquitos. He said it was the stupidist mission he ever flew as the Spitfires had to be at full throttle just to keep up with the Mosquitos on cruise settings. Those are some odd impressions os an aircraft that was so slow given that he flew Spitfire Mk XIVs and P-47Ms as well.
-
Personal attack
-
Barbi,
You really, really, really need to educate your self before spouting of the sheer idiocy you just did. You obviously don't know the mission profiles that were being flown. You obviously don't know what comparable loss rates were. You obviously know absolutely nothing about the subject you are now potificating about.
Nothing you have ever posted before has ever revealed your ignorance and bias more than this post.
-
Read JG 26 War diaries volumes I and II, Wotan.
Adi Glunz only encountered 3 Mosquitos, AFAIK.
When flying Spitfire Mk IXs his squadron was once tasked with excorting Mosquitos. He said it was the stupidist mission he ever flew as the Spitfires had to be at full throttle just to keep up with the Mosquitos on cruise settings.
Depending on the year in question, the Spitfire was not very fast as sea level.
I find it funny how on this board the German aircraft just get better and better and the Allied aircraft, particularly British, get ever worse and slower.
Actually I think that is a natural development. A lot of original documentation has surfaced in the past few years on LW aircraft. The misconceptions formed in the post war years are slowly evaporating. They are not the super planes many thought immediately post war but neither were the performance wrecks later historians put them at. Performance wise, generally speaking they were very competitive. Check into Walter Oseau's death sometime. Quite a dramatic story that IMHO speaks volumes about the competitiveness of LW fighters when operated by a fully trained situationally aware pilot.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
Depending on the year in question, the Spitfire was not very fast as sea level.
That would probably have been bomber Mossies doing a daylight raid from 15,000 to 20,000ft. Given the sheer odds, he was almost certainly flying a Spitfire LF.Mk IX. The slow assed F.Mk IX we have in AH was a very rare bird.
-
Personal attack
-
It seems I just struck Karnak`s nerves with a sledgehammer.
Go away Barbi. Can you not discuss these aircraft without attacking people?
That would probably have been bomber Mossies doing a daylight raid from 15,000 to 20,000ft. Given the sheer odds, he was almost certainly flying a Spitfire LF.Mk IX.
At those altitudes the Merlin 66 (+25) was substantially slower than the FW-190A8 on boost.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Personal attack
-
Personal attack
-
Self-moderation
-
Personal attack
-
Personal attack
-
I was just going to point out the difference between east and west front :)
Isegrim, the eastern front was a huge area, and the Russians had poor (at best) early warning and raid detection.
As a comparison, the Luftwaffe mounted the "baby blitz" over London Jan - May 1944. They lost 330 aircraft in the process,
And you are ASSuming the Mosquito sorties are all by night, they are not. Of the bomber sorties, 12.7% were by day. I don't have a breakdown of the "other" sorties by time of day.
"High profile nuisance"
To put this "nuisance" as you describe it into perspective, the Mosquitos dropped 26,867 tons of bombs. The Germans managed to drop around 21,000 tons of bombs on Britain between June 1941 and May 1945, a much longer period than the Mosquito was in operation (and that INCLUDES the V weapons).
Granted the small numbers of Mosquito bombers were, compared to the huge tonnages the allies were dropping on Germany, just a nuisance, but the value of the recconisance they delivered was invaluable. That was something the Germans could only wish for, as they were unable to make recce flights over Britain for most of 1944.
-
Personal attack
-
Well, my sword is a Claymore you fool.
(gotta be that big when swinging from an angus :D)
He who LIVES by the sword shall die by the sword BTW.
Anyway, I have never spotted anything but very authentic and reliable data from Karnak, unlike YOU, which is why I pick the fight while he's not at the console. He can well stand in his own legs, - that's why we are both on yer gitty list (I'm actually rather proud of it so don't delete me plz)
I have little doubt that he will be back.
Then the mission losses and the maths.....
Anyway, look at the amazing loss rate on the western front on your list, - hehe. Look at the fact that most of the missions flown were also over own territory, not much deep penetration going on. Then consider that the LW lost more to the RAF in 6 months of 1940 than on the eastern front (according to your list) in 1944. Then try to get over the fact that this low loss year was the year the LW still completely lost the airwar on both fronts.
Funny, isn't it.
And the nail in yer rear is basically from Milo
"The LW could only fly 19 sorties without a loss. Sure makes the Mossie, at 157, look good."
hehee, was that a nice spotting.
Most of the Mosquito ops were deep over enemy territory, and she did NOT fly far on one engine. There is nothing axis that even comes close to her achivements, i.e. statistically. You must have missed a decimal when you posted your numbers, - thank's for them anyway.
As for the futile attacks dropping bombs into forestland and then running or whatever, I am saddened by your selective ignorance that the Mossie was intensively used for precision bombing and target marking.
-
Barbi,
You simply don't know what you are talking about in regards to Mosquito service history. You put out a bunch of statements that were wrong. Badly wrong. Yet you act as though you have read as much about it as you have about the Bf109. You actually claimed that it had a worse loss rate than the Blenheim. Where you got that I have no idea since none, and I mean none, of my multiple books on the subject of Mosquitos say anything other than the direct opposite of that.
For example, a lot of those sorties would have been marker sorties and so would not have been dropping orinance on German targets. That has the effect of lowering the tonnage per sortie. Further you statement about randomly dropping bombs on German would be a pretty accurate description of British bombing efforts by Stirlings, Blenheims and Wellingtons in 1941, but it is a very poor description of RAF bombing in 1944 and 1945 where they at times exceeded the USAAF's daylight accuracy, thanks in no small part to the Mosquito pathfiders that were marking the targets for the Lancs and Halifaxes. The post I was responding to was, bluntly, uneducated.
Here is a table of Mosquito bomber losses on night missions:
(http://members.arstechnica.com/x/karnak/MossieLosses.bmp)
As a loss rate comparison for you, I'll give you this:
Stirling: 3.81%
Blenheim: 3.62%
Ventura: 3.6%
Wellington: 2.8%
Boston: 2.48%
Halifax: 2.28%
Lancaster: 2.13%
Mosquito: 0.63%
As to attitude. Check the mirror big boy. You will respond in full agreement if somebody posts the list of flaws for an Allied aircraft, as you did to my list for the Spitfire. However, whenever somebody suggests that the Bf109 (I've seen you tear at Crump in regards to the Bf109 vs the Fw190) you immediatey respond with a counter list of why those flaws either didn't exist or were in fact not flaws. I've yet to ever see you say anything actually positive about an British aircraft and the only things that I've seen you say that could be taken as positive about American aircraft, that I recall, was as a backhanded insult. You are the only person who posts on this forum who will not make a realistic acknoweldgement of the flaws of your pet aircraft.
-
Originally posted by Nashwan
I was just going to point out the difference between east and west front :) Isegrim, the eastern front was a huge area, and the Russians had poor (at best) early warning and raid detection.
As a comparison, the Luftwaffe mounted the "baby blitz" over London Jan - May 1944. They lost 330 aircraft in the process,
[/B]
You forget to mention Soviet AA was vast and everywhere, the Red Air Force much more numerous than the RAF, and that sorties were flown in daylight, in large flights, making it easy to find them, and by aircraft that were rather slower in general - unlike as noted lone Mossies slipping through the nightly skies somewhere over continent Europe.. Downplaying the scale of the eastern front air battles, and claiming that lone Mosquitos faced worser conditions, under the night, where only slower twin engined night fighters patroled the sky, is simply ridiculus.
Yet the loss statistics prove that the 0.6% odd loss rate is hardly unique, and were achieved by a large number of aircraft in other theatres, ie. the B-26s had also similiar record in the PTO, so it`s not a sort of wonder as Karnak want to sell about his perfect, flawless aircraft that was 'impossible' to be intercepted. :lol
And you are ASSuming the Mosquito sorties are all by night, they are not. Of the bomber sorties, 12.7% were by day. I don't have a breakdown of the "other" sorties by time of day.[/B]
Every 8th sortie was during the day, so what ? How much is that, 2-3000 bomber sorties over to whole war in daylight? 2-3 major attacks by the RAFBC`s heavies worth, with the fraction of bombload carried. Most of them happening over places there were no LW patrols ? This proves, what :
a, the mosquitos had to hide under the darkness
b, there were only a minimal number of daylight bomber sorties flown. When those started, loss rate was 8% per sortie - TWICE as worse as the heavies during the night operation in the same period..
Doesn`t seems as sorties the Mosquito was so fast daylight sorties were a life insurance.
To put this "nuisance" as you describe it into perspective, the Mosquitos dropped 26,867 tons of bombs. The Germans managed to drop around 21,000 tons of bombs on Britain between June 1941 and May 1945, a much longer period than the Mosquito was in operation (and that INCLUDES the V weapons).[/B]
And to put that 26,867 tons of bombs Mosquitos dropped in total on Germany into context in the entire war, the Luftwaffe was dropping an avarage 29 726 tons of bombs on the Eastern Front EACH MONTH in the 2nd half of 1942, ie. some 208 000 tons in six months.
While Germany was the primary target of the RAF, seen as the most serious enemy, Britiain wasn`t anywhere near top priority on the LW`s list.the Germans mounted only one, not too serious bombing offensive against Britain after 1940, the baby blitz. Nothing surprising imho, the british simply could not pose a threat to German that they would have to worry about. Much unlike the USSR. So basically you compared a primary and tertiary ToOs of the RAF/LW.
Granted the small numbers of Mosquito bombers were, compared to the huge tonnages the allies were dropping on Germany, just a nuisance, but the value of the recconisance they delivered was invaluable. That was something the Germans could only wish for, as they were unable to make recce flights over Britain for most of 1944. [/B]
Indeed probably the photos they took worth more than all their bombs. As for German recces, you obviously don`t know these very well, though you may have heard about the RAF`s failures intercepting them, FR 109s and Ju 86s. Even more I doubt the Mossie could achieve anything over Britain in 1944, given the number of Allied flights over such a small area as you underlined it.
-
OMG.
"Luftwaffe was dropping an avarage 29 726 tons of bombs on the Eastern Front EACH MONTH"
They didn't haul them particularly far, nothing compared to the Mozzoes.
As for this:
" the mosquitos had to hide under the darkness "
You forgot the NF Mossies. Hiding and SEEKING, hehe
Wilhelm Jonen, German nightfighter ace:
"The mosquitos lived up to their name. They were the night fighters greatest plague and wreaked havoc among the German crews,,,,,,,,,,,,,They attacked us throughout the whole operation and interfered with our landing It was almost a daily occurence that shortly before divisional ops several Mosquitos would fly over the airfields and shoot down the Messerchmitts as they took off"
-
More to the bomb dropping.
During the BoB the LW dropped how much? Well, as much as they could, before starting to hide in darkness.
Facing a force only a friction of the Red airforce in size, yet they lost more aircraft in the last 6 months of 1940 than in the year 1944 on the eastern front.
And Britain was nowhere near being a deep penetration raid, you seem to forget that the Mossies had to overfly hundreds of miles each way of hostile territory just to get to Germany.
Berlin in some 600 miles from base for instance.
-
Yep, Mossie nightfighters certainly worth their money, unlike B Mossies. And btw, what other enemy aircraft could fight back the Nachtjagd..? What other nightfighters of the RAF..? Is it a surprise nachtjagd crews seen the mossie as the only danger in the nightly skies ? OTOH, the RAF lost 55 000 men in the heavy bombers to nightfighters - including to Mosquitos :D. Looks like the NF Mossies could have their job better.As for the incursion tactics you refered to, very much the same was done by Ju 88s over England, dropping bombs on English airfields when the planes were to land... kept happening even in 1945, and fairly successfully, looks like Mossies couldn`t protect their own airfields either.
And yes, I understand your frustration when faced the historical fact that Mossie bombers effected during 3 years the course of war less than humble He 111s on the EF in a single month..
"High Profile Nuisance". The best weapon employed by the British propaganda ministry.
-
The Beaufighter was a good one for starting and had a nice NF ops record.
Anyway, THIS
"OTOH, the RAF lost 55 000 men in the heavy bombers to nightfighters - including to Mosquitos . Looks like the NF Mossies could have their job better"
Actually, yes, had there been many enough!
Those 55K persons however mostly rubbled Germany with their hundreds of thousands of tonnes of bombs.
Oh, forgot, it all landed in forests, and it was all futile anyway, silly silly Winnie Poo :D
-
Personal attack
-
Barbi,
Perhaps you weren't aware that Aurthur Harris hated the Mossie because it went against his heavy bomber bias. The fact of the matter is, that if the British had put all the effort they put into Lancasters and Halifaxes into Mosquitos they would have dropped more tons of bombs, more accurately for less cost in men, airplanes, fuel and money. That is a fact. The British made a mistake in focusing on the Lancaster and Halifax.
Oh wait, I just said "my side" made a mistake. That just isn't allowed in the "Barbi school of "reasoning"".
-
Personal attack
-
Barbi,
How old are you?
-
How old is she?
Not too much of years, I'd take a guess at the 20's.
Anyway, nice answer on the last one Barby-girl for this was the equivalent of a surrender, - of promoting a logical debate.
-
I bet he is 20 just discovered a few things and can fight the whole world in a 109.
Interesting numbers, and it proves the Mosquito was hardly the uberplane as fanboys would like it to picture.
I never found a statement like that either.
I just hate ur attitude i'm not saying lw planes where crap.
I don't say allied planes where uber.
but u really like to think lw planes where uber over anything.
I hate the thought behind it ur just a LW groupie who sees the LW as an believe or something the pilots must be profets to u.
Ur type makes me shiver.
-
Troll
-
All of you I just edited with a "Personal Attack" are about one post away from being booted. Just FYI. I have better things to do that to monitor children incapable of acting decently in a public forum.
Either discuss or don't, but keep the personal attacks off this board. You do it, or I will.
BUG, would you mind trimming or shrinking your signature a bit. Thank you.
Kur, I already trimmed your signature. No need to advertise who you cannot get along with.
-
shrinked some crap
-
Well BUG, I did not mean for you to completely strip it. We just would like for folks to keep the sigs to 5 lines or less of normal sized text.
-
Ur ticks are my command !!
:D :aok :cool:
did i mention the 20 push ups i did after the shrinkin.
-
Does it matter how many edits?
I found one on me :o